Thursday, September 16, 2021

The Lord's Appointed Festivals

Over the years, I have written extensively about "the Lord's appointed festivals" (Leviticus 23:2, NLT), and their relevance for New Covenant Christians. In this regard, I have often voiced my opinion that Ronald L. Dart's The Thread: God's Appointments with History represents the very best work on this subject ever produced by any of the Armstrong Churches of God. Indeed, I believe that Mr. Dart's understanding of the symbolism behind the Holy Days is far superior to anything that Herbert or Garner Ted Armstrong ever produced on the subject! However, while Mr. Dart's understanding of the ways in which these days symbolized the ministry of Jesus Christ was profound, like Herbert Armstrong before him, he made the mistake of insisting that Christians were still under obligation to observe them.

In The Thread, Mr. Dart wrote an appendix entitled "In Defense of the Holy Days" in which he acknowledged and attempted to answer some of the objections to requiring Christian observance of the days. Mr. Dart identified four basic arguments against Christian Holy Day observance: 1) They were intended for Israel and apply only to them, 2) They were part of the Levitical ceremonial system and were rendered irrelevant at the cross and/or at the destruction of the Temple by the Romans, 3) They were only to be observed at the Temple in Jerusalem, and 4) They all symbolized things which Christ fulfilled and were consequently "no longer binding on Christians."

Now, in beginning to answer these objections, Mr. Dart opened his apology with a question: "Whose days are they?" Unfortunately, it has been the practice of most Armstrongites to only quote a portion of the scriptures which actually answer that question. In the twenty-third chapter of Leviticus, we read: "The Lord said to Moses, “Give the following instructions to the people of Israel. These are the Lord’s appointed festivals, which you are to proclaim as official days for holy assembly." (verses 1-2, NLT). Yes, they are "the Lord's appointed festivals," but also notice that these were "instructions to the people of Israel." Yes, we read in the sixteenth chapter of the book of Deuteronomy that these days were to be celebrated "in honor of the Lord your God." (verse 1, NLT), but we also read there "Each year every man in Israel must celebrate these three festivals: the Festival of Unleavened Bread, the Festival of Harvest, and the Festival of Shelters." (verse 16, NLT) Hence, while it is clear that these festivals belonged to God, it is also very clear that they were specifically intended for the people of Israel (and it is more than a little disingenuous to pretend otherwise).

In similar fashion, from a Scriptural perspective, there is simply no denying the fact that these Holy Days were an integral part of the Levitical ceremonial system. Indeed, throughout the Torah, it is made clear in a number of places that the Levitical priesthood was tasked with specific responsibilities relative to these days (there were sacrifices and offerings associated with them). Moreover, these same scriptures make very plain that there was only one place that would be appropriate for these things to be observed - Jerusalem! Notice that, in speaking of the Passover celebration, "it must be sacrificed to the Lord your God at the designated place of worship—the place he chooses for his name to be honored." (Deuteronomy 16:2, NLT) A little later, in the same chapter, we read: "You may not sacrifice the Passover in just any of the towns that the Lord your God is giving you. You must offer it only at the designated place of worship—the place the Lord your God chooses for his name to be honored." (verses 5-6, NLT) Likewise, the Festival of Harvest (Pentecost) was to be celebrated "before the Lord your God at the designated place of worship he will choose for his name to be honored." (verse 11, NLT) Also, the Festival of Shelters (Tabernacles) was to be celebrated "at the place he chooses." (verse 15, NLT) And, finally, just for emphasis, we read in the second portion of the verse quoted above from this chapter: "On each of these occasions, all men must appear before the Lord your God at the place he chooses..." (verse 16, NLT)

Indeed, the designation of a single place of worship was foreshadowed in the twelfth chapter of that same book. We read there: "Do not worship the Lord your God in the way these pagan peoples worship their gods. Rather, you must seek the Lord your God at the place of worship he himself will choose from among all the tribes—the place where his name will be honored. There you will bring your burnt offerings, your sacrifices, your tithes, your sacred offerings, your offerings to fulfill a vow, your voluntary offerings, and your offerings of the firstborn animals of your herds and flocks. There you and your families will feast in the presence of the Lord your God, and you will rejoice in all you have accomplished because the Lord your God has blessed you." (Deuteronomy 12:4-7, NLT) Continuing, we read: "you must bring everything I command you—your burnt offerings, your sacrifices, your tithes, your sacred offerings, and your offerings to fulfill a vow—to the designated place of worship, the place the Lord your God chooses for his name to be honored. “You must celebrate there in the presence of the Lord your God with your sons and daughters and all your servants. And remember to include the Levites who live in your towns, for they will receive no allotment of land among you. Be careful not to sacrifice your burnt offerings just anywhere you like. You may do so only at the place the Lord will choose within one of your tribal territories. There you must offer your burnt offerings and do everything I command you." (verses 11-14, NLT) And, once again, just so there could be no room for misunderstanding, we read: "But you may not eat your offerings in your hometown—neither the tithe of your grain and new wine and olive oil, nor the firstborn of your flocks and herds, nor any offering to fulfill a vow, nor your voluntary offerings, nor your sacred offerings. You must eat these in the presence of the Lord your God at the place he will choose. Eat them there with your children, your servants, and the Levites who live in your towns, celebrating in the presence of the Lord your God in all you do." (verses 17-18, NLT)

In other words, all serious students of the Hebrew Old Testament understand that the "Law of the Central Sanctuary" was an important component of the Torah. It was made very clear to the Israelites that YHWH would not tolerate numerous places of worship (as was the practice among the pagan nations which surrounded them and then occupied the land which God was about to give them). The principle was initially illustrated to them in the form of the Tabernacle, which eventually came to be associated with Shiloh. However, even first year Bible students understand that the ultimate and final place which God designated for central worship was the Temple at Jerusalem. This principle, along with the eventual designation of Jerusalem, is NOT disputed by any serious student of the Bible! Hence, the question naturally arises: What happens when that Temple and Jerusalem ceased to be available to them as a place of worship?

After King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon destroyed Solomon's Temple and Jerusalem and carried Judah into exile, we know that festival observance ceased for a while. We read in the book of Lamentations: "Jerusalem, once so full of people, is now deserted. She who was once great among the nations now sits alone like a widow. Once the queen of all the earth, she is now a slave...Judah has been led away into captivity, oppressed with cruel slavery. She lives among foreign nations and has no place of rest." (Lamentations 1:1-3, NLT) Continuing, we read: "The roads to Jerusalem are in mourning, for crowds no longer come to celebrate the festivals. The city gates are silent, her priests groan, her young women are crying— how bitter is her fate!" (verse 4, NLT) In the following chapter, the devastation is even more vivid. We read there: "Yes, the Lord has vanquished Israel like an enemy. He has destroyed her palaces and demolished her fortresses. He has brought unending sorrow and tears upon beautiful Jerusalem. He has broken down his Temple as though it were merely a garden shelter. The Lord has blotted out all memory of the holy festivals and Sabbath days. Kings and priests fall together before his fierce anger. The Lord has rejected his own altar; he despises his own sanctuary." (Lamentations 2:5-7, NLT) Nevertheless, we know that some of the exiles eventually returned, rebuilt Jerusalem and the Temple and resumed the observance of God's festivals (see Ezra and Nehemiah).

Scripture also makes clear that Jesus, his apostles, and the early Church continued to observe those festivals in Jerusalem. However, when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 CE, the observance of those festivals by the Jews and Jewish Christians ceased once again. As a consequence, they were faced with the same question which had troubled the Jews of the Babylonian Captivity before them: What happens when the Temple and Jerusalem are no longer available as the place to observe the festivals? And, for Christians, there was another question: Was it a coincidence that the Temple and its rituals ceased to exist within forty years of the death, burial and resurrection of their Savior?

For Jews, the historical evidence suggests that the Roman destruction of Jerusalem and God's Temple had profound consequences for their religious practices. In his article The Temple and its Destruction: A look into the psyche of ancient Judaism, Rabbi Irving Greenberg recounts the story of how many Jews spent the next sixty-plus years trying to reassert their independence and rebuild Jerusalem and the Temple. However, with the defeat of the Bar Kochba Revolt, he noted that "hopes for an immediate restoration of the Temple were set back indefinitely." Hence, if the Jewish religion was going to survive, they were going to have to modify their religious practices (including festival observance) to accommodate their new reality.

In her article JEWISH LITURGICAL RESPONSES TO THE ROMAN DESTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLE, Ruth Langer traced the development of some of those modifications of Jewish religious practices. She began by reminding her readers about the status of the religion prior to the destruction of the Temple. Langer wrote: "Until its destruction, the Jerusalem Temple was the religious center of Jewish life. It was there that hereditary priests and Levites offered the daily elaborate, covenant-maintaining sacrificial worship commanded by God in the Torah (Pentateuch). Individual Jews, even from afar, participated vicariously through their annual half-shekel tax (Ex 31:13-16) and by local gatherings when “their priests” took their turn (m. Taan. 3). Crowds gathered for the three annual pilgrimage festivals; others offered personal sacrifices when possible– in thanksgiving, or for purification, including from sins."

Nevertheless, after the Roman destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple rendered the continuation of such practices impossible, Langer skillfully traced the development of three major ritual responses to that disaster: "salvage, ritualized mourning, and eschatological hope." She wrote: "The third-century rabbinic texts record that one of the first acts of the surviving rabbis after Temple sacrifices ceased was to determine possible points of continuity. Which non-sacrificial Temple rituals could persist, at least with some modification?" Langer went on to observe: "The rabbis taught a liturgical system that fulfilled the most important functions of Temple rituals but in new, purely verbal forms."

She then went on to cite a specific example of how this was implemented with regard to the observance of Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement). Langer wrote: "Atonement for sins was a Temple function that transferred easily to this rabbinic, non-sacrificial context. While still evoking memories of the day’s elaborate Temple rituals, the day came to focus on confession and penitential prayer. Atonement for many sins, though, could be sought every weekday, through the regular liturgy. Thus, the most significant Temple functions were modified or transferred, providing Jews with ritual continuity."

In speaking of the ritualized mourning which was incorporated into the Jewish religion, she wrote: "Rabbinic texts recall that after the destruction, pietists sought to implement an all-pervasive mourning, banning consumption of meat and wine and even marriage and procreation. The rabbis argued this was unsustainable: not only would people openly rebel, resulting in outright disobedience to God’s Torah, but this path’s full logic would complete the Roman’s goal of wiping out Israel. Total, paralyzing mourning was logical, but it was not feasible. Instead, they advocated, a constant low-level of mourning should pervade Jewish life. One should leave an obvious patch unplastered in one’s house, something should remain uneaten at a meal, and a piece of jewelry should remain unworn (t. Sot. 15 end; b. BB 60b.)."

Likewise, in her discussion of the impact of eschatological hope, Langer observed: "Liturgical expressions of this hope for restoration appear constantly. The rabbinic weekday prayer petitions God to provide all the necessary elements of the messianically restored state, including its place of worship. The additional services of festive days not only recall the day’s sacrifices, but also pray for their restoration. For the last half-millennium, 'Next year in Jerusalem!' has concluded the Passover Seder. In some synagogues, it concludes the Yom Kippur fast as well." In these ways, Langer informs us the rabbis who survived the Roman destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple sought to effect "a major rethinking of the way the Jewish community stands before God."

In a real sense, Herbert Armstrong sought to do the same thing for Christians - to rethink how these festival practices could be applied to Christians in the Twentieth Century. The problem with this reasoning will be readily apparent to anyone who is trying to scrupulously follow the Scriptural formula for observing these festivals - It is currently impossible to do so! In other words, in order for anyone (whether they be Jew or Christian) to "observe" these days, significant alterations of the original instructions are necessary to make that happen.

Now, we come at last to what Mr. Dart characterized as the fourth major argument against Holy Day observance by Christians: "All of the holydays are types which are fulfilled in Christ and are therefore no longer binding on Christians." In response, I would say that The Thread makes this point more eloquently than I ever could! In that book, Mr. Dart meticulously makes the case for how each one of the festivals symbolically portrayed different aspects of Christ's work. And, if his musings in this regard are correct (and I believe they are), we are forced to conclude that ALL of the Holy Days find their fulfillment in Jesus Christ. Hence, Paul's statement to the Colossians that these things "were shadows of the reality yet to come...And Christ himself is that reality" (2:17, NLT) makes much more sense. In other words, the reality is always more meaningful than that which pictures/portrays it!

Nevertheless, I also share Paul's view that we shouldn't ever allow anyone to judge us with regard to whether or not/how we (Christians) choose to observe these festivals. I can also say without equivocation that my own experience of Christ has been enriched by my familiarity with (and observance of) these days. Are Christians required to observe them under the terms of the New Covenant? Absolutely NOT! However, I believe that it is possible for Christians to gain a much better insight into/understanding of the work and person of Jesus Christ by familiarizing themselves with these festivals which the Lord appointed for Israel. And I can think of no better work to explain them than the one contributed by Mr. Ronald Dart and referenced in this post!

Sources:

The New Living Translation of the Holy Bible

Dart, Ronald L. "The Thread: God's Appointments With History," Wasteland Press, 2006.

Greenberg, Irving. "The Temple and its Destruction: A look into the psyche of ancient Judaism." My Jewish Learning, Accessed 16 September 2021.

Langer, Ruth. (2021): “Jewish Liturgical Responses to the Roman Destruction of the Temple,” The Yale ISM Review: Vol. 6: No. 1, Article 3, Accessed 16 September 2021.

5 comments:

  1. Miller:

    I find this essay insightful and thought provoking. I appreciated Ron Dart's sermons when he was at Big Sandy. He spoke just about every Sabbath during his tour of duty there. He had a newly acquired hair piece back then so I never saw him sans toupee. He reached a level of profundity that was very uncommon for the Big Sandy stable of speakers at that time.

    Let me mention something that occurred to me while I was reading your essay. Judaism was not only theological and liturgical but also geographical as you point out. When cut away from its geographical moorings an essential component in the praxis of Judaism was lost.
    Temple worship and all of its connection with the OT implementation of Judaism proper was lost. My observation is, "Isn't that exactly what God intended?" The implosion of Judaism in 70 AD was punitive.

    Yet, Yohanan ben Zakkai, a prominent Pharisee, founded the Academy of Jamnia with Roman sponsorship to re-package Judaism into a form that could be practiced without temple worship. Was this a good thing? Might it not be viewed as a circumvention of God's punishment? Can we regard ben Zakkai as somehow inspired?

    This only recourse God made for the Jews after the Destruction of the Temple was a form of Second Temple Judaism called Christianity. For instance, Paul in Colossians seems to have thought that traditional Judaism after Christ had become just another worldly philosophy like Stoicism. It might have an ethical value and some pragmatic use but it was simply not The Way.

    And in modern times, HWA's reconstituted, refurbished and modernized Holy Days might also be regarded as an attempt to circumvent the punishment God intended. This is paradoxical because his BI theories featured the God-ordained punishment of Israel prominently. HWA's ideas no doubt were based on Diasporic Judaism and he could not see over the historical horizon to Temple worship. Had he been able to, he might have built a temple. He did appropriate the idea of God "placing his name." I recall an article in The Good News Magazine by Hoeh that placed God's name for the FoT in Gladewater, TX. And I recall some referring to the auditorium in Pasadena as the House for God with some Temple implications.

    When Jesus spoke about fulfilling The Law in every jot and tittle, it was a Temple-based law he was talking about. That law in all of it meticulous detail cannot be written on anybody's heart because the sacred building and geography is no longer there. Yet the intensification of the OT Law is what Armstrogists assert is now valid.

    I did not know that Dart had written this book. I may look around for it. I find it intriguing as to how he came up with the idea that the Holy Days were required. Certainly, just developing a homiletic symbology, that maps the life and actions of Christ to the Holy Day calendar would not be the raison d'etre (one of Dart's favorite expressions).

    I enjoyed your essay. It is the kind of searching treatment we need to see more of. Thanks.

    Neo

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, NEO! You can still obtain a copy from his CEM - here's a link: https://www.borntowin.net/product-category/printed-materials/books/
      Most folks seem to completely gloss over or dismiss the fact that the Temple in Jerusalem was central/essential to Judaism as defined by the Pentateuch. Judaism continues to be a vibrant religion, but it is NOT the same religion outlined in the first five books of the Hebrew Bible! Likewise, HWA's resurrection of the Holy Days does NOT bear a great deal of resemblance to what was outlined in those same scriptures.

      Delete
    2. Hi Miller, some good points you raise. I have been thinking lately how strange it is that we presume to say that "God places His name..." here or there... when clearly the Bible shows that God places his name in Jerusalem. How many of the ot practices the COG employ and hope people don't realise the facts. For example tithing. Tithing is specifically on PRODUCE (of the land of Israel) and is to be given to a PRIEST. None of which is possible today in US. Now to argue the principle of tithing is a different matter, and not what the COG do. It is a law, and to not do it is stealing! We gloss over the fact that the NT Church did not practice it, and wasn't instituted after Christ till around 4th century. What about other inconsistencies in the COG, like no trumpets on the day of trumpets, no booths on the feast if booths...it is fine to celebrate the feasts as clearly there is NT meaning, but to "keep" them is impossible today. Many practices of the COG are actually just following HWA tradition because he said...that is fine if that's what you want to do, but let's call a spade a spade. Thanks again for you post, and look forward to reading more from you.

      Delete
    3. Thanks, your observations about tithing are spot on! I appreciate comments, even from those who do not see eye to eye with me on some issue - that's the way everyone grows.

      Delete
  2. In defense of their conclusion that Christians are obligated to observe the Holy Days, Armstrongites love to point out all of the occasions in the twenty-third chapter of Leviticus where we read "it shall be a statute for ever." Even so, the folks who use this defense may want to consult a good concordance and take a look at all of the other places where this language is employed (and take a look at the original Hebrew word translated into English as "for ever" (KJV) or "forever" (modern English translations). In other words, why aren't Christians still observing all of those other forever statutes? Are Armstrongites guilty of cherry-picking?

    ReplyDelete