God's Holy Days
Should They Be Observed?
Feasts: Nationalistic in Nature?
Seasons Ordained With the Holy Days in Mind
Holy Days
Depict Plan of Salvation
Colossians 2:16
No Sacrifices
Originally
All Scripture
Valuable
Does
Galatians 4:9–10 Abrogate God's Law?
Holy Days
in Jerusalem Only?
A Transition
Time Required?
Holy Days
After First Century
Reasons
Galatians and Colossians Do Not Abrogate God's Law
Paul and
the New Testament Church
Holy Days in Millennium
Sabbath
and Holy Days Stand or Fall Together
Who
Is the Faithful Servant?
A considerable number of Sabbatarians—those who keep the seventh day
Sabbath—observe the seven annual feast days commanded in the Old Testament. They take
seriously the Bible instruction found in Leviticus 23:4–5, Deuteronomy 14:22–23, and
Deuteronomy 16:16–17: "These are the feasts of the Lord, even holy convocations, which
ye shall proclaim in their seasons."
Thou shalt truly tithe all the increase of thy seed, that the field bringeth forth
year by year. And thou shalt eat before the Lord thy God, in the place which
he shall choose to place his name there, the tithe of thy corn, of thy wine, and
of thine oil, and the firstlings of thy herds and of thy flocks; that thou mayest
learn to fear the Lord thy God always.
Three times in a year shall all thy males appear before the Lord thy God in the
place which he shall choose; in the feast of unleavened bread, and in the feast
of weeks, and in the feast of tabernacles: and they shall not appear before the
Lord empty. Every man shall give as he is able, according to the blessing of
the Lord thy God which he hath given thee.
These Sabbatarians believe the Holy Days were given for a special purpose or plan.
This purpose is rehearsed year by year, as the Holy Days occur, in order to keep God's people
mindful of His plan of salvation, since the Holy Days are commanded to be kept in their
seasons. In addition, they believe the Holy Days were instituted prior to the establishment of
the Old Covenant, as seen in Exodus 12; that they should be observed just as the weekly
Sabbath, with the exception that food can be prepared (Exodus 12:16); that no servile work
is to be done (Leviticus 23:8, 21, 25, 28, 35–36); that the method of financing feast
attendance is by saving an annual tithe to be used in travel and expenses for that occasion.
Furthermore, they believe the feasts are to be observed where God chooses to place
His name (Deuteronomy 14:23). Since the feasts were observed in various locations during
the Old Testament period, the clear inference follows that the responsibility for site selection
should rest with the church leadership (note Joshua 18:1, I Samuel 1:3; 4:3, II Samuel 6:17,
7, and Jeremiah 7:12). These people do not believe the Old Testament is the exclusive
authority for observing the Holy Days; they believe there is ample New Testament proof to
substantiate Holy Day observance for Christians.
Feasts: Nationalistic in Nature?
On the other hand, the most vociferous opposition against observing the annual
Holy Days comes from other Sabbatarians who believe these Holy Days have no part in "true
Christian worship." They assert that the feasts or Holy Days had their origin in "nationalistic"
Israel and that not one of them was observed before "God took Israel by the hand to lead
them out of Egypt." They further argue these feast days were given when the Old Covenant
was written and ratified and were not part of the Abrahamic Covenant. They reflected
special "happenings and experiences" of fleshly Israel and were to last only until "the seed
should come." As such, they are merely nationalistic celebrations, spoken of as "Jewish" in
the New Testament.
What does an examination of Scripture reveal?
Exodus, chapter twelve, shows that the Holy Days were instituted in part before the Old
Covenant was ratified. This chapter describes the establishment of the Passover and the
Days of Unleavened Bread two months before Israel came to Mount Sinai (compare Exodus
12:1–6 with Exodus 19:1). It is possible that on the Day of Pentecost, the third annual
Holy Day, the Old Covenant was ratified on Mount Sinai. The argument that the Holy Days
should not be kept today because they were a part of the Old Covenant leads to questions.
If the Holy Days were instituted before the establishment of the Old Covenant, are they to be
included in that which was "done away?" Did God intend all seven of the Holy Days to be
included as a unit when He established Passover and the Days of Unleavened Bread? And,
what did the Abrahamic Covenant have to do with the Old Covenant God established with
Israel?
Bible students generally agree that what was not initiated by the Old Covenant could
not be annulled when it was abolished. The principal question, therefore, is whether or not
the Holy Days were instituted and required to be observed before the establishment of the Old
Covenant. There can be no doubt that the Holy Days in part were instituted before the
establishment of the Old Covenant. Compare Exodus 12:14–19 with Exodus 15:26. In
Exodus 15:26, God says, ". . . If thou wilt diligently hearken to the voice of the Lord thy
God, and wilt do that which is right in his sight, and will give ear to his commandments, and
keep all his statutes, I will put none of these diseases upon thee, which I have brought upon
the Egyptians. . . ." Some may wish to argue that only the Passover and Days of Unleavened
Bread should be kept, as these were the only ones commanded before the Old Covenant was
ratified. But notice Exodus 12:2, "This month shall be unto you the beginning of months:
it shall be the first month of the year to you." The introduction of the Holy Days was based
on a yearly consideration, not on a monthly one. Therefore, God had all the Holy Days in
mind when He gave the command to keep the Passover and Days of Unleavened Bread. If
it is true that only the Passover and Days of Unleavened Bread should be observed, then why
did Paul and the New Testament Christians keep all of the Holy Days, rather than just the
Passover and Days of Unleavened Bread? The holy days stand or fall as a unit. To observe
one or two of them is meaningless. Either all the Holy Days must be kept or none of them.
The fact that they were established before the Old Covenant indicates their New Covenant
intention and application. What was not established by the Old Covenant cannot be
abrogated (done away) by its passing. Paul's observance of the Holy Days presents a major
obstacle to those who wish to repudiate them. We will examine the Holy Days in the New
Testament later. Suffice it to say here that if the Holy Days are done away, the New Testament
Christians were wrong to keep them and certainly the Apostle Paul was in gross error.
The Abrahamic Covenant was a covenant made between God and Abraham (Genesis
17:1–8). It was confirmed to Isaac and Jacob (Genesis 26:3–5; 28:10–15). The covenant,
however, that God made with Israel was not the Abrahamic Covenant. It was a separate
covenant made with the descendants of Abraham many hundreds of years after the
Abrahamic Covenant. The covenant God made with Abraham neither specifically confirms
nor denies Holy Day observance. It is important to realize that man is required to obey God's
injunctions at whatever time period He makes these injunctions known. Since the Holy Days
were given before the establishment of the Old Covenant, it is clear they were to be obeyed
from that time on. The argument that the Holy Days are done away because they are found in
Exodus 23:14–17 as part of the Old Covenant fails to take into account that they were
established two months before the ratification of the Old Covenant. Likewise, the weekly
Sabbath, made known to Israel shortly before the ratification of the Old Covenant, is also
found as a part of the Old Covenant (see Exodus 16 and 20:8).
Seasons Ordained With the Holy Days in Mind
What has been largely overlooked is the relationship of the heavenly bodies to the
Holy Days. The seasons themselves were ordained with the Holy Days in mind. Leviticus 23:4
states that the holy convocations are to be proclaimed in their seasons; it is clear that their
observance is a seasonal consideration. The book of Genesis corroborates the fact that the
seasons were ordained with the Holy Days in mind. When God said, ". . . Let there be lights
in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs,
and for seasons, and for days, and years" (Genesis 1:14), He intended the constellations to
be seasonal signs. As the earth travels around the sun in its elliptical orbit, certain
constellations are visible during the various seasons. Those which can be observed in the
summer cannot be seen in the winter, and vice versa. When God established the seasons, it
was more than just a weather consideration.
The moon was also included in the seasonal consideration (Psalm 104:19; 89:37).
This is because the moon marks the months, and the months are imperative for Holy Day
observance. So important are these heavenly bodies, in relationship to the Holy Days, that it
is impossible to alter their positions and orbits in the heavens (Jeremiah 31:35–36).
It is obvious that God was intending, at the reestablishment of the earth in its present
state, to reveal the Holy Days at some future time.
The argument that the Holy Days were never intended to be universally observed,
because the seasons in the Southern Hemisphere are not in agreement with the seasons in the
Northern Hemisphere, can be disproved by the following
1. The Holy Days were calculated from Jerusalem—which is obviously a Northern Hemispheric consideration. As such, Southern Hemispheric considerations are secondary to those of the Northern Hemisphere.
2. Since the Southern Hemisphere (Australia and New Zealand) was not inhabited by white, English-speaking peoples until after the time of Christ, those peoples inhabiting the Southern Hemisphere were not held accountable spiritually until revealed truth came. Prior to the time of Christ, God generally overlooked the ignorance of men (Acts 17:30). Since God does not hold one accountable until one receives a knowledge of the truth (Romans 4:15), peoples of the Southern Hemisphere were not held accountable until modern times, when the knowledge of the Holy Days was first made available.
3. Many of the Old Testament physical types are not to be fulfilled in every detail today. Physical types are representations only. It is not necessary or even feasible to fulfill them in exact detail. Since the observance of the Holy Days is commanded, what is important is the observance of the specific day—not what the weather is like on that day.
4. Those who use the Southern Hemisphere as an excuse to deny the necessity of keeping God's Holy Days universally must of necessity admit they are a Northern Hemispheric requirement. And if a Northern Hemispheric requirement, then they should be observed.
5. Those who make observance of the Holy Days in the Southern Hemisphere an issue need to ask themselves why such an argument should arise in the first place. Is it not because the Bible indicates the requirement of universal observance of the Holy Days and these individuals simply do not want to obey God?
Holy Days Depict Plan of Salvation
Notice the statement in Revelation 13:8. Here Jesus, as the Lamb of God, is spoken
of as slain from the foundation of the world—understood by Abel in presenting an acceptable
sacrifice in his time. God's purpose and plan, even before man was created, included Christ
as the sacrificial Lamb. But is this all there is to the plan of salvation? God is not a
purposeless God. What He does, He does for a reason. Why, for example, are the Holy Days
arranged in the order they are? To assign their meaning and purpose to a national
configuration bears no real significance. Even the Jews recognized the spiritual meaning of
the Holy Days—although they failed to see the depth. They long recognized the significance
of Satan in relationship to the Day of Atonement and the relationship of the Day of
Atonement to the Feast of Tabernacles.
Is the plan of salvation, depicted by the Holy Days, a concoction of man—or can this
plan be substantiated from the Bible?
The order of the Holy Days, in their entirety, is found in Leviticus, chapter twenty-three—although the book of Leviticus is only one of the books which mentions the Holy Days.
Notice the order of the Hebrew Calendar: (1) The Passover occurs on the fourteenth
day of the first month. (2) The Days of Unleavened Bread begin on the fifteenth and
continue through the twenty-first of the first month. (3) The Feast of Firstfruits (called
Pentecost) must be counted, and occurs after a fifty-day count beginning on the Sunday
following the weekly Sabbath during the Days of Unleavened Bread. (4) The Feast of
Trumpets falls on the first day of the seventh month. (5) The Day of Atonement is on the
tenth day of the seventh month. (6) The Feast of Tabernacles lasts from the fifteenth through
the twenty-first of the seventh month. (7) The Last Great Day falls on the twenty-second day
of the seventh month.
Is there any significance to this order—this arrangement of days? Those who ridicule
the concept that the Holy Days were given to depict the plan of salvation can cite no texts to
prove that the Holy Days were given for any other purpose. Where is the proof—the Bible
substantiation—that the Holy Days are intended to depict something other than God's plan of
salvation? Remember, God is not a purposeless God. He gave the Holy Days for a reason.
If the Holy Days do not illustrate the plan of salvation, then what do they depict?
One fact is certain regarding the Holy Days: It can be demonstrated that there is great
spiritual significance to them, and this significance can be substantiated from the Bible!
First, let us examine the Passover.
The central theme of the Passover was the sacrifice of the lamb (Exodus 12:3–11).
The lamb was taken on the tenth day of the month and held until the beginning of the
fourteenth day, when it was slain. What did the lamb depict? Remember, on that first
Passover night, the Israelites were required to strike the lintel and the two side posts with
hyssop dipped in the lamb's blood, and the death angel would "pass over" that house. The
parallel is clear from the New Testament. Jesus Christ was the Passover Lamb (John 1:29).
Those who accept the blood of Christ, in payment for their sins, are "passed over" and made
free from the penalty of sin. This is why Paul said, ". . . For even Christ our passover is
sacrificed for us" (I Corinthians 5:7). The Passover depicts the first requirement for
salvation—the acceptance of Jesus Christ as the sacrificial Lamb.
But the Passover depicts the first step only. To accept Jesus Christ as personal Savior,
and then to continue doing the things which required His sacrifice, would be totally
meaningless (Galatians 2:18). This is why the Days of Unleavened Bread follow
immediately after the Passover. Leaven represents sin (I Corinthians 5:6, Matthew 16:6, 12).
The Israelites were required to put leaven out of their homes and out of their lives for a
seven-day period. The lesson here is that sin must be put out of the life of the individual if
he is going to continue on the path of salvation. Sin, by the Bible definition, is the
transgression of the law—the Ten Commandments. Once the individual accepts Christ as
his personal Savior, he must stop sinning. This is the lesson behind the Days of Unleavened
Bread. For those who ridicule the idea that the Holy Days depict the plan of salvation, what
is the explanation for leaven, representing sin, in association with the Days of Unleavened
Bread? (I Corinthians 5:6–8). It should be obvious to all that the correlation between leaven
and sin is the central theme behind the Days of Unleavened Bread. And since this feast
follows the Passover, its relationship to the sacrifice of Christ is apparent.
But accepting Christ as personal Savior and repenting of sin are not enough. Man
does not have the capability to live a righteous life apart from God. Man must have help.
This help is provided by the Holy Spirit—which God gives to those who repent and are
baptized (Acts 2:38). It was on the day of Pentecost that the Holy Spirit was given and the
New Testament Church began (Acts 2:1–4). This was when God really began His spiritual
harvest. And this is why the Feast of Pentecost—or Firstfruits, as it was called during the
Old Testament period—was associated with the spring or early harvest (Leviticus 23:10).
Man must receive God's Holy Spirit in order to overcome the evil pulls of human
nature (Romans 8:1, 4, 9–11, 14). He is then begotten as a son of God (Romans 8:29) and
belongs to the harvest of firstfruits (James 1:18). Since the day of Pentecost is associated
with the spring harvest, and since those Christians who are now converted are called the
firstfruits, it is obvious that the Feast of Pentecost represents the third requirement in God's
plan of salvation—man must receive God's Holy Spirit in order to be saved!
What is also apparent, in relationship to the spiritual harvest of the firstfruits, is that
God is not trying to save the world at this present time. If God is trying to save the world
now, He is losing the battle. For, Satan is the present champion in this evil world. But, the
Bible makes it plain that this is not the time when God is setting His hand to save the world.
The time period in which we live is the harvest of the firstfruits only. The great period of
salvation for this world comes later.
Those who repudiate the plan of salvation, as depicted by God's Holy Days, have no
logical explanation for what is presently happening in this world. If they believe God is
trying to save the world today, they evidently think Satan is superior to God. For far more
people have rejected the real truth of God today than at any other time period in the history
of the world! What is plain, from the order of the Holy Days, is that the time period in which
we live is the harvest of the firstfruits only—and the Holy Spirit has been given only to those
who are called now!
The next Holy Day is the Feast of Trumpets, which depicts the next step in the plan of
salvation. Sin will not be eradicated from this earth, and man cannot be saved, until the
return of Jesus Christ—who will come as the conquering King of kings and Lord of lords to
set up a world-ruling government for one thousand years. This step is depicted by the Feast
of Trumpets (Revelation 11:15). It is at the final trumpet sound that Christ returns to take
control of this world. And it is also at the final trump that the resurrection of the dead shall
occur (I Corinthians 15:51–53, I Thessalonians 4:16).
Next, Satan, the invisible ruler of this world, must be removed from his position of
influence. This entire event is depicted by what took place on the Day of Atonement
(Leviticus 16). The Azazel goat—or scapegoat, as he is erroneously labeled in the
Authorized Version—is none other than the representation of Satan. What befalls Satan is
described in Revelation 20:1–3. He is to be removed to a place of restraint during the one-thousand-year reign of Christ. With Satan present, it would be impossible for man to achieve
righteousness and salvation. God will see to it that this evil tempter, and enemy of all
righteousness, will be removed and will no longer be able to exercise influence over the lives
of men.
The next annual feast is the Feast of Tabernacles. This feast was held after the larger,
fall harvest and took precedence over the spring festival. The reason is, the Feast of
Tabernacles depicts that time period when God will set His hand to save the world. For, the
Feast of Tabernacles represents the Millennium—the one-thousand-year reign of Jesus
Christ. The Feast of Tabernacles follows the Feast of Trumpets and the Day of Atonement,
because Christ must return and Satan must be removed before the Millennium can begin. It
is during the one-thousand-year period that the knowledge of God's truth will be made
available to all mankind (Isaiah 11:9, Micah 4:1–4). The saints, who are resurrected at the
return of Jesus Christ, will reign with Him during this one-thousand-year period of peace and
freedom from sin (Revelation 20:4).
But what about the millions who lived and died in the past without the knowledge of
salvation? Does God offer them salvation? Most assuredly!
Immediately after the Feast of Tabernacles is the final Holy Day, called the Last Great
Day (Leviticus 23:39, John 7:37). This day represents a resurrection, either following or at
the very end of the Millennium. This resurrection will include all the dead who had not been
given a chance to receive salvation (Revelation 20:11–12, Ezekiel 37:10–13). Those
resurrected will be given a limited time period in which to overcome and qualify for
salvation. Whether this time period is one hundred years, or otherwise, is not what is
important. What is important is that God will provide the opportunity for salvation to all
human beings who have ever lived. And since today is not the only day of salvation, the
Bible makes it plain—as revealed by the Holy Days—that there are yet two great periods of
opportunity for salvation!
Let those who ridicule the plan of salvation, as depicted by God's Holy Days, disprove
the fact that Jesus Christ represents the Passover Lamb. Let them show that leaven is not a
type of sin, that God's Spirit was not given on the day of Pentecost, that there was no spring
harvest, that Christ will not return at the last trump, that the saints will not be resurrected, that
the Azazel goat does not represent Satan, that Satan will not be bound prior to the
establishment of God's government on earth, and that there is no resurrection following the
Millennium.
It may be easy to ridicule a concept, but where is the evidence that it is wrong? The
burden of proof rests upon the shoulders of those who doubt. Let them bring forth the facts
to disprove God's plan of salvation—that it is incorrect or nonexistent.
Clearly, it is only in the New Covenant relationship that the Holy Days can be
understood. The idea that the Holy Days are foreshadows of Christ is not valid. This is
disproved by Paul's statement in Colossians 2:17. The antecedents to verse seventeen are
Holy Days, new moons, and Sabbaths. "Shadows of things to come" refers to Holy Days, new
moons, and Sabbaths. If the Holy Days were fulfilled in Christ, then they are not shadows of
things to come. They would have been fulfilled thirty years earlier, when Christ was
crucified.
Paul says they are shadows of things to come. Their fulfillment has not yet occurred.
They are foreshadows of the plan of salvation. Since this plan is not complete, the Holy Days
are necessary in order to understand the New Covenant relationship. For, it is in the New
Covenant relationship that the meaning of the Holy Days comes to light. With Christ's
appearance and subsequent death, the meaning of the Passover is made plain. Putting sin out
of each individual life is a New Covenant requirement. So is the receipt of God's Holy Spirit,
the return of Christ, and the resurrection of the dead. Satan's removal and the establishment
of the Millennium are both a necessary part in the completion of the plan of salvation. So
is the resurrection at the end of the Millennium, which will include all those who died in
times past without the knowledge of salvation. It is the New Covenant relationship which
makes clear the meaning of the Holy Days.
If the Passover were fulfilled in Christ, why did He institute bread and wine and
instruct His disciples to continue observing it? (Luke 22:19, I Corinthians 11:24–25). The
idea that we need not keep the Passover—because Jesus changed it to the Lord's Supper—is
merely a matter of terminology. The time for observance is the same, the significance and
meaning is the same, and the clear New Testament command is to observe it. The Passover,
or Lord's Supper, is a memorial to Christ's death. It represents Christ as the Passover Lamb
(I Corinthians 5:7). It is the acceptance of Christ, as the sacrifice for the sins of the world,
that is the first necessary step for salvation. This is why the Passover is to be kept today.
When Israel departed from Egypt, it was a journey out of bondage. Egypt is likened
to sin (Revelation 11:8). When one is converted and accepts Christ, he come out of sin—out
of bondage to the things which enslaved him in this world. Israel came out of Egypt with a
new hope—and the Christian who comes out of the world comes out with a new hope also.
He rejoices in his future because he remembers the past, and he appreciates the sacrifice
made for him by Jesus Christ. He looks forward to the future; but he does not dwell on the
past.
Christ changed the Passover symbols from the lamb to the bread and wine. They
represent His broken body and shed blood. Christians must be ever mindful that it was under
the New Covenant relationship that Christ's blood was shed and the way opened to salvation.
If the Holy Days were fulfilled in Christ, why did the New Testament church continue
to observe them after Christ's death? The idea that Pentecost was fulfilled by the apostles
has neither logic nor Scripture for support. Nor does the idea that Christ spiritually fulfilled
the Day of Atonement, when He ascended into the heavens. The central theme of the Day
of Atonement was the confessing of sins and laying hands on the Azazel goat, not the high
priest's entering into the holy of holies. The priest's entering into the holy of holies preceded
the confessing of the sins over the Azazel goat—just as Christ's ascension into the heavens,
and His acceptance by His Father, precedes the removal of Satan during the Millennium.
The argument that Christ kept the Holy Days in our stead and that we are "dead" to
them is a variation of the old argument that since Christ kept the Ten Commandments,
Christians no longer need to. This unscriptural concept—that Christ came to live a righteous
life in our stead, not to die in our stead—is not substantiated by the Bible. Christ did not
come to live a perfect life in our stead, but rather to set the example and to die in our stead!
There is no doubt that the Holy Days are directly associated with the New Covenant.
It is in the New Covenant relationship that their significance and meaning come to light.
This is why they stand or fall together. Those who advocate the observance of the Passover
and Days of Unleavened Bread, only, reject the New Covenant. It is by understanding the
plan of salvation, as revealed by all the Holy Days, that the New Covenant relationship can be
fully understood!
It is a delusion to call oneself a Christian—while at the same time rejecting the plan
of salvation by ignoring part or all of God's Holy Days! These days teach the completeness
of God's purpose for man.
As mentioned previously, some claim the Holy Days were nationalistic in nature; that
only males attended, that their meaning was limited to such things as Israel's deliverance
from Egypt, the passage through the Red Sea, the voice of God on Mount Sinai, the
beginning of the years of jubilee, the atonement for Israel's sins, the completion of the
harvest, and a reminder of the wilderness when Israel abode in booths. Yet, Paul tells us
regarding ancient Israel, "Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they
are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come" (I Corinthians
10:11). As already seen, the Holy Days were given for a purpose that far transcends national
Israel. Furthermore, attendance at the feasts was not limited to males. Notice the command
in Deuteronomy 12:7 and 14:26. Nehemiah 8:3 states both men and women attended the
feast. The fact that the feasts were referred to as "Jewish" in the New Testament
demonstrates two things: One, the fact that the ten tribes of Israel, as distinct from the Jews,
had been long lost from sight following their national captivity; and two, the Jews alone of
the tribes of Israel were observing the Holy Days on a national scale. If the Holy Days are a part
of erstwhile Judaism, as some say, why do we find the Apostle Paul and the New Testament
Christians observing them? Jesus opposed much of Judaism because it represented a
departure from the way of God originally revealed to the Jews, but Jesus did not oppose the
Holy Days nor the dates on which they were kept. He attended the feasts, as did His disciples
(Matthew 26:17–20, John 7:8, 14, 37).
Is there any legitimacy to the argument that Exodus 12:2 proves that Israel was not
observing the feasts prior to leaving Egypt since this text authorizes the beginning of the
sacred year which regulated the months in which the feasts were to occur? Or that Israel did
not keep the Passover and Days of Unleavened Bread the first year since they were traveling
during the time period in which these days were to be observed? Or that the day of Pentecost
was not mentioned until after God spoke with an audible voice when He gave the Ten
Commandments? Or that Pentecost, which had to be counted from the day after the weekly
Sabbath during the Days of Unleavened Bread, had little meaning to the Israelites for forty
years since they lived on manna in the wilderness and could not really keep the Days of
Unleavened Bread? Or that Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles—all harvest
festivals—were not kept until Israel reaped a harvest in the Promised Land? Or that the
seven annual Holy Days are not referred to as holy in the Pentateuch?
While in slavery Israel could not keep the feasts. God took them out of slavery in
order to make them a "peculiar people," a people whose manner of life was to exemplify the
righteousness of God (Deuteronomy 14:2; 4:6–8). This time period was a time of special
revelation from God to Israel through the prophet Moses. Paul tells us God kept His
revelation a mystery until the time of revealing (Romans 16:25–26). Many of God's truths
had not been made known to earlier generations (I Peter 1:9–10). While Israel was not given
the revelation of the Holy Days until the days of Moses, these days were included as a part of
God's plan from the beginning. The seasons given at creation were ordained with the
Holy Days in mind. Leviticus 23:4 states, "These are the feasts of the Lord, even holy
convocations, which ye shall proclaim in their seasons." Here, the possessive form clearly
reveals the seasons belong to the Holy Days. This is illustrated in Genesis 1:14, ". . . Let there
be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for
signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years."
The earth revolves around the sun once each year. The change of seasons is due to
the position of the earth in its elliptical orbit, and the tilt of the earth in relationship to the
sun. The sun divides the day and night in conjunction with the earth's rotation. The moon
plays another role. Approximately every twenty-nine days the moon revolves around the
earth. Each revolution of the moon around the earth represents a month. The new moon,
appearing as a sliver in the west, marks the beginning of each month. It is a sign the month
has begun. Precise calendar calculations accurately determine the beginning of each month.
The new moon of the seventh month is the point from which all the Holy Days are calculated
for each year.
The Holy Days must fall in given seasons. The spring Holy Days (Passover, Unleavened
Bread, Pentecost) must fall in the spring season. The fall Holy Days (Trumpets, Atonement,
Tabernacles, Last Great Day) must occur in the fall season. This is important, due to the
agricultural harvest. The moon was given to determine the proper seasons for the Holy Days
(Psalm 104:19).
As previously mentioned, specific constellations appear at certain seasons. They can
be seen only during their respective seasons. Some are summer constellations, not visible
in the winter; others are winter constellations, not visible in the summer. They are lights in
the firmament. It is the moon, however, that is important as far as the Holy Days are
concerned. The moon determines the months, and the months determine the seasons. The
moon was placed in orbit at creation in order to play an important role in the determination
of God's Holy Days. It is for a sign and for seasons. God says it is impossible to alter His
ordinance of the moon (Psalm 89:37, Jeremiah 31:35–36). The seasons were ordained with
the Holy Days in mind.
Although the Holy Days are not mentioned until Exodus, chapter twelve, this does not
mean God intended them to be observed by ancient Israel only. What Israel did or did not
do when departing from Egypt or during the forty years in the wilderness has no relevancy
to God's instruction. In fact, the Bible tells us God was displeased with the generation that
came out of Egypt, and, with few exceptions, caused them to perish in the wilderness (Acts
7:42, Hebrews 3:17–19). They could not enter the Promised Land because of unbelief
(disobedience). Israel's entering the Holy Land is a type of salvation. Both the type and the
antitype are progressive. The physical receipt of God's promise to Israel began when they
entered the Holy Land just as the receipt of the Holy Spirit is our down payment. It was not
until the days of David and Solomon that the physical promises to Israel were realized, just
as it will not be until the resurrection from the dead that the promises to the Christian will be
realized. To limit the keeping of the Holy Days to national Israel flies in the face of the facts.
History, as we shall see, makes it plain that New Testament Christians kept the feasts after
the days of Christ for a considerable period of time. They knew God's command to keep the
Holy Days was not for national Israel only.
The Bible does not say Israel did not keep the Holy Days in the wilderness. There was
no need to harvest grain in order to properly count Pentecost. The manner of the count was
already known, so it could be properly counted and observed in the wilderness as a matter
of course, irrespective of a harvest. Just like today, we do not harvest firstfruits in order to
properly count Pentecost. The idea that a Bible command alone establishes a day of worship
fails when one considers the weekly Sabbath. There is no command to observe the weekly
Sabbath until we read it in Exodus, chapter sixteen, yet Sabbatarians rely on Genesis, chapter
two, for their authority to keep the Sabbath. As for the matter of the Holy Days' not being
referred to as holy in the Pentateuch, notice Leviticus 23:2: "Concerning the feasts of the
Lord, which ye shall proclaim to be holy convocations, even these are my feasts." Not even
the weekly Sabbath is referred to as holy until Exodus 16:2.
Some argue, according to Colossians 2:16, that the feasts are a "shadow law" and
cannot be separated from the meat and drink offerings mentioned in this same verse. Also,
according to Galatians 3:19, that the feasts were a part of the "added" sacrificial law and have
already served their purpose; that Abraham and others offered sacrifices but did not keep the
feast days; that the book of Leviticus, the priestly manual, is not transferable to Gentiles
since the feasts had their beginning with the Old Covenant and ceased at the cross; that
Moses' economy was operationally annulled at Golgotha. They argue that Christians have
been made "to die to the law" through the body of Christ; that Jesus Christ has freed us from
slavery, including the law of Moses; that carnal worship and ancestral memorials do not
bring salvation, but rather serve to blind the mind to spiritual needs; and, finally, that it is
presumptuous to place Israelitish laws and traditions into the totally polarized administration
of Jesus Christ.
As noted above, Colossians 2:14–17 is a text often referred to in order to repudiate
God's Holy Days. This text is interpreted to mean that Christ nailed the law to the
cross—thus, God's Holy Days are done away.
The text says: "Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which
was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross . . . . Let no man
therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an Holy Day, or of the new moon, or
of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come: but the body (is) of Christ."
Let us notice what A Greek-English Lexicon, by Arndt and Gingrich, has to say about
the meaning of the expression "handwriting of ordinances." On page 889, this lexicon states
that "handwriting of ordinances" means "a (hand-written) document, specif. a certificate of
indebtedness, bond . . . the bond that stood against us."
It was the bond or debt against us that was blotted out and nailed to the cross. But the
bond or debt of what?
Colossians 2:14 states that it was the bond or debt of ordinances. "Ordinances" is
from the Greek word dogmasin—meaning "dogmas." The same word is found in another
form in verse twenty, where it is also translated "ordinances." What are these ordinances?
The word "ordinance" means "decree, ordinance, decision, command." So the particular debt
or bond that was against us came about as a result of decree, ordinance, decision, or
command. But what decree, ordinance, decision, or command?
Note what verses eight and twenty-two tell us: "Philosophy, vain deceit, traditions
of men, rudiments of the world, commandments and doctrines of men"! The ordinances that
were against us were those ordinances and commandments of men which caused us to go
contrary to God's law, and which brought upon all mankind the death penalty—the debt we
owe for breaking God's commandments! This debt is what Christ blotted out by His death!
He paid the penalty we owe—the debt we owe—for violating God's commandments!
This is why Paul continues in verse sixteen to say, "Let no man therefore judge you
in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an Holy Day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days."
The phrase "in respect of" means "part" in the original Greek. See under meros (Greek
Analytical Lexicon, by Harper, p. 264). The translation could just as well read, "Let no man
therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in part [Bullinger: "in taking part"] of an Holy Day,
or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days." Verse seventeen states, "Which are a shadow
of things to come; but the body (is) of Christ." The word "is," in verse seventeen, is not in
the original. What Paul is stating here is that it is the Body of Christ (the church) which
judges the Christian. But what does Paul mean when he says the church judges?
The word "judge" is from the Greek word krino. Besides meaning "judge or
condemn," it means "to consider, to prefer" (A Greek-English Lexicon, by Arndt and
Gingrich, pp. 452–453). The obvious intention of Paul's statement, in Colossians 2:16–17,
is that one must be careful not to offend his brother—relative to what he eats or drinks on
those public occasions (feasts) where individual conduct is noticeable (see also I Corinthians
8:8–13; 10:31–33).
God's Holy Days are foreshadows of things to come. They depict the plan of salvation.
There are major events yet to be fulfilled before this plan will be complete. The Holy Days
were not "nailed to the cross" by the death of Christ—or else Paul, writing to the Colossians
thirty years after the crucifixion, would not have said they are shadows of things to come.
Colossians 2:14–17 does not say the Holy Days were nailed to the cross. This text says, by
Christ's death the penalty we deserve for breaking God's commandments was nailed to the
cross.
To be judged, in the context of Colossians, chapter two, means that one has a
responsibility—as a Christian—not to cast a stumbling block before his brother, in respect
to eating and drinking. Therefore, in the sense that one's conduct is regulated by what one's
brother might think, one is judged by him. This is why Paul said that he would not eat flesh
while the world stood, if it would cause his brother to stumble.
Paul addresses the question of eating and drinking, in the context of the Holy Days,
because man-made dogmas—"touch not, taste not, handle not"—were so deeply ingrained
in some. And due to past teaching and experience, eating and drinking by a Christian,
without taking this problem into consideration, could very well cause a brother to stumble.
Paul warned the Christians (at Colossae) to be careful, lest Christian liberty become the
reason to cause others to stumble. See, for example, I Corinthians 8:9.
The idea that the entire "Jewish system" was a shadow of things to come is not
substantiated by Scripture. Hebrews 9:10 clearly states which laws were temporary. There
is no text in the Bible, apart from Hebrews 9:10, which specifically states what was
abrogated, as far as the sacrificial system is concerned.
It was meat and drink sacrifices and offerings, diverse washings, and regulations for
the body which were abrogated. Since the Levitical priesthood was to be changed (Hebrews
7:12), there was no longer the necessity for the many requirements which were associated
with it. The blowing of the ram's horn on the Day of Atonement is not a requirement today
since it was a priestly responsibility.
Since the Israelites were required to build booths in which to "dwell" during the Feast
of Tabernacles, some have wondered why this is not done today. The word "dwell" in the
Hebrew is the same word translated as "sit." There is no proof, from the Bible, that the
Israelites dwelled (lived and slept) in booths made of branches for the eight-day period
(Leviticus 23:42). The inference from Leviticus 23:40 is that boughs of trees and branches
were used in rejoicing, not in dwelling.
Nehemiah 8:16–17 does state that the Jews built booths and sat in them. These booths
depicted a temporary condition, since man's sojourn on this earth is also temporary. The
requirement to build booths (not places of residence but indications of man's temporary
circumstances)—at the Feast of Tabernacles—was compelled by civil legislation (Nehemiah
8:15). The idea that one cannot keep the Feast of Tabernacles unless one builds a booth (as
a place of residence) is not supported by Christ's example in the New Testament. Christ's
example illustrates the meaning of the Old Testament requirement. Jesus kept the Feast of
Tabernacles, but He did not build a booth.
The argument that the Holy Days should not be kept today, because they must be
observed in conjunction with a Levitical priesthood, does not bear up under Scriptural
examination. Hebrews, chapter seven, tells us the Levitical priesthood was changed to that
of Melchisedek. The priesthood now has Jesus Christ as its High Priest. The Apostle Paul
said that the New Testament ministers are the ministers of Jesus Christ (II Corinthians 6:4).
Did Christ and His New Testament ministers keep God's Holy Days? Absolutely!
Holy Day observance, for Christians, is not predicated upon the book of Leviticus or
the Levitical priesthood. The Levitical priesthood did not function in a tabernacle
configuration, with its associated sacrifices, until the second year. The Holy Days were given
before the Old Covenant and at least one year before the sacrificial system began. Those
who say that by keeping God's Holy Days one mixes the Levitical priesthood with that of
Melchisedek obviously have not studied the New Testament. Christ, the New Testament
ministry, and the New Testament church kept God's Holy Days.
The idea that the Israelites, only, should keep God's Holy Days is disproved by the fact
that the Corinthians were instructed by Paul to keep the feast. Also, other New Testament
references show the Holy Days were being kept in the Gentile churches (I Thessalonians
2:13–14, Galatians 2:2, 7, 10). God is not a respecter of persons, and all who are called by
Him are expected to obey (Acts 10:35).
Those who say God's Holy Days are done away, because they were fulfilled in
Christ—while at the same time supporting observance of the weekly Sabbath—need to ask
themselves why the same principle does not apply to the weekly Sabbath. If they maintain
that the Sabbath is a type of the Millennium, then what do the Holy Days represent? If the
Holy Days are done away, because they were "fulfilled in Christ," then so is the weekly
Sabbath.
One fact is absolutely certain: The Holy Days, as well as the weekly Sabbath, were
observed by the New Testament church after everything was done away. Both Christ and
Paul kept the Sabbath and Holy Days. And what was true of them was true of the rest of the
apostles. Peter said that Christ is our example (I Peter 2:21). John said that those who call
themselves Christian must walk as Jesus walked (I John 2:6). Paul said to follow him as he
followed Christ (I Corinthians 11:1). He told the Philippians to do the things they saw him
do (Philippians 4:9). Paul told the Corinthians to keep the feast (I Corinthians 5:8).
What is clear from the New Testament is that the laws and commandments of God,
as well as the Sabbath and Holy Days, continued to be observed by the New Testament church.
It was the sacrificial law, with its various sacrifices and offerings, that was abrogated.
This was the added law—which was to be temporary in nature. It was given as a
"schoolmaster" to point to Christ. It was given as a reminder of sin, because Israel failed to
live up to even the minimum physical requirements of obedience. It was because of sin that
Jesus Christ had to die. If by Christ's death the laws and the commandments of God are done
away—including the Sabbath and Holy Days—then Christ's death was in vain. For it was
because of the violations against God's law that Christ had to die in the first place! If the
Law of God is done away, then Christ destroyed the reason for His own death. He, in effect,
destroyed what He instituted. And if He destroyed what He instituted, He changed. And if
He changed, He is no different from man. But, the Bible says that Jesus Christ is the same
yesterday, today, and forever (Hebrews 13:8). He does not change! (Malachi 3:6).
The idea that it took the apostles thirty years to unlearn what they had been taught by
Christ—and that truth comes by "progressive revelation," which is totally contrary to what
was received initially—defies the imagination. Jesus said that man must live by every word
of God—not by the latest chronological writer of the New Testament. It is the entirety of
God's word that the Christian must put to practice in his life (Matthew 4:4). The idea that
"progressive revelation" alters previous revelation is utterly without Biblical substantiation.
Not only does this concept make the Bible contradictory, it makes the individual superior to
God—because each person is responsible only to himself regarding what portions of the
Bible he will obey. And what he decides to obey will be based on his own whims and
interpretations. No, man must live by every word of God—and the Holy Days are a part of
that word!
Since the plan of salvation did not commence until Christ came to introduce the New
Covenant relationship, it is clear the entire New Covenant is represented by the Holy Days.
The Holy Days were not fulfilled in Christ. They are foreshadows of things to come—the yet
unfulfilled plan of salvation, to be completed in a New Covenant relationship. How can the
death of Christ nullify the Holy Days? On the contrary, the death of Christ substantiates them.
As stated earlier, the sacrifices were not a part of the original law of Moses. God said,
through the prophet Jeremiah, "For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in
the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices:
But this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye
shall be my people: and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be
well unto you" (Jeremiah 7:22–23).
But what was Israel's response? "But they hearkened not, nor inclined their ear, but
walked in the counsels and in the imagination of their evil heart, and went backward, and not
forward" (Jeremiah 7:24).
It was because of Israel's rebellion within the first year that sacrifices were added.
This is made plain in the book of Exodus. Israel arrived at the foot of Mount Sinai the third
month after they had departed from Egypt (Exodus 19:1). An examination of Exodus,
chapters nineteen through twenty-four, clearly proves sacrifices were not a part of the
original covenant. Exodus, chapter twenty-five through thirty, lists the instructions for the
building of the tabernacle, as well as priestly instructions. Chapter thirty-two shows the
terrible sin Israel committed during Moses' absence. Here we see Israel's inability to obey
God. But it was not until the second year after Israel departed from Egypt that the tabernacle
was raised up and the sacrificial system commenced (Exodus 40:1, 17).
Because of Israel's transgressions, a law was "added" (Galatians 3:19). This added
law was the sacrificial law intended to remind Israel of her failure to live up to the terms of
the Old Covenant (Hebrews 10:1–4). It involved not only laborious sacrifices, but also
various washings, rites, and ceremonies (Acts 15:10). It was intended for a limited time
period (Hebrews 9:10, margin). There is no mention of sin offerings involving the people
of Israel until Leviticus 4:2–12. See Bible Dictionary, by William Smith, article "sacrifices,"
where the author sets forth the patriarchal practice of presenting peace and burnt
offerings—sin offerings being explicitly set forth for the first time in the book of Leviticus.
Thus, in logical sequence, the book of Leviticus follows the book of Exodus.
Because Israel failed to live up to the requirements of the Old Covenant, the sacrificial
law was instituted. And though obedience to God was limited to the "letter of the law," Israel
as a whole was incapable of even that limited obedience (Deuteronomy 5:29, Joshua
24:14–15).
There were no spiritual promises attached to the Old Covenant. Salvation was not
offered as a part of the agreement. Upon condition of Israel's obedience, the promises were
physical blessings and national security only (Leviticus 26, Deuteronomy 28). The promise
of salvation is found nowhere in the entire agreement. Nor is the forgiveness of sins. Paul
says, in the book of Hebrews, that the sacrificial system did not serve as a method of
expiating sins; it merely served as a reminder of sin, looking forward to the time when the
spiritual promises would come and individual sins could be forgiven (Hebrews 10:1–10).
Remember, the feasts of God were introduced before the Old Covenant, although they
became a part of it. But so did the weekly Sabbath. The added law spoken of in Galatians
3:19 was the sacrificial law, which began in the second year after Israel left Egypt. This is
why the prophet Jeremiah said, "For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in
the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices:
But this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye
shall be my people: and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be
well unto you. But they hearkened not. . . ." (Jeremiah 7:22–24). And Ezekiel
said,"Wherefore I gave them also [up to] statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby
they should not live" (Ezekiel 20:25).
It was the sacrificial law only that was done away. The argument that Holy Day
observance is predicated solely upon Leviticus, chapter twenty-three, has no validity. All the
Holy Days enumerated in Leviticus, chapter twenty-three, are found elsewhere in the Old
Testament.
While the book of Leviticus concerns itself primarily with Levitical considerations,
it is not limited to such. The book of Leviticus enumerates the general requirements the
Levites were obligated to fulfill. But it includes many other laws which were requirements
for all the people. If the idea that the book of Leviticus is for the Levites only is valid, then
only the Levites obeyed the laws found in the book of Leviticus. Thus, the rest of the people
of Israel were free to do as they pleased. Yet, many commands in the book of Leviticus were
given to the children of Israel. Notice, for example, Leviticus 11:2 and 12:2. Consider also
Matthew 4:4.
The Bible clearly explains, in the New Testament, which laws are done away—with
respect to the book of Leviticus. If the book of Leviticus is not valid for Christians today,
then it is perfectly permissible to commit incest and to indulge in sexual intercourse with
near relatives (Leviticus 18:1–17). Furthermore, the following are permissible: sacrificing
children to Molech (Leviticus 18:21), practicing homosexuality and bestiality (Leviticus
18:22–23; 20:13–16), breaking the Sabbath (Leviticus 19:3), practicing idolatry (Leviticus
19:4), cheating your hired hand (Leviticus 19:13), slandering and gossiping (Leviticus
19:16), hating your brother (Leviticus 19:17), engaging in witchcraft (Leviticus 19:26, 31),
prostituting your daughter (Leviticus 19:29), cursing your parents (Leviticus 20:9), and
expecting blessings for disobedience and cursings for obedience (Leviticus 26).
The Holy Days did not originate with the Levites or with the book of Leviticus. The
Levites began to function, as far as the sacrificial system is concerned, one year after Israel
came out of the land of Egypt. This is because the sacrificial system did not begin until that
time. To repeat, the idea that because the sacrifices are done away, God's Holy Days are also
done away, is not a valid argument. We shall later see what, specifically, was abrogated by
the death of Christ. Suffice it to say at this point, a sacrifice or a ritual is not a day. It is an
activity which is done on a day—in fact, as far as the sacrificial law was concerned, on every
day of the year! (Numbers 28:3). Shall we now assume that because the sacrifices are done
away—so is every day of the year? The abrogation of the sacrificial system has no bearing
on the validity of holy time. There is much in the book of Leviticus which applies to
Christians today.
Also, let us not assume that because the temple was destroyed in ad 70, God's Sabbath
and Holy Days were obliterated. What was obliterated was the sacrificial system. Nowhere
in the entirety of the Bible is to be found a statement which says God's Sabbath and Holy Days
are done away.
It is obvious that those duties which were given specifically to the Levites are not to
be done today. It was the duty of the Levites to blow the shofar at set times. It was the duty
of the Levites to perform the sacrifices. But it was the duty of the people to bring the
wavesheaf for the priest to offer. Since Christ is represented by the wavesheaf, this
obligation is no longer required. But this has no bearing on the observance of the day of
Pentecost, because Pentecost continued to be observed by Christians long after the death and
resurrection of Christ (Acts 2:1–2; 20:16).
The idea that the Israelites did not observe the Holy Days until they entered the land of
Canaan is a supposition. The inference from the Bible is that Israel attempted to obey God
during the forty years in the wilderness—but only in their self-willed way (Psalm 81:10–12,
Amos 5:25–26). It was God's desire that Israel obey Him; but because they rebelled, God
gave them up to their own desires and destroyed the first generation in the wilderness.
It is true that the annual harvest seasons fulfilled the intent of the physical types with
respect to the Holy Days, but Holy Day observance is not predicated upon producing a crop!
The requirement to observe God's Holy Days long preceded crop production—as far as the
nation of Israel was concerned. Neither should we assume, because Israel's land and crops
were cursed in later years (due to national sins), that Holy Day observance was no longer
required. The Jews knew better—and still continue to observe the Holy Days to this day.
God was determined not to allow that second generation which came out of Egypt to
continue in the footsteps of their fathers. They were required to comply with all of God's
laws and commands. God did not allow them to neglect obedience to Him—circumcision
included (Joshua 5). That first generation had neglected to circumcise their children—even
though they themselves had fulfilled the requirement (Joshua 5:2).
Hebrews 9:10 says it was the sacrifices, washings, rites, and ceremonies which were
to be done away. There were elaborate ceremonies on God's Holy Days. Some, confused
over the distinction between a rite and a Holy Day, believe the Holy Days are abrogated. The
offering of sacrifices, the ceremonial washings, the blowing of the shofar, the heaving of the
wavesheaf, and the laying of hands on the Azazel goat are not Holy Days. They are rites and
ceremonies. They are done away but God's Holy Days are not. The idea that we have been
made dead to the Mosaic law by Christ's death (Romans 7:4) is a complete misunderstanding
of Paul's statement. Paul tells us that the death of Christ freed us from the law of sin and
death (Romans 8:1–2). Death, which has befallen all mankind because of sin (Romans 5:12),
hangs over our heads. By Christ's sacrifice and our acceptance of it, along with repentance,
we are free from the penalty of the law—death.
Those who oppose the Holy Days tell us that, while the Bible says we are to observe
the feasts forever, the same thing is said about a number of other "ritualistic laws." All these
ritualistic laws, including the feasts, have served their purpose and are not in effect today.
While the Holy Days were kept "in their generations," the special work of the generations of
Israel came to an end with Christ's sacrifice. "Forever in your generations" means until the
death of Christ.
In answer to this argument, consider the following: A number of texts in the Old
Testament clearly state the Holy Days were ordained forever (Exodus 12:14, 17, 24; 13:10,
Leviticus 16:29, 31; 23:21, 31, 41). What needs to be made plain is the meaning of the word
"forever," as applied to Holy Days. Exodus 21:6 and Deuteronomy 15:16–17 make the Bible
usage plain. Both of these texts show that "forever," in the Old Testament, means as long
as the factors involved continue to exist.
In the case of the Hebrew servant, should he choose to remain with his master forever,
it is obvious that the termination point was at the death of either the servant or the master.
The factors involved here continue to exist as long as both parties continue to exist.
Those texts which use the term "forever," with respect to the duties of the Levites,
should be evaluated in the same way. The factors involving the Levites are: (1) an
authorized sacrificial system which has God's approval, and (2) men who are authorized to
perform those duties required by that system. Since the New Testament clearly states that
God abrogated the sacrificial system, one of the main factors involving the perpetuity of the
system was abolished. Therefore, "forever" in relationship to the Levites was for a limited
duration.
The factors involving the Holy Days are two: (1) day and night periods in a regular
cyclical pattern so that the Holy Days can be accurately discerned, and (2) human beings on
earth to observe those days. Both of these factors still exist. So, "forever"—in relationship
to the Holy Days—still exists.
What was done away in relationship to the Holy Days was the sacrificial requirements
on those days—not the days themselves. Some physical requirements which were not a part
of the sacrificial system are still valid today to some degree. Circumcision is an example.
It was to be a covenant between God and the seed of Abraham for all generations (Genesis
17:9–14). Yet, today, physical circumcision is no longer a requirement. But circumcision
of the heart is; thus, the requirement for circumcision remains! (Romans 2:28–29).
The term "forever in your generations" applies as long as there are generations of
Israelites alive. Are there Israelites alive today? Of course! Then there are generations
available to keep the Holy Days and indeed the recognized Israelites—the Jews—keep the
Holy Days. That they did not end with the death of Christ is proven by the fact that the
Holy Days were kept by the apostles and the early New Testament church and they are kept
by the Jews today. Furthermore, if the term "forever in your generations" terminated at the
death of Christ, then neither the Sabbath day nor any of the rest of God's laws should be kept
today. But the fact that the Law of God, the Sabbath, and the Holy Days were kept by the New
Testament church is sufficient to substantiate their requirement for us today.
Another set of arguments advanced against the Holy Days is that the Old and New
Covenants are individually complete packages, totally separate and governable apart from
one another. The argument goes, if the Old Testament worship had been true and acceptable,
why were orders given for change? The worship of the Jews was not true worship in spite
of their zeal. Those presently keeping Israel's days would need roasted lamb, bitter herbs,
sacrifices, wavesheaf offerings, trumpet blowing, expiatory rites with two goats, tree boughs,
temporary dwellings—all taking place at Jerusalem. The argument continues that Ezra
3:2–6, Nehemiah 10:29–34, and II Chronicles 35:10–12 all prove the feast days were written
in the law of Moses. They conclude that Jesus Christ did not practice the feast days, let alone
teach obedience to them.
The answer to the above paragraph is as follows: The promise of the Messiah
(Genesis 3:15) foretold the establishment of the New Covenant. Had the Old Covenant been
the summation of God's intention, it would have encompassed the fullness of the spiritual
blessings and promises found in the New. But Christ did not appear until approximately
1,500 years after the establishment of the Old. Although only a handful of the Covenant
people continued to maintain a semblance of the Old Covenant relationship, it was their own
prophets whom they neglected to hear. For, their prophets said, "Behold, the days come,
saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house
of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took
them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake,
although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord: But this shall be the covenant that I
will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their
inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people"
(Jeremiah 31:31–33).
The New Covenant, like the Old, is an Israelitish covenant. Its final confirmation was
established with Israel and Judah. But to this day, the people of Israel—as a whole—have
not yet entered into the New Covenant relationship (Romans 11:25). It is given only to those
who are called and have become "the Israel of God" (Acts 2:38–39, Galatians 6:16). It did
not include Gentiles until years after its establishment (Acts 11:18; 10:45). It was given to
Israel first (Acts 10:36–37), then later made available to the Gentiles. But even then,
Gentiles must become spiritual Israelites before they can be included (Romans 2:28–29;
11:13–24, Galatians 3:27–29, Ephesians 2:11–14, 18–19).
When the prophets spoke of the New Covenant, they foresaw its spiritual expansion
relative to the law. Isaiah wrote, "The Lord is well pleased for his righteousness' sake; he
will magnify the law, and make it honourable" (Isaiah 42:21). Both terms and promises of
the New Covenant are greatly expanded. The terms, or requirements, are summarized in the
Sermon on the Mount. No longer is one held accountable for breaking the letter of the law
only. One is now held accountable for violating the intent of the law (Matthew 5:21–32).
The promises given to Israel under the Old Covenant were physical, but the promises under
the New Covenant go far beyond that and include eternal life (Matthew 5:3–10).
Israel of old could not keep God's Law, even in the letter. But the fault was not with
God or with the Covenant. The fault was with the people (Hebrews 8:8). The New
Covenant was given to correct that fault. The inability of physical Israel to keep the law has
been rectified by the gift of God's Holy Spirit to spiritual Israel (Galatians 5:22–24, Hebrews
8:10). Those converted have the capability of obeying not only the letter of the law, but also
the spirit of the law (Galatians 4:24–25, Romans 8:1–2, 4, 14). This is why the prophet
wrote, ". . . I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be
their God, and they shall be my people" (Jeremiah 31:33, II Corinthians 3:3).
The purpose of the New Covenant, then, was to magnify the Old. Jesus came to "fill
it full." "Fulfill" in Matthew 5:17 is the Greek pleroo, meaning to bring to full expression
(A Greek-English Lexicon, by Arndt and Gingrich, p. 677).
Jesus said, ". . . except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes
and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 5:20). The
scribes and Pharisees observed the letter of the law. They did not have the capability to keep
the law spiritually. Jesus expounded how the law must be kept, spiritually, in order to exceed
the "righteousness" of the scribes and Pharisees:
Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and
whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment [the Old Covenant did
not impute a penalty for anger]: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry
with his brother without a cause [Greek: 'lightly'] shall be in danger of the
judgment . . . (Matthew 5:21–22).
Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit
adultery [the Old Covenant did not impute a penalty for lusting]: But I say
unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed
adultery with her already in his heart (Matthew 5:27–28).
It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a
writing of divorcement [the Old Covenant did not impute a penalty for
divorce]: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving
for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever
shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery (Matthew 5:31–32).
Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate
thine enemy [the Old Covenant did not impute a penalty for hating]. But I say
unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that
hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven . . . (Matthew
5:43–45).
The entire Sermon on the Mount clearly shows Jesus did "magnify the law, and make
it honourable" (Isaiah 42:21). He brought it up to the spiritual level which God intended
from the beginning. He "filled it full." And now, with the help of the Holy Spirit, man is
capable of obeying it in its spiritual intent (Hebrews 8:10, Galatians 5:24). The New
Covenant indeed magnified the Old! The New Covenant is not a "separate package" from
the Old. The New Covenant is the expansion of the Old Covenant.
There is absolutely no way to deny that the Holy Days were kept by Christ and the New
Testament church. Christian disciples knew God's Holy Days should be kept because they
were given to the church. After the resurrection of Christ, those called of God from the
"congregation in the wilderness" became the New Testament church. Christ's example in
keeping the Holy Days was followed by the apostles because it was obvious to them that those
who follow Christ are Christian (I John 2:6). Christ not only kept the Passover and Days of
Unleavened Bread, but the Feast of Tabernacles as well (Luke 2:41–42, John 7:8–10, 14, 37).
His keeping of the Passover and changing the symbols to the bread and wine is ample proof
that types may change, but the day itself does not! (Matthew 26:26–28). Christ's example
in keeping God's Holy Days demonstrates that He knew the Holy Days should be kept as a unit,
and that holy day observance was not limited to observing the Passover and the Days of
Unleavened Bread, only. This is why the Christians kept Pentecost (Acts 2:1–2).
If Christ is not our example, then what is He? The concept that His life was the
manifestation of the "tail end" of Judaism and was not an example for us to follow is a
blatant denial of the Scriptures! (I John 2:6, I Peter 2:21). The idea that "under the law"
represents obedience to the totality of Judaism is clearly disproved by the fact that Christ
offered no sacrifices. "Under the law" means that Christ was subject to the law of death; that
is, He was God in the flesh and died for the sins of mankind. But His manner of life was an
example for us to follow (I John 2:6). Ridiculous arguments which state that if we follow
Him, we should also observe all the first-century customs He did—such as riding an ass,
being circumcised, and wearing a robe and sandals —may placate the consciences of those
who have already determined to repudiate God's Holy Days, but they are not sound and do not
reflect intellectual honesty. Common sense dictates that we live according to the customs
of our time, as long as those customs do not violate God's Law!
Those who ask, "Where is an example of Christ's organizing a festival?"—as proof
that Christians should not keep God's Holy Days—need only refer to Exodus, Leviticus, and
Deuteronomy. Christ was the God of the Old Testament (I Corinthians 10:4). It was He who
organized the Holy Days and gave them to Israel!
Those who feel that the Holy Days mentioned in the New Testament are "weak proofs"
for our observing them today are relying upon a "weak argument." The fact remains that the
Holy Days are found in the New Testament, and they were being observed by Christians! If
man is to live by every word of God (Matthew 4:4), then it is incumbent upon Christians to
follow the New Testament examples of Holy Day observance!
Those who argue that Christ "reeducated" His apostles on how to keep the Sabbath,
but excluded the Holy Days in this instruction, need to realize that what applied to the Sabbath
also applied to the Holy Days! The Holy Days were observed as the weekly Sabbath, with the
exception that food could be prepared. But the principles Christ gave, relative to the
Sabbath, applied equally to the Holy Days.
It is not adding to God's Word to observe the Holy Days. They are found in the New
Testament, as well as in the Old. One does not add to God's Word by observing what is
clearly shown to be His Word. It is those who refuse to obey what is clearly shown by
Biblical example to be Scriptural, and who teach others to disobey this instruction, who are
adding to God's Word!
The argument—advocated by those who observe the weekly Sabbath—that there is
no New Testament command to keep God's Holy Days, and therefore the Holy Days should not
be kept, need to realize there is no New Testament command to keep the weekly Sabbath
either!
One of the most maligned areas of Bible understanding is how God's Truth should be
administered under the terms of the New Covenant. God's Law during the Old Testament
period was enforced by a civil government—the nation of Israel, and later the Jews. The
approach was authoritarian because there was a civil government to back up the laws. But
this is no longer the case. Under the terms of the New Covenant, obedience is required from
the heart—not from fear of punishment by a civil government. The New Testament
approach is not that of forced obedience, but rather of willing compliance from the heart.
This is the reason that there is no authoritative approach to God's Laws in the New
Testament. Obedience must come from the heart, not from fear of government.
But, the tragic mistake made by thousands of professing Christians is that since there
is no authoritarian approach to God's commands in the New Testament, then there is no law
to be obeyed. Nothing could be further from the truth! What must be realized is that man
must live by every word of God (Matthew 4:4). Man must live by the laws enumerated in
the Old Testament, with the exception of the sacrificial law and certain regulations for the
body which have been done away. The motivation behind a Christian's obedience is not to
be predicated upon an authoritarian stand, but rather upon a willingness to live by every word
of God as illustrated by New Testament examples. The laws of God in the New Covenant
relationship are the same as in the Old. The only difference is that the authoritarian approach
and the kind of enforcement found in the Old Covenant are not to be a part of the New (John
1:17, II Corinthians 1:24). The assumption that because the New Testament omits many of
the direct commands found in the Old Testament there is no requirement to keep these
commands today is one of the greatest errors committed by modern Christianity! The burden
of proof lies clearly upon the shoulders of those who reject the New Testament examples of
Holy Day observance. Those who say Acts 20:6 is no proof that the Philippians were
observing the Days of Unleavened Bread must be able to demonstrate that they were not.
Those who say the texts in the New Testament which mention the Holy Days were time
demarcations only, must be able to prove their argument. Christians today who observe
God's Holy Days do not refer to pagan festivals in marking months and seasons of the year;
they refer to God's Holy Days. Why should we assume that Christians during the first century
were different?
The claim that part of Acts 18:21 ("I must by all means keep this feast that cometh in
Jerusalem") is not a part of the original Greek and is a later Western interpolation can be
easily disproved. This verse, in its entirety, is included in the Received Text—the inspired
Greek text handed down to the Greek-speaking world by the original apostles. Ninety-five
percent of all existing manuscripts contain it. The five percent of the manuscripts which omit
it are those copies which originated in Egypt or the Latin world. There is absolutely no
reason to doubt its authenticity as a part of the original Word of God. There is no legitimate
reason to remove it from the New Testament. The only reason—illegitimate—is to justify
the rejection of a New Testament passage which is embarrassing to those who do not want
to obey God and observe His Holy Days!
Scholars are in much disagreement concerning Acts 18:18. The argument advanced
by some is that the only reason Paul kept this feast—the Feast of Tabernacles (Acts
18:21)—was because he was under a vow. Scholars disagree concerning the antecedent in
Acts 18:18. Many feel the antecedent should be Aquila—because his name immediately
precedes the clause, "for he had a vow." The truth is that Acts 18:18 cannot be used to prove
that Paul kept the feast because he was under a vow. Scholars are in doubt as to who was
under the vow, and there is no proof that the verse has any relationship to God's Holy Days!
As we shall see, there is ample evidence that the Gentiles in Asia Minor kept God's
Holy Days and continued to observe them for some time after the first century. References
to the Holy Days in the New Testament include Acts 2; 12:3; 18:21; 20:6, 16; 27:9, I
Corinthians 5:7–8; 11:20–26; 16:8. As mentioned earlier, the argument that these texts are
time indicators is a weak argument. The burden of proof is upon those who advocate this
concept. It is neither logical nor sound to assume that "Jewish Holy Days" would serve as time
indicators to those who paid no heed whatsoever to their significance.
Acts 21:24–26 is cited as "proof" that Paul offered sacrifices while keeping some of
the festivals. The reasoning is that since the sacrificial system was abrogated, anything Paul
did in conjunction with offering sacrifices has no bearing on Christian conduct. The
inference is drawn that Christians should not keep the Holy Days. In addition, it is assumed
that Paul really did not observe God's Holy Days. He merely attended.
Acts 21:24–26 does not say Paul offered sacrifices. It says Paul defrayed the expenses
of four men who were under a vow (most likely a Nazaritic vow). It was considered an act
of piety to defray the expenses required of Nazarites, at the completion of their vow.
Paul did not merely attend the festivals. Acts 18:21 says, referring to a statement
made by Paul, ". . . I must by all means keep this feast that cometh in Jerusalem. . . ." "Keep"
is the Greek poiesai, from poieo, meaning "to keep, celebrate" (Analytical Greek Lexicon,
by Harper, p. 332). In Acts 20:16, Paul states, ". . . he hasted, if it were possible for him, to
be at Jerusalem the day of Pentecost." "To be" is the Greek genesthai, from ginomai. The
Analytical Greek Lexicon by Harper (p. 79) says that the meaning of the word with respect
to festivals is "to be kept, celebrated, solemnized as festivals." It would have been
purposeless for Paul to have attended the festivals if he did not keep them. And if there were
no need for Christians to keep the Holy Days, Paul certainly set an improper example—one
that would have most surely led to confusion among the disciples. Those who say Paul did
not keep the feasts find it difficult to explain what Paul was doing attending the feasts—for
he did not both keep and not keep them.
I Corinthians 5:8 is taken by some to have a symbolic meaning only. It is reasoned
that since First Corinthians, chapter eleven, gives instructions on how to observe the Lord's
Supper (Passover), the instruction in First Corinthians, chapter five, could not apply to
keeping a literal feast. This is because the epistle would have arrived too late to enable the
Christians to prepare for the Lord's Supper—if the Days of Unleavened Bread were literally
being kept. (At the time Paul wrote the epistle—see I Corinthians 5:8.) It is believed by
some that the clause "let us keep the feast" (I Corinthians 5:8) should be translated "let us be
keeping festival" and should be taken symbolically.
The expression "let us keep the feast" contains the Greek word heortazomen, ("let us
keep a feast"). It is the first person plural present subjunctive and should be translated "we
should celebrate" (the feast). See the Analytical Greek Lexicon, page 148, and the Interlinear
Greek-English New Testament by Berry. This text is not talking about when the feast should
be kept, but rather that it should be kept! In addition, it would be extremely difficult—if not
impossible—to pinpoint the time the epistle arrived at Corinth. So, the idea that there is a
contradiction with respect to time between chapters five and eleven is, at best, an elusive
contention. I Corinthians 5:8 states, "Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven,
neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity
and truth." Note, this text does not say not to keep the feast. Since in the Bible leaven
represents sin, the spiritual application is apparent. Just as God's Word tells us to put leaven
out of our homes (Exodus 12:15), Christians are to put sin out of their lives. Thus, as verse
seven states, being "unleavened" means Christians are to put sin out of their lives continually.
But this text does not say, nor does any other text in the entire Bible say, that this Holy Day
or any other Holy Day is abrogated!
The New Covenant is a continuation of the Old, expanded to a spiritual plane. Paul
explains this in Second Corinthians, chapter three. Old Testament worship was intended to
lead Israel to Christ. The sacrifices and rituals all pointed to Christ, so they were perfectly
acceptable until Christ died. The problem with the worship of the Jews during the time of
Christ was their refusal to accept Christ and the fact that Judaism had replaced the law of
Moses. Ezra 3:2–6 simply tells us that the captives who returned from Babylon built an altar,
according to the command of the law of Moses recorded in Deuteronomy 12:5–6. Nehemiah
10:29–34 indicates a special fee used for offerings during the Sabbath, new moons, and set
feasts. II Chronicles 35:10–12 merely points out that special burnt offerings were set aside
during the Passover season. The matter of including roasted lamb or bitter herbs, sacrifices,
the wave sheaf, trumpet blowing, and so forth, at holy day services only in Jerusalem will
be addressed shortly. Suffice it to say here that Christ fulfilled the sacrificial law by His
death and is not specifically the antitype of any Holy Day. He is represented by the Passover
lamb; the Passover itself is not a Holy Day.
Jesus said, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out
of the mouth of God" (Matthew 4:4).
The Old Testament is God's Word. Paul wrote Timothy, "that from a child thou hast
known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation" (II Timothy
3:15). The Scriptures to which Paul referred were the Old Testament. It is in the Old
Testament that the commands of God are made precise. Those who live by every word of
God know that it is necessary for the Christian to live by what is recorded in the Old
Testament Scriptures.
The argument that one does not have to obey God unless there is a clear New
Testament command is invalid. When Jesus said that man must live by every word of God,
He included what is written in the Old Testament Scriptures. All Scripture—and that
includes the Old Testament passages as well as the New—is given for a purpose. Paul wrote,
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for
correction, for instruction in righteousness" (II Timothy 3:16). Those who accept only New
Testament commands reject God's Word. Jesus said that those who reject His Word reject
Him (John 12:48)—and those who reject Him will be rejected by the Father in heaven
(Matthew 10:33).
The Old Testament passages were written for our learning (Romans 15:4). The
instruction contained in them should be applied by all true Christians. It was Jesus Christ
who was the God of the Old Testament (I Corinthians 10:4). Therefore, the Old Testament
passages are His recorded word. Jesus said that man must live by every word of God! But,
the Christian need not be concerned with those portions the New Testament describes as
being specifically abrogated. This includes the sacrifices and various regulations for the
body. The remainder of God's Word should be obeyed. Christ was the fulfillment of the
sacrifices, but He is the embodiment of the totality of God. God's Word represents His
spiritual perpetuity and stands forever. Christ, therefore, represents that which was changed
by His death as well as that which remains (II Corinthians 3:11).
To repeat, the New Testament is clear regarding what was abrogated, or "nailed to the
cross." Hebrews 9:10 states that it was "meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal
ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation." The margin renders
"ordinances" as "rites" or "ceremonies." A Greek-English Lexicon, by Arndt and Gingrich
(p. 197), says that "carnal ordinances" means "regulations for the body." It was—at the time
of reformation—meat and drink sacrifices and offerings, various washings, and regulations
for the body that were abrogated. The weekly Sabbath and the Holy Days are not sacrifices,
washings, regulations for the body, rites, or ceremonies. They are days set aside as holy
time. Nowhere does the Bible state that the weekly Sabbath or God's Holy Days are done
away!
It is a misinterpretation of Hebrews 9:10—as well as one or two other texts—which
has led many to conclude erroneously that the Law of God, including the weekly Sabbath and
Holy Days, has been abrogated. The assumption is that Jesus nailed the commandments of
God, including the Holy Days, to the cross. Today, no one would argue against the idea that
the sacrifices have been abrogated—but what about God's Holy Days?
Does Galatians 4:9–10 Abrogate God's Law?
Was Paul's comment in Galatians 4:9–10 a reaction to infiltrating Judaism, which
included observance of the feast days? Is it true that those who keep the feast days of Israel
show a lack of spiritual understanding, as revealed to the churches of Galatia?
Let us notice Galatians 4:9–11.
This text is interpreted to mean that the Galatians were keeping the law of Moses.
Since the law of Moses included the Holy Days, then the Holy Days should not be kept. The
text reads, "But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn
ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?
Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed
upon you labour in vain" (Galatians 4:9–11).
What does this text really say?
Keep in mind that the epistle to the Galatians was written primarily to Gentiles. While
the churches of Galatia were made up of both Jews and Gentiles (Acts 13:14, 42–43;
14:1–4), it is clear, from verse eight of Galatians, chapter four, that Paul is addressing the
Gentiles. Verse eight could not apply to the Jews, because it was to them God committed
the oracles (Romans 3:2). It was the Gentiles who had not known God previously. They had
been enslaved to the "weak and beggarly elements." The idea that the "weak and beggarly
elements" refers to the law of Moses is strictly an interpretation. According to A
Greek-English Lexicon, by Arndt and Gingrich, the meaning of "weak and beggarly
elements" is much disputed. Some scholars believe it refers to elements of learning,
fundamental principals—applying it to elementary forms of religion, Jewish and Gentile
(which have been superseded by the new revelation of Christ). Other scholars believe it
means elemental spirits, which were associated with the physical elements. Still other
scholars take it to mean heavenly bodies (signs of the Zodiac), since these bodies were
regarded as personal beings and were given divine honors (A Greek-English Lexicon, by
Arndt and Gingrich, p. 776). This tells us that no one completely understands the meaning
of the expression "weak and beggarly elements." Since the authoritative lexicon by Arndt
and Gingrich states that the meaning is open to several interpretations, this text cannot be
used to prove Paul was referring to God's Holy Days!
Notice also the word "again," found twice in Galatians 4:9. These Gentiles were
turning again to "weak and beggarly elements," desiring again to be in bondage. If these
"weak and beggarly elements" were something the Gentiles were turning to again, could they
be a reference to God's Law? Did these Gentiles previously believe and understand the truth
of God? Of course not! It was the Jews to whom the oracles of God were committed! The
oracles of God were never called "weak and beggarly elements." The only aspect of God's
oracles which could be considered burdensome was the sacrifices (Acts 15:10). If "bondage"
in verse nine refers to anything, it refers to sacrifices to pagan gods. It is common
knowledge that the entire Gentile world offered myriad sacrifices to pagan gods.
Also, notice the word "observe" in verse ten. According to A Greek-English Lexicon,
page 627, the Greek word paratereo means to "watch closely, observe carefully . . . to watch
someone to see what he does." In every instance of its usage in the New Testament, except
Galatians 4:10, it means to watch closely. See also The Word Study Concordance, page 593;
The Analytical Greek Lexicon, page 306; The Dictionary of New Testament Theology,
Volume II, page 153. The latter states that paratereo, apart from Galatians 4:10, means "lie
in wait for" or "watch," as the English versions have it. Galatians 4:10 means these Gentiles
were watching various days, months, times, and years for various signs. The word paratereo
here does not denote a religious observance.
But what about "days, months, times, and years?" Were they God's Sabbaths and
Holy Days?
A Greek-English Lexicon, by Arndt and Gingrich (p. 266), states the following of
eniautos, (year) in Galatians 4:10: "The meaning of eniautos in the combination kairoi kai
eniautoi Gal 4:10 is not certain. It could be an allusion to the so-called 'sabbatical years' (Lev
25), but it may also mean certain days of the year [emphasis theirs] . . . as the New Year
festival." Those who say that "days, months, times, and years" refers to God's Holy Days are
simply interpreting. The meaning of "days, and months, and times, and years" is wide open
to speculation, and no one can dogmatically say what it means. But one fact is certain, no
one can deny that heathen nations observed many special days set aside for celebrations of
one type or another. Therefore, to say "days, and months, and times, and years" refers to
God's Holy Days is merely guessing!
Now what about the assumption that Jerusalem is the only location where the
Holy Days may be legitimately kept? That observing the Holy Days in various Gentile sites was
unthinkable to the Israelites? That there is no Biblical or historical precedence for such a
practice? That Gentiles were disallowed from participating in the Israelite system, not
permitted to enter the sanctuary?
These questions can be answered by examining the evidence regarding the historical
evolution of the synagogue. From the Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and
Ecclesiastical Literature, by McClintock and Strong, article "synagogue," we read that
Jewish sources inform us that there were synagogues in the time of the pious king Hezekiah.
Although we find no trace of worship meetings in synagogues in the Old Testament, it is
probable that there were celebrations apart from the temple during the new moons and
Sabbaths. During the Exile the synagogue replaced the temple. The whole history of Ezra
presupposes the habit of solemn, probably periodic, meetings, and it is in this period that the
institution, if not the revival, of the synagogue took place. Following the Maccabaean revolt,
a freer development of the synagogue parochial system took place wherever the Jews were
located. Practically every town or village had one or more synagogues, as is clearly seen in
many New Testament passages. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, article
"synagogue," relates that after the Exile the synagogue remained and even developed as a
counterpoise to the absolute sacerdotalism of the temple, an absolute necessity for the Jews
who were of the Dispersion. It was to these synagogues that the Jews repaired for the
Sabbath and feast days.
Philo, Agrippa, and Josephus speak of the synagogue as a regular institution; the
existence of the synagogue is particularly demonstrated in the book of Acts. Wherever these
synagogues were located around the world there were Gentiles who attended. These
sympathetic Gentiles joined in the observance of the Sabbath, the weekly fasts, the Day of
Atonement, the laws relating to food, and even the pilgrimages to Jerusalem. The synagogue
was the bond of union and it was there on the Sabbath and feast days that the same Scriptures
were read throughout the world. While Jerusalem was regarded as the place where men
could truly worship, few in the Diaspora (Dispersion) could afford the journey, and those
who did so found it to be a once-in-a-lifetime experience. Jews of the Diaspora sent the
Temple tribute to Jerusalem annually. But even in Palestine, synagogues were scattered over
the entire country and it is only reasonable to conclude that their number greatly increased
after the destruction of the Temple (The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah), by Alfred
Edersheim, pp. 19, 76–77, 432).
While Gentiles were restricted from some aspects of Temple worship, "the stranger
within thy gate" was free to offer burnt sacrifices—the same law applied to him as to the
Israelite. The synagogue, which had become the center of Jewish worship, opened its doors
widely to the pagan world and many Gentiles gladly frequented the synagogues, keeping
some of the Jewish laws and customs. Some Gentiles were circumcised, some were not.
Those who fully embraced the Jewish religion were called "proselytes of the covenant," and
were considered "perfect Israelites" in every respect. The "proselyte of the gate," on the
other hand, professed his faith in the God of Israel, and bound himself to seven precepts only
(International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, article "proselyte").
While the temple in Jerusalem had long been established as the seat of worship for the
people of Israel, the wide dispersion of the Jews had long made obsolete the ancient laws
which required the appearance of all males at the sanctuary with an offering three times in
a year. Some of the Diaspora, living in remote areas, may have made the journey to
Jerusalem once, but most never attended at all. Those who remained at home participated
in the spirit of the feasts through the festivals of the synagogue. For the vast majority of the
Jews, not only of the Diaspora, but of Palestine as well, the synagogue had become, long
before the destruction of the temple, the real seat of religious worship. Those who were
unable to attend the feasts at Jerusalem abstained from work and assembled in the
synagogues of their own towns. Even when the Temple was destroyed and sacrifices could
no longer be offered, there was no real crisis. The synagogue had come to satisfy the
religious needs of the nation. The synagogue had become, in thought and feeling, the place
where God was worshiped, and it was natural that those features of temple worship which
could be detached from the temple service—such as the blowing of the shofar, the palm
branches and willows at Tabernacles, with necessary adaptations—should be transferred to
the synagogue. Thus, in the character of the services there was no essential change (Judaism
in the First Centuries of the Christian Era, by George Foot Moore, Vol. II, pp. 11–14).
To summarize, the notion that the Holy Days must be observed only in Jerusalem has
neither Bible authority nor precedence. In fact, if anything, the Bible shows the opposite to
be the case.
Israel existed for almost five hundred years before the feast was observed in
Jerusalem. After Israel entered the Holy Land, the tabernacle was set up at Shiloh (Joshua
18:1, Jeremiah 7:12). The center of worship remained in Shiloh for many years (Judges
18:31). It was here, for some period of time, that the Israelites came to worship year by year
(I Samuel 1:3). After the ark was captured by the Philistines and returned to Israel, the
tabernacle was moved to Jerusalem (II Samuel 6:17). When the Temple was built by
Solomon, Jerusalem became the permanent site for central worship within the nation of
Israel. But prior to the time of David, Mizpeh, Gilgal, and Shiloh were all central locations
of worship. Because Jerusalem was later selected as the site for central worship, are we to
assume one is to worship in no location except Jerusalem, today? We will see shortly what
God says about Jerusalem.
One fact is certain: Paul kept the Holy Days (Acts 18:21; 20:16). But did he keep them
at Jerusalem only? Paul said to follow him as he followed Christ (I Corinthians 11:1). Christ
kept the Holy Days. Paul told the Philippians, "Those things, which ye have both learned, and
received, and heard, and seen in me, do" (Philippians 4:9). Paul did not both keep and not
keep the Holy Days. It is obvious from the book of Acts that Paul was away from Jerusalem
for years at a time. If the Holy Days are to be observed in Jerusalem only, and Paul observed
them there only, then he set a bad example—because, for years at a time, he was derelict in
fulfilling his Holy Day obligations. If, on the other hand, the Holy Days should not be
kept—and Paul went to Jerusalem to observe them—then he set an equally bad example.
But, Paul's example in the book of Acts clearly reveals that Paul kept the Holy Days, and he
kept them in locations other than Jerusalem (Acts 20:6; 27:9, I Corinthians 16:8). Later in
this article, we shall see that the Gentile churches in Asia Minor, after the first century, did
indeed observe God's Holy Days. And they did not go up to Jerusalem to observe them.
The argument that no one except God, personally, has the right to determine feast sites
does not bear up under close scrutiny. The Old Testament record is sufficient to disprove
this. It was by the hand of Joshua, God's servant, that both Gilgal and Shiloh were chosen
as sites for the tabernacle. Yet, there is no record that God told Joshua to choose those sites.
The same is true with respect to David's selecting Jerusalem. David obviously knew
Jerusalem was God's choice, yet there is no record that God told him to select Jerusalem.
And neither is there such record regarding the previous tabernacle sites—for, prior to the
selection of Jerusalem, the tabernacle was located at Gilgal, Bethel, and Mizpeh. What is
obvious, from the Old Testament record, is that God's servants were responsible for the
selection of religious sites. If God has a church today, and if the Holy Days are to be kept,
then the same principle is true.
With respect to Jerusalem, Jesus said, "the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this
mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father" (John 4:21). Jesus knew that God would
soon remove His presence and His name from Jerusalem. Jerusalem would cease to be
where God's people would come to worship Him! Today, Jerusalem is (spiritually) called
Sodom and Egypt (Revelation 11:8).
But the time is coming when Jerusalem will yet again be chosen as God's city
(Zechariah 1:17; 2:12; 14:16). Until that time, it is the responsibility of all God's true
children to keep His Holy Days in those locations which are the most convenient, under the
present circumstances—those locations selected by His true servants today.
Some would have us to believe that a transition time was required in order to bring
about the necessary changes from Judaism to Christianity. That during Jesus' ministry Israel
was still obeying Moses' festival law. That while Jesus attended the Feast of Tabernacles and
did not find fault with the time element, He directed those in attendance into true worship
which He was inaugurating. That examples of the early church's observation of the feasts
and Holy Days involved limited numbers only, the same being true regarding sacrifices and
circumcision. That while Paul was often present at some of the Jewish feasts, his teaching
in Galatians and Colossians "condemns them as a requirement from heaven." That from Acts
to Revelation there is no command, teaching, or example that would in any way obligate
Christians to keep Israel's festivals or Holy Days.
If the above be true, then much confusion reigned in the early New Testament church.
The festivals observed for a considerable time by the Apostolic church were the same as
those of the Jews, especially by Christians of Jewish birth. From the Hebrew point of view,
Christians were regarded as a Jewish sect or synagogue (The Life and Epistles of St. Paul,
by W. J. Conybeare, pp. 346, 55). In fact, the synagogue cannot be separated from the most
intimate connection with Christ's life and ministry. Synagogue worship was the order with
which the first Christian believers were most familiar and which would most likely be, with
respect to the outlines, details, and government, applied to the church (McClintock and
Strong, p. 71). Such an event—the interrelationship of the synagogue and the church—could
never have been foreseen in the dispersion of the people of Israel. Yet, without the
dispersion it would have been impossible for the conversion of the Gentiles to have taken
place at such a rapid pace. For the synagogue became the cradle of the church (Edersheim,
p. 431). It was the pioneer institution of spiritual worship (The Story of Judaism, by Bernard
J. Bamberger, p. 46).
We have already seen that Jesus came as our example. He did not come to confuse
us with some kind of a "transition period."
The fact that Christ and Paul observed the Holy Days is ample proof they were not
abrogated by the New Covenant; they are an essential part of the New Covenant. Both Christ
and Paul set an example for us to follow (I Peter 2:21, I John 2:6, I Corinthians 11:1,
Philippians 4:9). Those who follow Christ will keep the Holy Days.
If, as some say, the Holy Days are no longer valid, we need only ask why Paul kept
them after they were supposedly done away. It is Paul's observance of the Holy Days that
presents the major obstacle to those who wish to repudiate them. The explanations offered
by those who reject the Christian requirement to keep the Holy Days, as demonstrated in the
New Testament, are woefully inadequate. In fact, the arguments used today to repudiate
God's feasts are the same arguments which go back to the second and third centuries.
For example, Philip Schaff says in his publication, History of the Apostolic Church,
page 546, that it is with tolerable certainty that the Jewish Christians (particularly those at
Jerusalem) observed the ceremonial law with its weekly and yearly festivals—and did not
formally renounce the Old Testament theocracy until the destruction of Jerusalem, ad 70.
Schaff, like most church historians, could not distinguish between ceremonial and spiritual
laws. In the following paragraphs of the same chapter, he is quite at a loss to explain why
the Apostle Paul criticizes the Galatians for observing Jewish festivals (Schaff's
interpretation of Galatians 4:10), while at the same time observing them himself! Schaff
acknowledges that James kept the Holy Days, because of the respect shown to him by the
Jewish community. But concerning Paul, Schaff could not understand why the apostle
allowed the Romans to observe the Holy Days (Schaff's interpretation of Romans 14:5–6), but
forbade the Galatians. Schaff goes on to say, on page 559, that Paul kept the feasts and he
kept them as a Christian!
In a volume entitled Primitive Christianity: or the Religion of the Ancient Christians
in the First Ages of the Gospel (published in London in 1673), author William Cave states
that the primitive Christians placed great importance upon the Day of Pentecost. It was not
only because the Holy Spirit was given on that day, but because Paul made much haste to be
at Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost, which they understood was due to his great desire to
keep it there as a Christian feast. Then the author goes on to say why he thinks Paul wanted
to go to Jerusalem. His conclusion was that Paul really did not go to keep the feast, but
rather to see the brethren and to preach the gospel to the Jews (Cave, p. 192).
Like modern theologians, historians generally misunderstand Paul's statements in
Romans, Galatians, and Colossians—regarding feast days, fasts, etc. So, as far as Asia
Minor is concerned, historians believe that the Apostle John must have been the one
responsible for Holy Day observance, because it was from these very churches—the churches
John pastored after Paul's death—that the controversy arose respecting the proper date for
the Passover!
Dr. Augustus Neander, in his outstanding treatise, admits that the Jewish Christians
maintained the Jewish festivals with the whole ceremonial law—but then goes on to say that
the Gentile churches probably did not keep the festivals, as inferred from Paul's epistles
(History of the Christian Religion and Church, by Augustus Neander, trans. by Joseph
Torrey, Vol. I, p. 297). The only explanation he could give as to why the churches of Asia
Minor adhered to the Holy Days was that it must have been the Apostle John who introduced
them to these Gentiles (Neander, Vol. I, p. 297).
Neander, like most church historians, sees a conflict between those who held to the
apostles at Palestine and those who championed the Apostle Paul. His assessment is similar
to the interpretation of those who describe the book of Galatians as a conflict between those
who are in bondage to Jewish law and those who glory in their Christian freedom and higher
knowledge (Neander, Vol. I, p. 340).
Neander's viewpoint was that the Judaizing Christians followed Christ, who had
faithfully observed the Mosaic Law, because they believed this was the necessary
requirement for salvation; but it was the Apostle Paul who introduced a self-subsisting
Christian church among the Gentiles, which was totally independent of Judaism. The
churches in Palestine decidedly leaned to the Old Testament—and the conflict which arose
between the Jewish and Gentile churches, as depicted in Acts, chapter fifteen, was settled in
favor of the Gentiles (Neander, Vol. I, pp. 340–342). Neander adds, though, that the problem
was not really resolved—because in the second century, the same opposing viewpoints
persisted, due to what Neander regards as a radical element among the Jewish Christians.
This radical element is identified in the dialogue of Justin Martyr with the Jew, Trypho. In
this dialogue, Martyr shows two classes of Judaizing Christians: (1) those who united the
faith of Christ with the Mosaic law, but who did not force its requirements upon Gentile
Christians, and (2) those who adhered to the Mosaic law, but forced the Gentiles to practice
it—regarding as unclean those who did not (Neander, Vol. I, p. 343).
In a volume entitled History of the Christian Church, author Philip Schaff states that
during the second century the violent arguments which arose over the proper date for Easter
(Passover) were due to the opposing viewpoints of the Asians and the Latins. The Asians
held to the Johannean practice represented by objective historical precedent, while the
Roman church held to the principle of freedom and discretionary change. This controversy,
which involved three stages, began when Polycarp (the Bishop of Smyrna and disciple of the
Apostle John) discussed the proper date for the Passover with Anicetus, Bishop of Rome, ad
160. The second stage, ad 170, involved some Asiatics who insisted on eating a literal lamb
at the Passover. The third stage occurred in ad 196 when Victor (Bishop of Rome) branded
Polycrates (Bishop of Ephesus), and all Asians who refused to change the Passover date and
accept the authority of Rome, as heretics (Schaff, p. 373).
What was taking place in God's Church?
Jesus said the church He would build would never perish (Matthew 16:18). But Jesus
did not say that His church would be popular and accepted by the world; in fact, He said just
the opposite. He said that His church would be small and persecuted (Luke 12:32, John
15:20). Therefore, what was taking place during the middle of the second century, with
respect to God's Holy Days, is exactly what we would expect to find in the historical
records—if Jesus' words, concerning His church, are true.
According to Jesus, His church would be a commandment-keeping church (Revelation
12:17). The signs given to identify God's chosen people are the Sabbath and the Holy Days
(Exodus 31:13–17; 13:9). Because the true church would keep the Sabbath and Holy Days,
it would not be accepted by the world (I John 3:1). But there would be a false church—a
visible church—which would be accepted. The reason it would be accepted is that it would
absorb the many pagan concepts necessary to make it a worldly religion.
Now, let us see what took place, with respect to the Sabbath and Holy Days, within the
visible church—the church that historians view as the church Jesus built.
There is no doubt that the early Christians did not regard the Sabbath as abolished.
See From Sabbath to Sunday, by Paul Cotten. Cotten says that the influence of conservative
Christianity was discernible upon the Eastern or Asian churches for several centuries; that
even after Sunday worship was largely accepted, the Sabbath continued to be
observed—especially in the East. Even as late as 425, the people of Constantinople and
several other cities assembled on the Sabbath (Cotten, pp. 63–65). His conclusion is that the
church was by no means united with respect to Sunday worship, nor did it make a radical
departure from Sabbath observance. The process, Cotten says, was a gradual, natural
one—depending upon the progress of Christian convictions (Ibid., pp.65–66). Its
abolishment represented the abolishment of Jewish law, and as the old order passed away,
so did the Sabbath (Ibid., p. 68).
It was Gentile influence, Cotten says, which brought about Sunday observance; and
while Christianity began in Judaism, it absorbed many points of paganism and became a
worldly religion (Cotten, p. 159).
In the compilation of articles entitled Seventh Day Baptists in Europe and America
(Vol. I), Abram H. Lewis points out that with the shift in Christianity from East to West, the
influence of the Grecian and Roman pagan philosophers became dominant. The pagan
dislike for Judaism, because of its refusal to recognize heathen deities, reflected itself in
antagonism toward the Sabbath. Justin Martyr—about the middle of the second
century—began this disparagement against the Sabbath, so that eventually the entire
philosophical approach became antagonistic toward anything "Jewish." In due time, as a
result of this pagan philosophy and its consequential political influence, pagan festivals
replaced all "Jewish" observances (Seventh Day Baptists, Vol. I, pp. 13–14).
Schaff agrees, stating that the Jewish Christians continued to observe the Sabbath; but,
after the destruction of the Temple and the subsequent loss of Jewish influence, the Sabbath
was superseded by the first day of the week. By the beginning of the second century, Sunday
was being observed universally (History of the Apostolic Church, by Schaff, p. 552).
Neander says that it was opposition to Judaism which led to the establishment of
Sunday, rather than the Sabbath, as the day of worship—and while the Christians in the East
tolerated Sunday worship in the churches, they continued to retain the Sabbath for some time.
In the West, however, the opposition to Judaism was so strong that Saturday was
selected as a fast day in order to make it less appealing to those who should choose to
observe the Sabbath. According to Neander, the contrast between the two groups of
Christians—those who observed Saturday and those who observed Sunday—was quite
noticeable, and that same antagonism was apparent in the matter of yearly festivals (Neander,
Vol. I, pp. 295–297).
Even with the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, the Jewish Christians continued
to observe the law of Moses—and after the First Jewish War, they returned to Jerusalem
where they continued in their original teachings until the time of the Roman Emperor
Hadrian, who ruled from 117–138. After the revolt of Bar Kokba, all Jews were expelled
from Jerusalem and its adjacent areas—and from that time on, the Jewish Christians were
removed as a source of influence (Neander, Vol. I, pp. 343–344).
Once the Jewish Christians were no longer a viable influence in the Christian world,
the thrust toward repudiating anything which represented Judaism hastened. The fact that
at the beginning of the second century, Sunday observance was already accepted universally
(though not observed universally), indicates the rapidity of the departure from original
Christian teachings. After the beginning of the second century, Sabbath observance among
Jewish Christians gradually ceased—and the setting aside of Saturday as a fast day in the
West (an opposition of the Latin church against Judaism) began at the end of the second
century (Schaff, History of the Christian Church, pp. 372–373).
Thus, within the first two hundred years of the establishment of the true church, we
see—with respect to the Sabbath—a gradual departure from what was taught and practiced
by Christ and the original apostles. What transpired with respect to the weekly Sabbath also
transpired with respect to the Holy Days. Those who rejected the Sabbath, during the first and
second centuries, recognized that what applied to the Sabbath must also apply to the annual
Holy Days. The Sabbath and the Holy Days stand or fall together.
The Jewish Christians kept the Passover and all the annual festivals appointed by God
through Moses and understood their Christian meaning. In a footnote, Schaff says: "It is very
remarkable that St. John makes the Jewish festivals, especially the Passover, so prominent
in the public life and ministry of Christ. He evidently considered them significant types of
the leading facts of the Gospel history" (History of the Apostolic Church, p. 558, fn.). On
page 559, he further states that the second-century Paschal controversies proved that the early
church kept the Jewish festivals and that they derived their authority from the apostles.
What was said about the decline of Jewish influence regarding the Sabbath applies to
the Holy Days. B. J. Kidd, in A History of the Church to ad 461 (p. 37), relates that as long
as Jewish influence prevailed the Jewish Christian and the Gentile Christian forms of
religious service continued side by side. It was not until the second overthrow of Jerusalem,
during the rebellion of Bar Kokba (about ad 135) that the disintegration of Jewish national
life was total and with it the acceleration of the decline of Jewish Christianity. From that
time on, the Jewish Christians, severed from the community, were a declining
remnant—though as late as the middle of the second century there existed an orthodox
minority along with a heretical majority (Kidd, pp. 88–91).
It was after the decline of Jewish influence that pagan Christian concepts of worship
began to prevail. Paramount was the idea that divine worship was not confined to any
particular time or place. Jerome (who translated the Vulgate) said, in the fourth century, that
from the Christian point of view all days are alike (Neander, Vol. II, p. 332). Chrysostom
(one of the Greek church fathers of the fourth century) delivered a discourse on the day of
Pentecost at Antioch—where he said that those who never attended church, except on the
principal festivals, had adopted the Jewish viewpoint, and that Christian festivals were not
restricted to certain times. He said that Christians continually celebrate Epiphany, that they
continually celebrate the Passover, and that they continually celebrate Pentecost (Ibid.).
Neander adds, in the same paragraph, that the church historian Socrates Scholasticus remarks
that neither Christ nor the apostles gave commandment or law respecting feasts, but left
everything to the free expression of feelings.
In spite of this developing expression of freedom, the Sabbath continued to be
kept—especially by the Eastern churches—until the Council of Laodicea in the fourth
century, which decreed that Christians should not celebrate after the Jewish manner
(Neander, Vol. II, p. 334). It was this spirit of expression and antagonism against anything
Jewish which led to declaring Saturday a fast day, when the obvious Bible teaching is that
the Sabbath is a feast day (Leviticus 23:4). Ambrose (a Latin church father of the fourth
century) admitted that he fasted in Rome on Saturday, but not in Milan! Augustine wrote
that it was Paul's instruction to the Romans concerning fasting that accounted for this
diversity of practice. The Latin church, in general, justified fasting on the Sabbath because
Peter was supposed to have done so in preparing for his dispute with Simon Magus. And,
in addition, the disciples hid themselves in fear of the Jews on that day, according to the
crucifixion account (Ibid., pp. 334–335).
The twenty-ninth canon of the Council of Laodicea said that Christians should abstain
from worldly business on Sunday, if they were able. By 386, civil transactions of any kind
were forbidden; and by 425, public shows and exhibitions were forbidden on Sunday and on
principal Christian feasts (Neander, Vol. II, p. 336).
From about the middle of the second century, pagan Christians had shown a desire to
observe the Good Friday and Easter Sunday traditions. The visit of Polycarp to Rome (about
160) was the first confrontation of what was called the Quartodeciman controversy. Neander
says, in a footnote, that more importance has been attributed to this visit than is historically
justified. At the time Polycarp went to Rome, the question of when to observe the Passover
had not yet come up. It was when Polycarp was in Rome that it became apparent there was
a divergence of practice—between the Eastern and Western churches—regarding observance
of the Passover (Neander, Vol. I, p. 299). But, it was not until 190 that Victor took strong
measures to suppress the observance of the Passover, as observed by Jewish tradition (Ibid.,
pp. 299–300).
It was in 325 that the Council of Nicea established Easter, according to the Latin
tradition, as a law for the entire church. Easter was selected to be celebrated on the Sunday
which fell after the first new moon following the vernal equinox. The council did not feel
it was proper for Christians to follow the custom of the hostile, unbelieving Jews—those who
had never accepted Christianity (A History of the Christian Church, by Philip Schaff, p. 376).
What became apparent, relative to the "Christian festivals," was that with the pagan
Christians originated the idea of imitating the crucified and risen Christ. Thus, the yearly
festivals became the way to illustrate His death and resurrection (Neander, Vol. I, p. 295).
The weekly cycle observances took the form of the passion followed by the joyful
resurrection. Thus, Friday and Wednesday became the days to commemorate the passion by
fasting and prayer, and Sunday became the day to commemorate the joyful resurrection. The
yearly cycle was essentially the same. The Good Friday and Easter Sunday traditions
depicted the crucifixion and the resurrection, while Pentecost commemorated the joyous
receipt of the Holy Spirit (Ibid., pp. 294–295). As Schaff acknowledges, Easter and
Pentecost were transformed by Christianity into the feasts of the resurrection of the Lord and
the outpouring of the Holy Spirit (History of the Apostolic Church, p. 558). Schaff adds that
by the second century, these festivals were found unopposed universally—and on page 560
of the same section, states that the church festivals of Easter and Pentecost only, can be
traced back to the apostolic age. According to Schaff, Pentecost was first observed by
Jewish precedent, but as early as the second century became accepted universally in
commemoration of the appearance and heavenly exaltation of the risen Lord (History of the
Christian Church, p. 376).
Neander states that the crucified, resurrected, and glorified Christ was the central point
of the weekly and yearly festivals and fast days, and that Friday was consecrated to the
memory of Christ's passion (Neander, Vol. II, pp. 332–333). Pentecost was observed in
remembrance of Christ risen and glorified. Eventually, Easter and Pentecost only were
selected to be promulgated, for two reasons: (1) they were the only ones which represented
the sufferings, resurrection, and glory of Christ, and (2) there was too much opposition to
Jewish observances (Ibid., Vol. I, pp. 300–301).
The idea of celebrating Christ's birthday was unknown during this period. It was not
until the end of the fourth century that both Christmas and Epiphany began to be observed.
Epiphany, which commemorates Christ's baptism, was an Eastern innovation; while
Christmas was decidedly a Western inclusion. According to Neander, there was strong
opposition to the acceptance of these festivals. The Eastern church opposed the observance
of Christmas, and the Western church opposed Epiphany. Gradually, both were
accepted—Epiphany was looked upon as a stage of Judaism in Christianity, while Christmas
was viewed as representing Christian freedom (Neander, Vol. I, pp. 301–302 and Schaff,
History of the Christian Church, pp. 373, 376–377).
In the year 400, Augustine commented that the only feasts recognized were those of
Christ's passion, His ascension, and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. By the year 325, when
the custom of the Passover was abandoned, the Passover had lost its significance—except
in the East where the change was opposed. It was this opposition which eventually led to the
expulsion of the Eastern churches, whose rebuttal to the West was that the Nicene council
altered the Passover date because it yielded to the flattery of Constantine (Neander, Vol. II,
pp. 337–338).
What was taking place in the visible church during this period of time was not what
was taking place with the Jewish Christians. The Jewish Christians separated themselves
from the general Christian community as a result of the Second Jewish War, and repaired to
the east side of the Jordan River—where they remained obedient to the law and maintained
themselves as a group down to the fifth century. The pagan Christians who remained in
Aelia Capitolina, the rebuilt Jerusalem, gradually molded the Christian community into an
entirely new shape (Neander, Vol. I, p. 344).
The name "Nazarenes"—an appellation which dates back to about the middle of the
first century—came to be applied to these Jewish Christians (Acts 24:5). Epiphanius says
the Nazarenes were Jewish Christians who observed the Jewish manner of life, and they
combined a belief in Christ with observance of the law (Kidd, Vol. I, p. 93). On the same
page, Kidd gives a general description of Nazarene beliefs and relates that Jerome felt the
Nazarenes were neither Jewish nor Christian—and what hindered them from being Christian
was their adherence to Jewish customs.
Another term which came to be applied to the Jewish Christians was that of
"Ebionites." However, this appellation came to be applied without regard to the differences
existing among them. According to Neander the general party itself gradually embraced so
many shades of Jewish-Christian principles that it was impossible to distinguish them from
ordinary Jews (Neander, Vol. I, pp. 345–346). The same could be said about the Nazarenes.
Both appellations—Nazarenes and Ebionites—were general terms which were applied to
Jewish Christians. Origen stated that there was little to distinguish the Ebionites from
common Jews. Jerome distinguished two classes among them: (1) those who thought the
law should be observed, and (2) those who adhered to the Jewish law but did not require it
of pagan Christians, because of the belief that only those of Jewish and Israelitish birth
should observe it (Kidd, Vol. I, p. 92). In the middle of the second century, a handful of
Ebionites were involved in the Quartodeciman controversy; and they kept the Passover on
the fourteenth (Ibid., p. 377).
The Nazarenes appeared to be a totally different group from the Ebionites, although
some among the Ebionites may have had common beliefs with the Nazarenes. What can be
safely said about both groups is that among them were to be found those true Christians who
remained faithful to the original teachings of Christ and the apostles, and who comprised the
remnant of the small flock. As late as the close of the fourth century, there was a group of
Nazarenes dwelling in Beroea in Syria (Neander, Vol. I, p. 349).
From time to time, other groups appeared on the scene. About 375, the Novatians of
Phrygia, contrary to their ancient beliefs, began to celebrate the Passover on the same date
as the Jews. Not only did they keep the Passover, they observed the Days of Unleavened
Bread (The Ecclesiastical History of Sozomen, trans. by A. C. Zenos, p. 361).
In a volume published in London in 1683, author Alexander Ross described what he
considered to be various heretical groups, which existed during the first six hundred years
after Christ. He commented on the Sabbatarians as follows: ". . . so called because they
reject the observation of the Lord's day, as not being commanded in the Scripture, and keep
holy the Sabbath day only, because God himself rested on that day, and commanded it to be
kept . . ." (A View of All Religions of the World, by Alexander Ross, p. 232).
It is unlikely that more prominent groups, such as the Paulicians, Bogomiles, Cathari,
Waldenses, etc., as a whole, could be considered remnants of the true church. There is no
historical evidence that these groups, as a whole, adhered to the Ten
Commandments—including the Sabbath—or kept the Holy Days. Some of them were hostile
to the Old Testament, and the philosophy of others bordered on Gnosticism. This is not to
say that some segments among them may not have been remnants of the true church.
Concerning the Waldenses, Gamble and Greene, in their article in Seventh-Day
Baptists in Europe and America, Volume I, quote a number of historical sources which
indicate Waldensian Sabbath observance. Among these sources, they mention Purchase's
Pilgrimage (published in London in 1625), which states that the Waldenses kept Saturday
holy, rejected Saturday fasts, kept Easter on Saturday—during which they feasted like the
Jews (quoted in History of Sabbath and Sunday, by Lewis, pp. 216–217). On page 33,
Gamble and Greene remark that the Waldenses did not have perfect agreement in sentiment.
As stated earlier, some among the Waldenses may have been God's true people, as the
divergence of opinion indicates—but it is unlikely the entire group, with differing opinions,
were all true Christians.
Gamble and Greene comment on a work entitled Ecclesiastical History of the Ancient
Piedmont Church (by Dr. Allix), in which the author states that a Catholic writer—in the
twelfth century—mentions the Cathari, Passagii, and Arnoldistae as stating that they believed
the law of Moses and the Sabbath should be kept. There is no doubt that this is true of the
Passagii. Of the other groups, the writer may have been referring to segments of them, only.
For, there is no evidence that these groups, as a whole, kept the Sabbath and the Holy Days.
The historical records show that the Nazarenes, the Cerinthians, the Ebionites, and the
Hypsistarii were condemned for Sabbath observance—and this was also true, later, of the
Petrobrussians (Seventh Day Baptists, pp. 34–35). In fact, Walter Lollard was accused of
being of the same sentiment as Peter deBruys, who was a Sabbath-keeper (Ibid., p. 34). The
Lollards in England—according to Gardner and Spedding in a volume entitled Studies in
English History—could not overlook the injunction contained in the fourth commandment
(quoted by Gamble and Greene in Seventh Day Baptists, p. 35).
Augustus Neander, who is considered the modern "father of church history," makes
no mention of any of these groups' observing the Sabbath or Holy Days. This is
understandable because Neander recognized that all Judaizing Christians (those who adhered
to Jewish tradition) kept the "Law of Moses," which included the Sabbath and Holy Days.
From all appearances, the above-named sects, as a whole, were what could be called
pre-Protestants. Many of their doctrines and beliefs were a reaction to the abuses and
immorality of the Catholic priests. But, we should not assume any of these groups, in their
entirety, to be remnants of the true church unless there is evidence to support such a
conclusion.
Regarding the general state of Christians during the Middle Ages, Neander says
scandalous conduct and lack of spiritual zeal were so apparent among the population that
those few who tried to live a life of greater purity were criticized in the very same way as
those criticized by pagans when Christianity was getting its start (Neander, Vol. II, p. 260).
During the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, there arose the sect called the
Passagii—which represents the most obvious, tangible form of Judaizing Christianity of the
time. At the present, little is known of their predecessors. History generally concerns itself
with the obvious—so until every available historical source is examined, information
concerning the details of earlier groups will most likely be limited.
Louis Israel Newman, in a work entitled Jewish Influence on Christian Reform
Movements, says that the Passagii were an anti-sacerdotal and anti-Catholic Judaizing party
who were not associated with the Catharist movement. Their fundamental doctrine was that
the Mosaic law should be literally observed, and they sought to preserve the literalism of Old
Testament exegesis. They observed "Jewish ceremonialism"—including the Holy Days and
solemn festivals, as well as the dietary laws; the sacrifices alone being excepted from the
legalistic obligation. They accepted the New Testament and sought to harmonize the old and
new dispensations. They kept the Sabbath strictly, along with other Sabbatarian groups in
Hungary and in other lands. The reason for their acceptance of the Mosaic law—with all its
demands for Sabbath observance, circumcision, observance of dietary laws, and festival
observance—was to bring Christianity back to its original sources untainted by foreign
elements. According to Bonacursus, the Passagii believed the law of Moses ought to be
observed to the letter, including the Sabbath and circumcision. But in a footnote on page
265, Newman quotes Benedict in his History of the Baptists concerning the Passagii: "The
account of their practicing circumcision is undoubtedly a slanderous story, forged by their
enemies, and probably arose in this way: Because they observed the seventh day, they were
called by way of derision, Jews, as the Sabbatarians are frequently at this day; and if they
were Jews, they either did, or ought to, circumcise their followers. This was probably the
reasoning of their enemies. But that they actually practiced the bloody rite is altogether
improbable." Newman places their location in Southern France, and says that of the
numerous sects which were a constant source of irritation to the ecclesiastical authorities, it
was the Passagii who demonstrated the strong Jewish elements in their beliefs (Jewish
Influence on Christian Reform Movements, pp. 255–284).
Another volume, Heresies of the High Middle Ages, by Wakefield and Evans (pp.
173–181, 698), discusses the Passagii or Passagians. It says the Passagii were a minor sect
in the late twelfth century which kept all the legal precepts of the Old Testament, including
circumcision. But on page 698 of this volume, a footnote states, ". . . that the Circumcisers
were probably a separate party, who did not reject Christian sacraments but did require in
addition to them the strict observance of Mosaic Law and especially circumcision."
Wakefield and Evans state that the Passagii observed the Old Testament and Mosaic Law,
the Sabbath, and prohibition of certain foods; they also refused to recognize the institutions
and practices of the Roman church. The Passagii were a short-lived "Christian heresy"
associated with Jewish religious movements in Italy, who were motivated by aspirations of
purity and sanctity of life. Furthermore, they believed the Old Testament was to be observed
in the matter of feasts and almost all other respects, including the Sabbath, which was to be
kept to the letter.
The reasons the Passagii gave for observing the law and much of the Old Testament
are to be found in their Scriptural explanations. The texts used by them to prove it is a
requirement for Christians to keep the law are the same scriptures quoted by Sabbatarians
today!
Of the Italian groups associated with the Jewish-Christian movement, Greenslade
wrote, in Schism in the Early Church (p. 103), that in 1054 a letter of Leo of Ochrida to John
of Tani, which amounted to a manifesto from Michael to Leo IX, charged the Latins with
Judaizing by their use of unleavened bread and by their observance of the Sabbath.
Neander mentions a group in the eleventh century called the "Athinganians." They
were located in upper Phrygia and united baptism with all the rites of Judaism, circumcision
excepted. Neander conjectured the possibility of their belonging to one of the older
Judaizing sects (Neander, Vol. III, p. 592).
Regarding the Passagii, Neander comments on the meaning of their name. While
some scholars feel it is derived from the Hebrew word for Passover, indicating their
observance of the feast, Neander associated it with the word passagium, meaning passage
or crusade. His conclusion was that the name pointed back to their origin, that they came
from the East—Palestine—and that they could well be one of the ancient parties of Judaizing
Christians (Neander, Vol. IV, pp. 590–591).
There is ample evidence that the original truth taught by Christ and the apostles was
brought to England at an early date. As you will note in the following sources, not all who
adhered to portions of the truth observed both the Sabbath and the Holy Days. Without
quoting the original sources given in Seventh Day Baptists in Europe and America, let us
summarize what history says. The reader need merely refer to Volume I, pages 21–35, to
substantiate what is covered in the following paragraphs.
According to Gamble and Greene, the earliest historical writings relating to the
Britons attest to the founding of the Christian church in the British Isles as early as the first
century—either by Paul or by some of his converts to Christianity (made while he was a
prisoner in Rome). There is no doubt whatsoever that Christianity was planted in England
before the appearance of the Catholic Augustine in 596.
In his biography, we are told that Augustine found the people of Britain in the most
grievous and intolerable heresies, being given to Judaizing and ignorant of the sacraments
and festivals of the church.
The British Christians were Judaistic in their observance of Easter Day, because, as
Gamble and Greene point out, they obviously observed it on Saturday—"The day which the
Scriptures point out as the one on which the Saviour rose from the grave" (The Ancient
British Church, by John Price, quoted by Gamble and Greene in Seventh Day Baptists, p. 26).
It was not until 664 that Oswald, king of Northumberland, became convinced of the
idea of apostolic succession from Peter to the then-present pope and was persuaded to accept
Easter Sunday. As a result, Sunday from that time on was hallowed in Northumberland.
As far as Ireland was concerned, Irish historians state that during the reign of
Dermond in 528 Christianity was flourishing in Ireland—and that they had received it from
the Asiatics. Scottish historians state that it was customary in Ireland, as well as in Scotland,
for the early churches to keep Saturday—the Jewish Sabbath.
Queen Margaret, in attempting to harmonize the Scottish church with the rest of
Europe, stated that the majority of the Scottish church did not reverence "the Lord's day" but
held Saturday to be the Sabbath. It seems unquestionably established that the Sabbath was
observed in Scotland as late as 1093. And in Wales, the Sabbath prevailed until 1115.
The Anabaptists first made their appearance in England about the year 1565, and they
maintained themselves as an organization for a little over a century, until they merged with
other evangelical churches. Many of the Anabaptists observed the seventh-day
Sabbath—according to Dr. Francis White, who wrote, "They who maintain the Saturday
Sabbath to be in force, comply with the Anabaptists." Labeling them as heretics, an author
writing about them in 1703 said, "Under this head I could conclude some of them under those
of Anabaptists, who have been inclined to this personal reign of Christ, and have embraced
the seventh-day Sabbath." It is obvious, say Gamble and Greene, that the Anabaptists took
up the torch where the Lollards and Waldenses left off, and continued to observe the Sabbath
for about a century.
In History of the Baptists, Benedict noted that the Waldenses' and Lollards' hopes for
a complete reformation, and return to the truth by the reformers, were disillusioned. Due to
the oppression they had so long endured, they were desirous of gaining friends and
protectors. Eventually, the various groups joined with the Reformed or Protestant party.
From time to time, Sabbath observance continued to manifest itself. Chambers'
Cyclopedia states that "many conscientious and independent thinkers in the reign of
Elizabeth (1558–1603) advocated the seventh-day." Gamble and Greene mention a work by
Samuel Kohn in which he states there were Sabbath-keepers among the Quakers, as well as among the Puritans. Regarding the Lollards, Benedict said in History of the Baptists that
separate and distinct societies of Sabbath-keeping Lollards existed as early as 1389. (For the
above paragraphs, see Seventh Day Baptists in Europe and America, Vol. I, pp. 21–39.)
In spite of persecution and unpopularity, Sabbath-keeping continued in England.
Sometimes prominent Sabbath preachers were imprisoned. Among those who advocated the
seventh-day Sabbath was William Whiston, who translated The Works of Josephus into
English (Seventh Day Baptists, pp. 108, 112).
Sabbath observance began in America about 1664, when Stephen Mumford came to
Rhode Island. Gamble and Greene give a summary of what took place as Sabbath
observance spread in America (pp. 122–133). Some of the strongest tenets of the early
Seventh-Day Baptist beliefs were those of Sabbath observance and adherence to the Ten
Commandments.
In spite of the fact that history records little about those faithful remnants of the true
church which held fast to the teachings of Christ and the apostles, we do see from time to
time groups which did appear on the scene. Most important of all, however, we have Jesus'
promise that He would build His church and that it would never die. As has been
demonstrated, the true church was not the visible church which was accepted by the world.
The visible church was accepted because it represented a synchronism of Christianity and
paganism. As early as the latter half of the second century, the antagonism toward Jewish
Christianity began to manifest itself until, eventually, nominal Christianity rejected the
"Jewish" teachings of Christ and the apostles—and accepted the Western pagan-Christian
viewpoint of freedom of self-expression. For all practical purposes, the church Jesus built
appeared to vanish from the world scene.
If the church Jesus built is in existence today, it will be practicing the same doctrine
and beliefs as recorded in the Gospels and the book of Acts. For it is in these books that we
find the incontrovertible evidence that the early church kept the Sabbath and God's
Holy Days! Spiritual truth does not change. The visible church had no Biblical authority for
changing the Sabbath and the Holy Days. Those who are members of the body of Christ,
today—the church Jesus built—will be adhering to the truth originally revealed, and will be
found observing the Sabbath and the Holy Days at the time Jesus Christ returns to this earth!
Reasons Galatians and Colossians Do Not Abrogate God's Law
Now regarding Paul's statements in Galatians and Colossians, there are several reasons
these do not teach the abrogation of God's Law.
First, these books are epistles of Paul. Peter said, of Paul's epistles, ". . . Paul also
according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles,
speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they
that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own
destruction" (II Peter 3:15–16). If Peter—a contemporary with Paul—said Paul's epistles are
difficult to understand, how much more would they be misunderstood 2,000 years later?
Second, Galatians and Colossians are not the places to begin study in order to
determine doctrine. If Paul's epistles are difficult and were wrested (perverted) in Peter's day,
how much more is the likelihood in these times of "higher criticism?" The wresting of Paul's
epistles becomes a distinct reality when scholars believe there is no continuity between the
messages of the Old and New Testaments. Or when the prevailing belief is one of the
following: (1) Each book of the Bible applies only to the time period in which it was written;
(2) the writings of Paul should be considered near the end of an evolutionary change in
doctrine; (3) the Bible is not actually inspired.
The third reason why Galatians and Colossians do not abrogate God's Law is that such
a teaching contradicts the rest of the Bible. Jesus' statement, "man shall not live by bread
alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" (Matthew 4:4), means
nothing to modern critics. But if we believe Jesus' statement that man should live by every
word of God, we must also believe His statement, "the scripture cannot be broken" (John
10:35). This means the Scriptures (Old and New Testaments) do not contradict themselves.
No single passage of Scripture can contradict another. If we say Paul teaches the abrogation
of God's Law, we are not only saying Paul contradicts the other inspired writers (Psalm
111:7–8; 119:160, Matthew 5:17, Revelation 22:14)—we are even saying he contradicts
himself! (Romans 6:1–2, 12, 15). This cannot be true!
The fourth reason is: If we say Paul taught the abrogation of God's Law, Sabbath, and
Holy Days, then Paul preached one thing and practiced another! Paul kept the Sabbath and the
Holy Days (Acts 13:14, 42, 44; 16:13; 17:2; 18:4, 21; 20:16). He told the Gentiles, "Be ye
followers [imitators] of me, even as I also am of Christ" (I Corinthians 11:1). He said,
"Those things, which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, do"
(Philippinians 4:9, I Thessalonians 2:13–14). Paul did not teach one thing and practice
another. If he had done so, the Gentiles would have been utterly confused. God is not the
author of confusion (I Corinthians 14:33). Paul believed, practiced, and taught the same
thing. Otherwise, the Gentile churches would have been hopelessly perplexed!
The fifth reason is: The Bible specifically states what was invalidated. What was
invalidated does not include God's Law! Hebrews 9:10 clearly says, ". . . meats and drinks
[offerings], and divers washings, and carnal ordinances [margin: 'rites, ceremonies'], imposed
on them until the time of reformation." Nowhere does the Bible state the Ten
Commandments, Sabbath, or Holy Days were done away! Much of the abrogated ceremony
involved those rites which the priests performed and had no bearing on the observance of the
Sabbath or Holy Days.
The sixth reason is: If Paul kept the Holy Days when he went to Jerusalem only, then
he disobeyed God's Law! But Paul said, "Men and brethren, I have lived in all good
conscience before God until this day" (Acts 23:1). Paul kept the Holy Days (Acts 18:21;
20:16). If he kept them only when he went to Jerusalem, then for many years he did not
observe them. He could not both observe them and not observe them. He lived in good
conscience before God. He could not have done so had he been guilty of not keeping God's
Holy Days for years at a time. Those who say it is an assumption that Paul kept God's
Holy Days every year might as well be honest and admit it is a greater assumption that he did
not! One thing is certain: If he kept them only when he went to Jerusalem, then he lived a
double standard—part Gentile and part Jewish! But he told Peter, at Antioch, this should not
be done! (Galatians 2:11–14).
From these proofs, the books of Galatians and Colossians do not teach God's Law is
done away! Did Christ, Paul, and the New Testament church labor in a state of confusion,
setting the wrong example for us today? Or did they set the right example? You be the
judge. Read I Peter 2:21, I John 2:6, and Philippians 4:9.
Paul and the New Testament Church
Note the following example of Paul's preaching to the Gentiles: "And when they had
appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and
testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the Law of
Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening" (Acts 28:23). Paul did not
exclude Old Testament law when it came to preaching Jesus. He knew the foundation for
the New Covenant rested on the Old. And, at that time, the only inspired Scripture from
which Paul could preach was the Old Testament.
Relative to what he practiced, Paul said, "Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of
Christ" (I Corinthians 11:1). Paul imitated Christ. Christ said man was to live by every word
of God (Matthew 4:4). Paul taught Sabbath observance (Hebrews 4:9, margin: "rest" means
"keeping of a sabbath"). Paul, like Christ, observed the Holy Days (Luke 2:42–43, Matthew
26:18, John 7:10, 37, Acts 13:14, 42, 44; 18:21; 20:16, I Corinthians 16:8). Paul knew the
basis for Christian conduct, under the terms of the New Covenant, was the same law
recorded under the Old Covenant (Hebrews 4:20). He understood the spiritual expansion of
that law. Christians are to live according to the "desire of the heart," not by legal legislation
(Romans 6:17). New Testament passages presuppose a concept easily understood by
first-century Christians—that they were to live by every Word of God. Unknown to them
were the third and fourth-century concepts abrogating large sections of the Bible and
perverting grace into license by obeying only what one "dissected" from God's Word.
We have commented briefly on Acts 18:21, but perhaps something more should be
added. In it Paul states that it was his intention to "keep this feast that cometh in Jerusalem."
As noted, of the approximately 4,500 Greek texts extant, about ninety-five percent belong
to the Byzantine family. The two other families are the Western and Alexandrian texts.
Around the middle of the nineteenth century, when rationalism and skepticism began
penetrating intellectual thought, including Bible scholarship, two ancient manuscripts were
discovered. They were designated as א and B. Both these manuscripts belong to the
Alexandrian family and date from the fourth century. They are the oldest known manuscripts
of the Greek text extant today. The assumption was immediately drawn that since they are
the oldest manuscripts they must be the best, and hence the most accurate. Both these
manuscripts omit Acts 18:21; it is found in the Received Text—the Byzantine text. The
Byzantine text was the text used by the Greek Orthodox Church and became the Reformation
or Protestant text. The א and B texts omit many of the passages found in the Authorized
Version, which was based on the Byzantine or Received Text.
Edward F. Hills, author of The King James Version Defended, explains the probable
origin of the Vatican (Western) and Alexandrian families of manuscripts. In Rome, about
the middle of the second century, a predecessor to the Gnostic heretic Marcion secured a
copy of the Byzantine manuscript. He promptly proceeded to delete or alter any verse that
gave an exalted status to Christ. Gnostics regarded Jesus as the Demiurge, a secondary god
who was alien to the Father. As a result of this work, the Western or Vatican text was
abbreviated by comparison to the Byzantine text. For some strange reason this text was
accepted by the Western church. A copy of this Vatican text fell into the hands of the
scholars in Alexandria, Egypt. They also tried to improve the text by adding to it where there
had been deletions and removing portions they thought did not belong. This was the origin
of the Alexandrian text. The end result was two corrupt families of manuscripts circulating,
challenging the Byzantine text. As a result of the work of Westcott and Hort in the late
nineteenth century, these corrupt texts became the basis for most of the modern translations.
Modern scholars failed to see the significance of the Byzantine text, especially the fact that
it was in Asia Minor that the inspired autographs of the New Testament writers were
preserved. Following the destruction of Judea in the second century, the church was centered
in Asia Minor for many years and would be the place to look for the accurate and inspired
text, not in Rome or Alexandria.
What about the assertion that the oldest manuscripts are the best? Monks who
hand-copied the New Testament text followed the same practice as the ancient Jewish
scribes. Whenever copies of the text became worn and unsightly from long use, the old
copies were destroyed, after having been replaced by new copies. Thus, there were no old
copies preserved. The very reason א and B were found in good condition was that they were
defective (discarded) copies that had not been used. Had they been acceptable copies they
would have become worn out, and eventually destroyed. The fact they were preserved is
proof they were corrupt copies. The argument that Acts 18:21 is not found in the original
text refers to the "original" corrupted texts found in the Vatican and Alexandrian families.
Acts 18:21 is found in the Byzantine text and was inspired. Those who refuse to accept Acts
18:21 as inspired in the original autograph of Luke must of necessity rely on a corrupt text
which has had texts deleted or had texts of doubtful value added. The modern translations
which omit Acts 18:21 are based on either the corrupt א and B manuscripts, or on the
rationalistic thought of mid-nineteenth century scholarship.
Is there any logic to the idea that even though the Bible states the Holy Days will be
kept in the Millennium, there is no necessity for us to keep them today? A look at the Old
Testament tells us, without doubt, the Holy Days will be observed during the Millennium
(Zechariah 14:16–19, Ezekiel 45:21, 25). Their observance during this time period
demonstrates that they have not been abrogated. The same is true of the weekly Sabbath, for
it, too, will be observed during the Millennium (Ezekiel 46:3).
However, the authority for observing the weekly Sabbath and the Holy Days now is not
because they will be observed during the Millennium. Their observance during the
Millennium simply demonstrates that they have not been abrogated.
The question which needs to be answered, with respect to the Holy Days during the
Millennium, is why the sacrifices are included.
The answer is given in Ezekiel, chapter 44. Here, we read that the Levites will be
forced to bear their iniquity, because they departed from God and went after idols (v. 10).
They will be forced to perform menial tasks and will not be allowed to exercise the duty of
officiating at the altar. That responsibility will be reserved for the sons of Zadok only (v.
15).
It will be the responsibility of all the Levites to teach God's people the difference
between the holy and the profane, and to cause them to discern between the unclean and the
clean (v. 23). Israel will keep God's Laws and statutes (v. 24).
The Bible does not state how long the sacrificial system will be in effect. Some
commentators believe it will be for a limited time period only, in order to make Israel
understand the significance of Christ's sacrifice. The sacrifices point to Christ; and when this
lesson has been accomplished and the people come to see the significance of Christ's shed
blood, there will be no further need for sacrifices.
But, the sacrifices have no bearing on the observance of God's weekly Sabbath or
Holy Days. This is proven by the fact that the Sabbath and Holy Days were kept by the New
Testament church long after Christ was "nailed to the cross."
God has a specific purpose for the institution of the sacrifices during the Millennium.
When that purpose is accomplished, the need for them will disappear. The sacrifices were
not a part of the original Old Covenant. They were an added law which God placed upon the
nation of Israel, because of their disobedience. As such, they are an addition which will be
placed upon Israel during a part of the Millennium, at least—because of Israel's
transgressions.
Some say Acts 2 (which shows the early New Testament church keeping the day of
Pentecost) depicts the spring harvest, that is, the beginning of the great spiritual harvest
which is to last throughout this entire age. Since the Feast of Tabernacles depicts the fall
harvest, it would not be kept until the end of this age when the Millennium begins. By that
line of "reasoning," why did Israel keep the Passover for nearly 1,500 years before Christ
died on the cross? The answer is that these days are kept as shadows of things to come, just
as Paul stated in Colossians 2:17. The Holy Days depict the plan of salvation and this plan
cannot be understood until one recognizes the necessity of keeping the days portrayed by this
plan.
Sabbath and Holy Days Stand or Fall Together
Is it true that the Sabbath was not done away, as were the feasts, because the Sabbath
is the center of the Ten Commandments? That Jesus obeyed the Ten Commandments but
rejected the law of Moses as binding? That the apostles taught the Ten Commandments but
rejected the ceremonial law? That the Sabbath was from the beginning, but the feasts stem
from the law of Moses?
Most of the questions listed above have been answered in this article already. Jesus
did not reject the law of Moses (Matthew 5:17–18; 23:2–3, John 5:45–47). Rather, He came
to expand it, to fill it full (Isaiah 42:21). What He did reject was Judaism—a corruption of
the law of Moses (Mark 7:6–13). The apostles did not reject the Holy Days; they kept them.
But they did recognize there was no longer any value in the sacrificial system after Christ
died. Paul did use the law of Moses as the basis for his New Testament teaching (Acts
28:23). It has already been called to the reader's attention that there is no command to
observe the Sabbath until we read it in Exodus, chapter sixteen. It is in Exodus, chapter
twenty, that we first find the Ten Commandments enumerated; the command to keep the
Holy Days precedes the command to keep the Sabbath. The truth of the matter is that those
who advocate the abrogation of God's Holy Days, while maintaining that the weekly Sabbath
should be observed, need to examine the incongruity of their arguments. The main premise
for their argument is that the Sabbath was given at creation, but the Holy Days were given to
Israel at Mount Sinai.
The truth is, the Holy Days were not given to Israel at Mount Sinai. They were given
to Israel two months before the law was given at Sinai. Since they were to be observed "in
their seasons," and the sacrificial system did not commence until the second year after Israel
left Egypt, Israel's first observance of the Holy Days was prior to the institution of sacrifices.
The sacrifices were added to the Holy Days—one year after these days were ordained.
Therefore one should not assume that just because Christ discontinued the sacrifices the
Holy Days are likewise abrogated. If the Holy Days are abrogated, then the weekly Sabbath is
also, because sacrifices were required on the weekly Sabbath as well (Numbers 28:9–10).
Those who repudiate the Holy Days, because of the sacrifices enumerated in Leviticus, must
of necessity also repudiate the weekly Sabbath. For, the weekly Sabbath is the first "feast"
mentioned in Leviticus, chapter twenty-three.
As has been previously stated, the Holy Days were given to the church (Acts 7:38). Are
we to assume that because the Holy Days were given to the church, no one but true Christians
should keep them? Conversely, if the Sabbath were given to man, are we to assume that true
Christians should be excluded from observing it? Those who say the institution of the
Sabbath preceded the Old Covenant must admit the same thing about the Holy Days.
Those who say that the Sabbath was given for a sign to identify God's people (Exodus
31:13–17), must admit the same thing about God's Holy Days (Exodus 13:9).
Those who say that the Sabbath is the only sacred day to be observed by the New
Testament church had better take another look. There is ample evidence that the New
Testament church (both Jewish and Gentile)—as well as the Apostle Paul, the apostle to the
Gentiles—observed the weekly Sabbath and the annual Holy Days.
Colossians 2:16 places the same amount of emphasis on both the weekly Sabbath and
the Holy Days.
In light of the overwhelming Bible evidence available, it is incongruous to maintain
the observance of the weekly Sabbath while at the same time repudiating God's Holy Days!
The weekly Sabbath and the Holy Days stand or fall together!
The assertion that it is not necessary to keep the Holy Days because there is no New
Testament command applies to the weekly Sabbath as well. The New Testament proves
conclusively that the church kept both the weekly Sabbath and the annual Holy Days. The
reason is that the New Testament church was the continuation of the Old. The Jewish
system, with its sacrifices and civil government, went into oblivion with the destruction of
the temple and the overthrow of the Jewish nation by the Romans, ad 70.
The New Testament church recognized that it was not the Law of God that changed,
but how the law was to be administered. The Old Testament church was a mixture of church
and state. The Law of God was enforced by a civil government. This was the "ministration
of death" referred to by the Apostle Paul in II Corinthians 3. Its glory was to fade away and
to be superseded by the ministration of the Spirit (II Corinthians 3:7–8). Today, those who
are led by the Spirit of God are under the ministration of the Spirit. Those who are led by
the Spirit of God are the sons of God (Romans 8:14). They have the mind of Christ. Jesus
Christ dwells in them by the power of the Holy Spirit. They think and do the same things
Jesus did when He was here on this earth two thousand years ago.
Christians know that Jesus Christ is the word of God personified. They know He was
the God of the Old Testament (I Corinthians 10:4). As such, they know the Old Testament
Scriptures are His words. They know Christians must live by every word of God (Matthew
4:4). What was stated in the Old Testament, in the form of commands, is not necessary to
repeat in the New. As far as the New Testament is concerned, what is shown by example and
by instruction is sufficient authority for those who have an attitude of willing compliance.
For they know that civil legislation by law cannot bring about a change of the mind and
heart.
The entire approach in the New Testament is for the Christian to obey God by a desire
of the mind and not by forced legislation. To institute the same kind of authoritative
approach and legislative enforcement found in the Old Testament would utterly defeat the
development of character by free moral agency. The experience of ancient Israel and their
inability to live up to God's requirements—requirements enforced by civil authority—is
evidence of man's inability to live up to what is required by an administrative system which
forces obedience through fear of civil jurisdiction. The New Testament ministration is the
present way God has chosen to demonstrate, to the world, that those called and chosen of
Him can live up to the spiritual requirement of His Law without an authoritative approach
and fear of punishment. The New Testament ministration is the development of character
by free moral agency, apart from coercion and fear of civil authority. It is the demonstration,
in the life of every true Christian, of willing compliance to live by every word of God. It is
God's Law in the heart and mind!
Do the Holy Days stand or fall as a unit? First, the argument should be called to our
attention that since the Passover and Days of Unleavened Bread appear to be the only two
Holy Days commanded prior to the establishment of the Old Covenant, they are the only two
which should be kept. This argument may sound logical—except for two things:
1. Why is it that after the death and resurrection of Christ, the apostles and the New
Testament church kept the day of Pentecost? In fact, they were commanded to remain
in Jerusalem until the day of Pentecost (Acts 1:4). If, as some assume, the disciples were not waiting for Pentecost, but rather for the receipt of the Holy Spirit, then what were they doing at the temple on the Day of Pentecost?
2. Why did Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, strive to keep Pentecost and the Feast of
Tabernacles? (Acts 18:21; 20:16). These texts clearly show that the Christians not
only knew they should keep the Holy Days, but they knew they should be kept in their
entirety.
If the giving of the Holy Days prior to the establishment of the Old Covenant was to
include their observance as a unit, then it is plain to see they were observed as a unit during
the first year before the addition of the sacrificial system. Those who repudiate the
observance of God's Holy Days on the basis that only those which were commanded prior to
the establishment of the Old Covenant should be kept—while at the same time adhering to
the Sabbath—had better read Exodus 20:8. The Sabbath is included in the Old Covenant.
If the basis of adhering to the Sabbath is its precedence to the "Law of Moses," then the same
must be said about the Holy Days. For the Holy Days preceded the establishment of the Old
Covenant as well. This is demonstrated by the fact that Holy Days, other than the Passover
and the Days of Unleavened Bread, were kept by the apostles!
Jesus spoke of the faithful servant—the one, who at His return, would be giving His
household meat in due season (Matthew 24:45). The significance of this statement can be
understood in the light of God's Holy Days. It is the Holy Days which are to be proclaimed in
their seasons. The inference from Jesus' statement is that, near or at His return, His faithful
servants would be giving spiritual meat in due season—on God's annual Holy Days! This text,
in itself, offers sufficient proof—to those with "eyes to see and ears to hear"—that God's
Holy Days are not done away, and that true Christians will be observing them at the time Jesus
Christ returns to this earth!
Home :: Fundamentals of Belief :: Who We Are :: Articles :: Monthly Letters
Sermon Transcripts :: Audio Sermons :: Video Sermons :: Question & Answer :: Contact & Locations
P.O. Box 775 Eugene, OR 97440-0775 (541) 344-8880
email us