Holy Days

The next “difficult scripture” taught by the church had to do with the Holy Days still being “in effect” and that they should be kept today. We'll go through the scriptures they used one by one – and see how they explained it, and what the explanation by the majority of Christianity is likely to be.

The first scripture they quote is Leviticus 23:2 and 4. The church claimed that the feasts are God's, not the Jews. This explains why we didn't use standard Jewish versions of the Holy Days to describe the convocations. Yet, It wasn't uncommon for others in “The world” to call us “Jews” due to our adherance to what were considered “Jewish” holidays. By the letter of the law, this is correct – but these festivals were given TO the Israelites – they were not given, in any way, in the new covenant to the Gentiles. In addition to this, the purposes for the festivals – burnt offering and sacrifice – were not mentioned in their sacrifice, because they re-interpreted the festivals to another meaning, or should I say, application. It was all too common for them to use Leviticus 23:31 and Leviticus 23:41 to prove that these festivals were to be observed “Forever”. The scripture says “Forever, in all your generations”, or in the NLV “This is a permanent law for you”. They often, in my memory, quoted these scriptures over and over again on holy days to prove that you were commanded to be there at the Holy Days. However, there are many other scriptures that speak about “forever” commands that were ignored as not in effect anymore because they involved ritual or washing ceremonies and not part of the “civil law” they claimed to keep. However, these laws had exactly the same wording in it - “forever”. Besides this obvious fact, these festivals and ceremonies had imbedded non-changable commands that could not be observed past the end of sacrifices and sacrificial commands due to the desecration and destruction of the Temple with the obvious commands of burnt offerings. There is no real way – besides completely mishmashing the Law and tearing it to smitherines using pick-and-choose interpretations – that the Feast can be kept without a temple and a sacrificial altar. These laws were intended to be kept forever, in THEIR generations, for them – those who were not revealed the aspects of faith in place of the aspects of law. As long as they were under the Law, they were bound by the Holy Day and Festival commands and all practices contained with the Festival and Holy Day commands. When Jesus yelled “It Is Finished”, the law was fulfilled – completed (see the word used for fulfill in the Greek) – and these sacrifices could never accomplish what Jesus accomplished Himself anyway.

The Church taught that the sacrifices were given to Israel – using Exodus 12 and 13. This is not disputed. What is disputed is the church's claim of exactly who Israel was – using British Israelism, a completely disproven theory – to prove that descendants of the United States and Britain were real “natural born Israelites” - in the words of Herbert Armstrong. First – it was given to the Nation of Israel's native-born Israelites. Second, it coutained mandatory offerings for it's purpose – which cannot be done today. Third, the Armstrong version completely eliminated the scriptures in the New Testament which are not prejudice to slave or free, or to Jew of gentile – but uses a spiritual law of Faith to obtain the promises of Abraham.

The Church also taught that the Days of Unleavened Bread were the Identifying sign between God and His people – using Ex. 13:9 and Jeremiah 7:21-23 as a backbone support of this doctrine. This may have been the case with the Old Testament and God's relations with the people of Israel – but the identifying sign in the New Testament is not the Days of Unleavened Bread - or the Sabbath - it is faith in Jesus Christ – which is a recurring theme throughout the New Testament. To use the Old Testament Days of Unleavened Bread as THE sign between God and His people is to ignore and trample on what Christ accomplished through his death and resurrection and completely ignore the whole purpose of the death of Christ and the revealing of Faith in the New Testament as inconsequential. In the New Testament, Jesus IS the Unleavened Bread.

As a sidenote to this, the Church taught that Jeremiah 7:21-23 states that when God began “instituting” the Holy Days that He did not institute burnt offerings or sacrifices at that time. That verse, Jeremiah 7:21-23, states that it was not burnt offerings or sacrifices he wanted – just as he does not want them today. He wants people to listen to Him and to obey Him – which people all through history have stubbornly refused to do. This verse does not change the fact that sacrifices and offerings were a part of the Holy Days in the law exactly as commanded – and for those who keep the Law, they are a part of the Whole Law, and as the Law states, cannot, from the Law, be added, or subtracted from. To use one scripture to alleviate what chapters clearly command as part of the Law is cognitively dissinant and wholely theologically incorrect. This verse was misinterpreted to support their doctrine, and clearly missed the entire context of the chapter quoted. Cherry picking and proof-texting was all too common in Armstrongism – as was reading into scripture ideologies and meanings that were simply not there, but assumed that they were.

And finally, they make the point that Jesus observed the Passover, the Days of Unleavened Bread, Tabernacles, and the Last Great Day – quoting from the Gospels – again, not realizing the simplistic basic fact that these days were kept by Jesus while the Law was in effect under the terms of the Old Covenant in the same principal as Paul – to be with and congregate with the people at their festive and at that time, before the resurrection, commanded occasions. The fact that Jesus kept them is great. The fact that others want to follow his example and keep them too is also wonderful. But to use these scriptures to go back to a generation and a way of life that Jesus has fulfilled and completed in his death and resurrection is to absolutely miss the point completely.

They also use scriptures that the New Testament Church AND the Apostles also kept the Holy Days as basis that you must also keep the Holy Days. They quote scriptures relating to Passover, Unleavened Bread, Atonement, and Feast of Tabernacles – and even went so far as to say that Paul told the Colossians not to let anyone condemn them for observing the Holy Days.

Is this what Collosians really said?

Collosians 2:16-17 states this:

“So don't let anyone condemn you for what you eat or drink, or for not celebrating certain holy days or new-moon ceremonies or Sabbaths. For these were only shadows of the real thing, Christ himself”.

The Church took this scripture, which was meant, in context using the entire chapter, to encourage those who did NOT keep certain days or new moons or Sabbaths – because they had many people at that time who were well aware they were “law-breakers” and ready to condemn them for not keeping the Law. These versed did not say that they were not to let anyone condemn them for observing the Holy Days. What the context of the chapter really says is not to let anyone condemn them for NOT observing the Holy Days. This was a complete flip of scripture to support their minority and unsubstantiated – and incorrect – viewpoint.

Finally, they use Zechariah 14:16 to prove that in the Millenium reign of Jesus Christ – that since all will be keeping the Feast of Tabernacles, all the Holy Days will have to be kept, so you might as well keep them now.

The purpose of the Zechariah prophecy has been debated for many generations. The Church taught that “those who would be in God's kingdom had better learn to observe them now” based on this prophecy.

The Zechariah prophecy was written in terms and in symbols that they could understand. Remember – faith had NOT been revealed yet, so how could they possibly understand faith? Jesus spoke in parables and riddles even to his disciples in his ministry – how could they even understand without the power of God's Spirit? Regardless of these elemental basics, it is extremely clear that these scriptures were absolutely symbolic in nature, and were given to the people of Zechariah's time in language they could understand to know the depth and breadth of the growth of God's Kingdom and the strength it has against any opposition. They could not in any way understand what had not yet been revealed to them, but is revealed to us in this generation through the gospel of Jesus.

Regardless of what was said on the pulpit or in official teachings, the same conflict of the Sabbath was in place with the Holy Days as well regarding specific commands for the Holy Days. The Law was said to be in effect – people knew that. They also were well aware that only sacrifices and ritual offerings were discontinued from the Law – they knew that too – portions of the law that were not the “civil law”, they were told. However, there were scriptures in the Law as part of the commands of the Law – especially regarding the Holy Days – that were not sacrificial – nor could they be seperated from the Law – that were ignored. These scriptures were often passed over and skipped over as they were considered not relevant – besides the sacrificial and offering laws that obviously were changed “in application” because they could not be done today, but yet, the Holy Days, of course, were still “in force”, “forever”.

Because of this conflict – that the Law was still in effect in the spirit, but not in the letter, but the letter was quoted from as a command, but the other laws were changed in application for the present – many just took, frankly, a “Whatever” stand-point and put the full blame on the minister if they “kept the law” incorrectly. There were laws on exactly what to do on the Day of Atonement – which were completely thrown out, reducing the day of atonement to a tenth of what it used to be, if that. There were laws that concerned the Feast of Trumpets – such as the blowing of trumpets, ironically, which were ignored in favor of standard Armstrongism service format due to the application being changed. There were laws that concerned the Feast of Tabernacles regarding the Sukkot, the branches, the waving of palm branches, and other commands that were discarded in favor of an application change – as long as “the festival itself was kept”. There were laws regarding Pentecost as well. Each Holy Day, due to it's application being changed, became a shell of what it used to be, if even that – using the name but completely changing the intended purpose – all while saying the Law was in force but changed in application. The “Law” they were so proud of was, at best, muddled and trampled down to even a fraction of the burden that the Israelites were under while the Israelites were attempting to, in burden, keep the entire law without making a mistake, or risk the ultimate penalty, in many cases.

These days, under Armstrongism, were neither days as defined in the Law, nor were they kept “holy” under American Armstrongism. They were a fragment of their intent, under the concept of a changed application under a shell that they claimed was to be “forever” kept. Keeping a luxurious vacation while attending a conference with a pile of hard-earned money was never the intent of the Feast of Tabernacles. The Feast of Tabernacles was a place for offering and sacrifice. The only offering at the Feast was monetary, and an income boost for Pasadena – in part, to help pad the coffers of the elite who already lived in luxury.

In the Armstrongism model, the Holy Days became a day – sunset Friday exactly to sunset Saturday exactly – in which there was no employed work - and focus on the spiritual, whether that be in music, in dress, in fellowship, and in service. The few things that were observed were observed rigorously to enact a sense of righteousness. The many things that were not were explained away as either not needed, for ancient Israel, misinterpreted, mistranslated, or simply judged as not binding from the ministers.

In personal experience, the day was restful, but to say there was no work would not be accurate. Mindfully, there was no employed work – that simply wasn't done. But meeting halls were still set up, sound systems were still operating. Travel to church still happened – in internal combustion cars, and conversations at services were usually anything “but” holy with many of the congregants. We went to restaurants, and allowed others to work under our direct hire. We listened to music at home, and had a day of relaxation. It was basically a day off – with church. I personally doubt if anybody truly recognized what the word “holy” was, or meant in Armstrongism. For as much as we tried to be different, and as much as we tried to resemble a semblance of “holiness”, the conversion of peasant to businessperson in the church archives – without television, sports, radio, or secular interaction – seems about the right way to put it.

That is, until exactly the hour and the minute of sunset came, in which case we were free to be our carnal selves all over again for yet another six days.