In yesterday's post, we talked about one of the Biblical texts (I Corinthians 5:6-8) employed by Herbert Armstrong and his followers to prove that Christians are obligated to observe the Old Testament Feast of Unleavened Bread. Unfortunately, this passage was not the only one they employed in this capacity.
In his booklet Pagan Holidays - or God's Holy Days - Which?, Herbert Armstrong wrote: "It is faithfully recorded in the New Testament that the Church, during the period its history covers, was keeping those days! In Acts 20:6: 'We sailed away from Philippi after the days of unleavened bread.' Paul and companions plainly had observed the days of unleavened bread at Philippi. The Holy Spirit could never have inspired such words otherwise. Notice also Acts 12:3: 'Then were the days of unleavened bread.' Why this, if those days had, in God's sight, ceased to exist? Notice, it is not anyone ignorant of what was abolished making this statement. It is Almighty God saying it through inspiration of the Holy Spirit. This was years after the crucifixion. The days of unleavened bread still existed, or the Holy Spirit could not have inspired 'then were the days of unleavened bread.'"
Do these scriptures do what Herbert Armstrong said they do? Do they prove "that the Church...was keeping those days"? Were the festivals abolished? Did they cease to exist? And, if the festivals weren't abolished, does that mean that Christians were/are obligated to observe them?
In attempting to answer these questions, we should all be able to agree at least that the author of the book of Acts used Unleavened Bread as a marker of time. Moreover, it is reasonable to conclude from this fact that the author, Paul and his traveling companions were aware of the timing of this festival. Likewise, it is even plausible to suggest that these verses indicate that Paul and his companions were observing this festival. However, it is a gross abuse of these scriptures to assert that they demonstrate that the entire Church was observing this festival.
Frankly, I don't know of any serious student of the Bible who believes that Holy Day observance ceased among the Jews at any point prior to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple by the Romans in the year 70 CE. Likewise, I don't know of many Biblical scholars who would dispute the fact that Jesus and his disciples observed the festivals of Leviticus 23 (along with Purim and the Feast of the Dedication). After all, they were all practicing Jews. Nevertheless, none of these scriptures (I Corinthians 5:6-8, Acts 20:6 or Acts 12:3) prove that Gentile Christians were ever expected to observe the Feast of Unleavened Bread.
In fact, history and Scripture refute the notion that festival observance was universal in the Christian Church of the First Century. For example, we know that Gentiles had no previous experience or traditions relative to Sabbath and Holy Day observances. And, we know that the Jerusalem Council ruled against those Jewish Christians who sought to impose the tenets of the Old Covenant on Gentile converts (see Acts 15 and Galatians 2). Moreover, in his letter to the Colossians, Paul specifically instructed that Gentile congregation not to permit other folks to judge them regarding their observance (or lack of observance) of these festivals (see Colossians 2:16). Finally, we know that festival observance as outlined in the Torah became impossible after the events referenced above in 70 CE.
Hence, as Christ's instruction to carry the gospel to all the nations of the world was finally carried out by Jewish Christians and more and more Gentiles were converted and baptized, the number of folks within the Church who continued to observe these days steadily declined. In fact, it is reasonable to conclude that there were many more Gentile Christians by 70 CE than there were Jewish Christians. And, because of the events of that year, the number of Christians observing these days at the close of the First Century would have been miniscule (and they could not have been observing them in the manner prescribed by the Torah).
We are, therefore, forced to conclude that Armstrong's "prooftexts" do NOT demonstrate what he claimed they demonstrated (that Christians were obligated to observe the Feast of Unleavened Bread). And it would be disingenuous/inaccurate to suggest that anyone had abolished those days, or that they had somehow ceased to exist. One cannot abolish or exterminate that which was NEVER enjoined upon Gentile Christians!
Herbert Armstrong said that Colossians 2:16 "refers, not alone to the annual Sabbaths, but to the annual days, the monthly new moons, and the weekly Sabbath" (see the above referenced booklet). He went on to say: "If Colossians does away with the one, it also abolishes the other."
ReplyDeleteArmstrong, however, has erected a straw man with this language. Paul wasn't abolishing anything! He is merely telling the saints of Colossae that they should not be intimidated by what others were saying with regard to Sabbath and Holy Day observance. Likewise, Christ didn't "abolish" these days - he FULFILLED them! Hence, the notion that anyone was "doing away" with these days is absurd and deliberately misleading.
Miller:
ReplyDeleteI should mention, as a backdrop to my writing, that I do not believe that someone who dies an Armstongist has lost salvation. I believe that the Christian message is only coherent if it is Universalist. And this is evangelical universalism where there is a rehabilitative hell (like purgatory, not an eternal damnation) and that everyone will be renewed in the apokatastasis. Everyone must confess Christ to receive salvation. My belief is that if one believes that God is good and God is at the same time omnipotent, there is not other conclusion.
What I write may be construed as a condemnation of Armstrongists and a belief in their consignment to hell. But this is not so. I just do not bring this up on Gary's blog because I do not think there is an audience for it.
NEO,
DeleteThanks for the clarification - Based on some of your previous comments on this blog, I suspected that might be the case (and it has made me careful about how I respond to you on Gary's blog). As you know, I want to discredit the Armstrongist notion that Christian identity (and the salvation which stems from its founder's sacrifice) is in any way dependent on the depth of one's theological understanding.
It probably seems incongruous to you and indicative of cognitive dissonance (and I'm willing to allow that it may be that I am not yet familiar enough with the subject), but I would describe myself as a near universalist. For me, the presence of so many scriptures suggesting that not everyone will make it in the end gives me pause from fully embracing the notion that everyone will be saved. Like you, I cannot imagine a loving, just and effective God allowing that number to be large, but Scripture does seem to be explicit that some folks will end up being consumed in the Lake of Fire (not trying to convince you that I'm right about this - just trying to extend to you the same courtesy which you extended to me - explaining the backdrop to my comments).
Miller:
ReplyDeleteI agree with your analysis of the DULB. Armstrong was clearly recruiting the scripture in a self-serving way. There are some issues concerning the Jerusalem church that I have not had a chance to look into. Is the practice of Christianity the same for everyone? Some have claimed that the Jews still were under OT requirements even though Gentiles were not. The Jerusalem conference in Acts did not abrogate the Torah for Jews. And factor in the question of why was Paul so upset at circumcision. I am of the view that the New Testament rendered the Torah and other Writings to be cultural and no longer covenantal. And Paul was not objecting to circumcision as a cultural artifact but to its being made a requirement for salvation.
-- Neo
Yes, Jewish Christians continued to observe the elements of their people's covenant with God. Most of them, however, realized that Christ had fulfilled those requirements, and that they were consequently NOT part of the terms of the New Covenant. I like the way that Paul explained the concept to the mostly Gentile Christians of Colossae: "When you came to Christ, you were 'circumcised,' but not by a physical procedure. Christ performed a spiritual circumcision—the cutting away of your sinful nature. For you were buried with Christ when you were baptized. And with him you were raised to new life because you trusted the mighty power of God, who raised Christ from the dead. You were dead because of your sins and because your sinful nature was not yet cut away. Then God made you alive with Christ, for he forgave all our sins. He canceled the record of the charges against us and took it away by nailing it to the cross." (Colossians 2:11-14, NLT)
DeleteRegarding the diversion I sent your way:
ReplyDeleteYou wrote: "I want to discredit the Armstrongist notion that Christian identity . . . is in any way dependent on the depth of one's theological understanding."
You are delving into a very complex topic and that is: What are the epistemological requirements for salvation? Are there any? This has broad implications for Christian belief and practice. For instance, is there really any such thing as heresy? Against what epistemological standard is heresy to be measured. If there is no epistemological standard does this buttress Inclusivism, the idea that a good Buddhist (or whatever) has as much right to expect salvation as a good Christian, direct knowledge of Christ be hanged.
And what about one of my buddies. He rejects Christianity but is a highly moral person based on the influence of Christianity on American society, although he would be loath to admit this as the origin of his morality.
It is clear that God is the Judge in these cases, but I believe there has to be a collection of essential Christian beliefs, shared among Christian denominations, that represent both the necessary structure of Christianity and salvific knowledge. God may be more or less gracious than I am in the way that this is implemented and applied. But the collection exists.
Regarding Universalism, this belief is much more than it used to be.
Robin Parry has extensively addressed the ancient Greek and Hebrew language issues that are used by infernalists to counter Universalism. If nothing else, Parry's work apprises us of the fact that Bible translators have always surcharged their work with pre-existing doctrinal views - including the KJV translators who are much vaunted in Armstrongism because of their "Israelitish" heritage. Armstrongism is the only organization that exults in a racial imprimatur on the translation of Scripture.
Notice I said "the DEPTH of one's theological understanding." Yes, of course, I believe that some knowledge is required for one to become a Christian. I'm of the view that one must believe in God, and that "He" will reward those who diligently seek "Him." I'm also of the view that one must understand the concepts of sin and repentance, what Christ has accomplished on his/her behalf and be willing to accept his sacrifice as effecting his/her own salvation. I believe these things constitute essential knowledge for a new Christian. Yes, I too believe that God expects growth in character and knowledge after the fact, but the level of understanding which each individual achieves in this lifetime will necessarily vary (widely).
DeleteI share your belief that Jesus Christ is the way to salvation - that a person must accept Christ to be saved. Like you, I now regard Armstrongism as being heretical. I also believe heresies exist within every other human organization which claims to represent or be a part of the ekklesia. Thus, if heresy represents disqualification for Christians, I'm afraid that we're ALL in trouble. How much heretical doctrine will God tolerate? I don't pretend to know the answer to that question, but I'm thinking that it's probably quite a lot (judging from the diversity of opinion within the Christian community). My experiences in Armstrongism taught me that we like to exclude each other based on this or that. We like to feel like we are superior to the other guy - that our understanding is much better than his. From God's perspective, we ALL fall short - some of us more than others, but we ALL fall short.
If you're interested, the following post still reflects my views about the essential beliefs of the Christian religion:
https://godcannotbecontained.blogspot.com/2017/08/the-essentials-of-christianity.html
Let me know what you think.
NEO, thanks for the discussion. Push back helps us to either modify our perspectives/views and/or sharpen our justifications for our beliefs. I'm still thinking about the universal salvation thing...
ReplyDeleteThis kind of debate is complex at the boundaries but simple at the core. I believe there is much wisdom in the apothegm "In essentials unity; in nonessentials liberty; in all things, charity." Yet this only works among organizations with cognate Christian theologies. A splinterist would tell you that unleavening your home is an essential and if you refuse to do it, you should be disfellowshipped and incinerated in Gehenna. If you have a congregation of people who adhere diligently to this principle, where do you place them in the soteriological journey? Are they earnest seekers who just need a tweak?
ReplyDeletePaul wrote of those who believed in the salvific value of circumcision:
"Now I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you."
We could recast this as:
"Now I, Paul, say to you that if you unleaven your homes, Christ will be of no advantage to you."
Its the same model for unleavened bread as it is for circumcision - the illicit incorporation of an OT ceremony in the NT. And further it is one datum on which Christianity seems to pivot. Could there not be an entire body of such data that is a required body of knowledge for Christian belief. Of course, there would be the recognition of Christianity as a developmental process involving progressive revelation. But what about someone who has occupied a seat in a splinterist congregation for 15 years and adamantly believes something that runs counter to explicit NT teaching and this person feels that they have an excellent grasp of he Bible and they need look no further.
The fact that they seek God when searching for their next car does not really seem to be a sacramental act given the circumstances.
-- Neo
Neo,
DeleteWe agree that Christians are NOT responsible for observing the tenets of the Old Covenant. We appear to differ in our estimation of the status (Christian or non-Christian) of anyone who does not share our view of these observances.
You point out Paul's statement regarding the salvific value of circumcision as determinative in this instance. I would say that Paul was attempting to educate those within the body who had either accepted or were contemplating accepting circumcision as a requirement for Christians. In my opinion, he is educating them about the fact that Christ alone accomplishes their salvation - not anything they do. Moreover, if Paul is actually telling them that accepting the practice of circumcision is disqualifying, what would that mean for Jewish Christians? Other folks believed that eating certain foods was a disqualifying behavior. How did Paul react to those notions? He understood that those folks were wrong, but he was unwilling to exclude them from fellowship on that basis. In other places, Paul seemed to assign a great deal of importance to personal conviction, and the role that an individual's conscience played in how they behaved with regard to their faith/beliefs. And, what about what Paul wrote to the Colossians about the observance of Holy Days?
I already cited Philip's experience with the Ethiopian, but what about the numerous instances in the book of Acts? How much theology did the 3,000 absorb from one message by Peter? (see Acts 2). How much theology did those folks who became Christians as a consequence of Peter and Johns preaching absorb? (see Acts 3 and 4) What about the folks who hadn't even heard about the Holy Spirit? (see Acts 19) Sure, Paul corrected their ignorance, but we are left to wonder about the extent of their theological comprehension even after he had done that. Without an explanation of modern Christian theology (developed over much of the almost two thousand years now since they walked this earth), how much of it would Peter and John comprehend? Do you think that either one of them ever had access to all of Paul's epistles during their lifetimes? Did the Sabbath-keeping Jewish Christians who accepted Sunday-observing Gentile Christians disqualify themselves?
Finally, what is explicit and clear to me and you may not be so obvious to someone else? Does their failure to see what we see exclude them from the Body of Christ? And, if we are expected to grow in grace and knowledge, doesn't that imply that the understanding of every Christian needs refinement? Am I failing to seek God because I don't currently accept the concept of universal salvation?
Neo,
DeleteAfter reviewing what I wrote earlier, I wanted to make clear that I believe that anyone who thinks that Sabbath or Holy Day observance is going to earn him/her salvation is on VERY shaky ground (wouldn't want to be in their shoes). And, although I cannot make a definitive judgement (because of my inability to discern what's in another's heart), I am prepared to acknowledge that a significant number of Armstrongites may NOT be part of the ekklesia. I didn't want to leave you with the impression that I believe that anything goes. My thesis continues to be that a person's degree of understanding is NOT determinative of whether or not he/she is a Christian.