Does Acts 20:6 Prove That the Philippians Were Observing the Days of Unleavened Bread?

The ACOG's have long employed this passage from the book of Acts (20:6) as a prooftext that the saints at Philippi were observing the Feast of Unleavened Bread. However, as with the passage from Paul's first epistle to the Christians at Corinth, the passage does NOT demonstrate Gentile observance of this festival. Once again, one must ignore the context and infer that the reference to the days of unleavened bread suggests that these Gentile folks were observing them. Let's take a closer look.

In the preceding chapter (Acts 19), we are informed that Paul had left Ephesus after its citizenry had almost rioted when they perceived Paul and his companions as posing a threat to the well-established worship of Artemis there. Continuing in the next chapter, we read: "After the uproar ceased, Paul sent for the disciples, and after encouraging them, he said farewell and departed for Macedonia. When he had gone through those regions and had given them much encouragement, he came to Greece. There he spent three months, and when a plot was made against him by the Jews as he was about to set sail for Syria, he decided to return through Macedonia. Sopater the Berean, son of Pyrrhus, accompanied him; and of the Thessalonians, Aristarchus and Secundus; and Gaius of Derbe, and Timothy; and the Asians, Tychicus and Trophimus. These went on ahead and were waiting for us at Troas, but we sailed away from Philippi after the days of Unleavened Bread, and in five days we came to them at Troas, where we stayed for seven days." (20:1-6, ESV here and throughout)

I don't know about you, but that sure sounds to me like the author of Acts was attempting to establish a timeline for some reason. The chronological landmarks in this text stand out to me: three months in Greece, a voyage to Syria, part of the company of evangelists going on ahead to Troas, the rest of their number following after the days of Unleavened Bread, and finally arriving there five days later (and apparently stayed there for a week). Why? Why the detailed chronology? Could it have anything to do with what followed? Was the author supplying all of these chronological landmarks for some purpose?

Continuing with this account, we read: "On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them, intending to depart on the next day, and he prolonged his speech until midnight. There were many lamps in the upper room where we were gathered. And a young man named Eutychus, sitting at the window, sank into a deep sleep as Paul talked still longer. And being overcome by sleep, he fell down from the third story and was taken up dead. But Paul went down and bent over him, and taking him in his arms, said, 'Do not be alarmed, for his life is in him.' And when Paul had gone up and had broken bread and eaten, he conversed with them a long while, until daybreak, and so departed. And they took the youth away alive, and were not a little comforted." (Verses 7-12) Hmmm, is it possible that the author was providing enough details of the events surrounding one of the great miracles of Paul's ministry so that his readers would see that it had a believable and/or verifiable context?

This seems even more likely as we continue with the account. Next, we read: "But going ahead to the ship, we set sail for Assos, intending to take Paul aboard there, for so he had arranged, intending himself to go by land. And when he met us at Assos, we took him on board and went to Mitylene. And sailing from there we came the following day opposite Chios; the next day we touched at Samos; and the day after that we went to Miletus. For Paul had decided to sail past Ephesus, so that he might not have to spend time in Asia, for he was hastening to be at Jerusalem, if possible, on the day of Pentecost." (Verses 13-16) By the way, just as an aside, this passage appears to be a firsthand account of the events described therein. I interject this only because many critics of the New Testament claim that most of the narrative was penned by folks who weren't there to witness the events they were describing.

Anyway, while it might be reasonable to infer from those references to the Days of Unleavened Bread and Pentecost that Paul (or some of his companions) continued to observe some or all of the Torah festivals, I hope that we can all acknowledge that it would be quite a stretch to deduce from these passages that festival observance was widespread among Gentile Christians of this era.

Also, in terms of context, we would be remiss if we didn't point out that all of these events were leading up to Paul's final journey to Jerusalem and eventual transfer to Rome as a prisoner. In other words, the author of Acts was clearly building to the conclusion of his narrative about Paul's ministry. Paul is the main character of this narrative, and all of the Christian communities mentioned in that narrative are there to underscore Paul's work among the Gentiles of the Mediterranean world.

What exactly are we getting at? Think of telling the story of Herbert Armstrong without mentioning Eugene, Oregon or Pasadena, California! Think of telling his story without referencing chronological landmarks like the beginning of the publishing of the Plain Truth, the commencement of the radio broadcast and television program, the deaths of Richard and Loma, the disfellowshipping of Garner Ted, etc. And, if we mentioned that some event happened before Easter or after Christmas of some year, it would obviously be absurd for future generations to deduce from those references that Herbert Armstrong observed those holidays! In other words, let's not get carried away with what we infer from these references! Acts 20:6 as a prooftext for Gentile observance of the Feast of Unleavened Bread? I think NOT!