I Corinthians 5:8 as a Prooftext for Christian Observance of the Feast of Unleavened Bread
In response to my post Get Ready: The Fall Holy Days Are Almost Upon Us, CGI's Jeff Reed cited I Corinthians 5:8 as a prooftext for the obligation of Christians to observe the Feast of Unleavened Bread. I responded by pointing out that Paul was addressing a particular problem in the Corinthian Church - a man was openly in a relationship with his stepmother. I quoted almost the entire chapter in my response and demonstrated that Paul regarded the toleration of this man's sin by the wider community as something that was corrupting/leavening the whole congregation/batch of dough. I went on to underscore the fact that Paul's reference to Christ as the Christian's Passover Lamb - the thing which makes us free of sin/unleavened - is what the apostle intended for them to celebrate.
Nevertheless, Jeff responded: "Lonnie's comments...are an interesting example of how the same text can be viewed so differently. To me, the entire context points to keeping the Festival. It is very clear. It sure sounds like Paul was speaking to people who kept the feast. Or how else would they understand the symbolism he is teaching? Use that same language to a group of Baptists and see if they understand the meaning without additional explanation. What Paul says makes more sense to an audience keeping the feast. Paul even gives instructions in chapters 10 and 11 about proper observance of the Lord's Supper (New Testament Passover), which precedes the Days of Unleavened Bread. Another indication this letter was probably sent shortly before the Festival was to take place."
First, I agree with Pastor Reed that this is a prime example of how a passage of Scripture can be viewed very differently by folks with an agenda (like proving that Christians are obligated to observe the festivals commanded in Torah). However, absent that agenda, if the passage is viewed in context (meaning subject matter and place in the larger epistle), I don't think that there is much room for confusion here. I invite my readers to read Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians (especially chapter 5) and make your own determination about the focus of his remarks. Was he talking about the Feast of Unleavened Bread or was he addressing the situation with a sinning brother and his situation's impact on the larger community?
Also, in so far as the passage is related to any festival, I would like to suggest that it clearly refers to the New Testament Passover - the Lord's Supper! After all, Paul did state that "Christ our Passover lamb has been sacrificed <for us>" Hence, in this context, Paul's remarks about the proper observance of the Eucharist in the eleventh chapter of the same epistle is much more consistent with the passage from the fifth chapter than any suggestion that he was speaking about the Feast of Unleavened Bread (unleavened bread was also an integral part of the Old Testament Passover). In other words, if Paul was focused on any festival, he was clearly speaking about New Testament Passover.
Finally, of course, these Gentile folks would have been familiar with these references to Torah! They would have been an integral part of Paul's preaching about Jesus Christ! Remember, Christ and his apostles used the Torah, Prophets, and Writings of the Hebrew Scriptures to preach the Good News about salvation through him to everyone - Jews and Gentiles. That does NOT, however, suggest that Christians should observe the Torah festivals - that would be a leap in logic that Scripture simply does NOT make.
I Cor 5:7-8 is a reference to the Days of Unleavened Bread. The issue is whether it is allegorical or literal. We cannot make this determination by looking at this scripture in isolation. It could be either when viewed by itself. For this same reason, the passage cannot be used as a pivotal scripture in the debate over the continued observance of the Holy Days. Verses 7-8 must be interpreted in the context of the larger New Testament body of writing.
ReplyDeleteAnother large factor that enters in centers on why the DULB might be observed, if, in fact, these scriptures mean an actual observation was taking place in the Corinthian church. My belief is that First Century Jewish Christians continued to keep the Holy Days. Paul may well have used this practice as an allegory. But I do not believe they kept these days as a requirement for salvation as we find in Armstrongism.
I believe it has been exegeted already, in a rigorous way, that the Holy Days are no longer in force. But the exegesis recruits scriptures other than verses 7-8.
So just reading the scripture and catching the vibes does not work. That is the Waterhousian approach to the Bibile. "All you have to do is read it. It says it right there." It worked for Gerald but it does not work for someone who really wants to know what the Biblical message is saying.
Scout
ReplyDeleteWhat does "then were the days of unleavened bread" (Acts 12:3) really say?
The ultimate example of proof-texting is the hilarious claim that arriving at an empty tomb on a Sunday changes the Sabbath to the day of sun worship. Everybody is guilty of proof-texting.
ReplyDeleteI wholehearted agree with you, Lonnie. This is one of those things that makes my blood boil and breaks my heart at the same time. Proper exegesis of Scripture is not exactly a strong suit in Armstrongism. Some of the cogs seem to specialize in eisegesis (I'm looking at you Dave and Bob) but are completely ignorant of the crucial knowledge of proper exegesis. Nor do any of them seemingly speak/read Greek or Hebrew, which is kryptonite for the false doctrines of the cults.
ReplyDeletePaul went out of his way in so many passages to explain that all the old holy days are no longer applicable, but the cogs just proof text those verses, without even bothering to read the entirety of the chapter(s) to get the full understanding. If only the cults would stop reading bible verses and start reading bible chapters most false doctrines would never have seen the light (or dark) of day. But the biblical illiteracy of so many congregants is a false preacher's paradise. They can convince their members a verse or passage means whatever they want it to. Obviously this works, hence Armstrongism.
Further, in John 2-13-16, John refers to "The Jews' Passover", and Jesus' extremely disruptive (but quite right!) activities in the Temple.
ReplyDeleteI believe that John chose his words very carefully, and is therefore in the same enlightened state as Paul, only actually prior to the emergence of Paul. What would we think if someone in our times today said "the Catholics' Feast of the Immaculate Conception", or "the Muslims' Ramadan"? That phraseology is indicative of someone speaking from a different perspective from the group referenced.
I remember Rod Meredith teaching us in class that the New Testament mentions Jesus and the disciples being in the Temple so many times that it just had to be because they were keeping the sabbath. John 10:22-23 uses similar language to describe Jesus being in Jerusalem during the Jewish National Holiday we have come to know as Hannukah. Why did they not use that example to insist that we keep Hannukah?
Mark 16: 1-14 is said to be the only example specifically indicating that Jesus or anyone associated with Him kept the sabbath. It was about the Galilean women in Jesus' life. Was this their habit, or was it like Peter's "I go fishing"? One thing is certain! Following them noticing that the stone had been rolled away, as the news spread, and Jesus made his appearance, it was a glorious first day of the week!
The holy days were kept in the NT. Pagan days were not. Follow the NT, not the pagans. Paul kept the Sabbath. He said we should follow him as he follows Christ. Sunday keepers don't have a leg to stand on.
ReplyDeleteSunday keepers are trying to stand on the shoulders of Emperor Constantine
DeleteI appreciate Scout's and DW's remarks. They underscore the inherent problems with prooftexting. It is the epitome of eisegesis and the antithesis of exegesis. Scripture must be understood in context and wholistically. For Christians, I would also add that it MUST be interpreted through the work and person of Jesus of Nazareth. Even so, because Herbie and his followers was/are so fond of prooftexting, I believe any effective critique of his/their teachings MUST also challenge his/their understanding of these individual passages. Also, once again, both Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread employed the absence of leavening in the symbolism of the Holy Days. Finally, the New Testament reveals that Christ was the true bread of life - the real unleavened bread (remember, it all points to Jesus).
ReplyDeleteInteresting to see into the warped way of thinking that is usually kept buried.
ReplyDeleteOh Man Lonnie! Just like politicians, when you're loosing your arguments get more outlandish!
ReplyDeleteI agree that proof-texting is a bad practice, but isn't that what takes place to deny that the Holy Days were a part of the New Testament Church?
ReplyDeleteProof texting is when someone puts their views into scripture rather than letting it inform their understanding. This happens across all denominations and church organizations. I believe there are at least two reasons.
1. To rationalize sins that you are not willing to change.
2. Cultural biases that we believe are true. Things we are raised to think or really want to believe.
I ordered a Bible in Pirate Speak (https://piratebible.com) and was told that I would get a free King James Bible delivered as well. That Bible was delivered by a couple of really nice, sincere Mormon missionaries. I had a conversation with them and let them deliver their spiel about their Prophet Joseph Smith. I knew there was probably nothing I could say to convince them from the Bible to change their opinions. Their goal was to persuade me. But as an outsider to their culture, I could easily see how they relied on proof text to support what they grew up with. Logic, history, or proper Bible exegesis would quickly destroy their arguments. But I know it doesn't matter to someone who chooses to remain ignorant. Fortunately, some Mormons eventually learn critical thinking skills and reject that false religion.
Years ago, I decided to be a skeptic and to only accept things as accurate where there was a preponderance of evidence. I find it very important to use critical thinking skills when examining scripture. And that is the way I approach the Bible. It is better to let the entire Book work as a whole than use any particular passage to prove a point. It doesn't matter to me what I want it to say. I do my best to look for the message presented in the Bible. I let the Bible change me. Although, I know Miller, Trooista, Scout, and others will assign me other motives.
The entire context of the first Letter to the Corinthians deals with various issues and doctrines of the church and includes some correction specifically for the church in Corinth. It was written before Passover and Unleavened Bread and was intended to be delivered to the Corinthians around that time. We have context clues with the topics discussed in Chapters 5, 10, and 11. Paul wanted to correct the Passover observance and used the imagery when dealing with the sexual immorality situation. Also, in chapter 16, after Paul relays his travel plans for Corinth, he mentions that he will stay in Ephesus until Pentecost. This is another indication of when the letter was written. Also, it shows that keeping Pentecost while in Ephesus is perfectly fine. So, keeping a New Testament Passover festival in Corinth would also be acceptable under New Testament practice.
So when Paul says, "Let us keep the Feast," it is the context of everything he says and teaches. His entire body of writings affirms a tradition of Holy Day keeping in the New Testament Church. That is what I conclude when looking at it from a critical perspective.
There is bias in many people who have left the COGs because of the abuse they suffered and a whole lot of idiotic leadership. So, I honestly see how someone can be biased against Jesus, His Sabbath, or Holy Days and try to discredit what is written in the New Testament.
It takes a lot of proof-texting to take a simple honest statement and turn it into its opposite.
"Arrr, me hearties! Let us be keepin' the Festival, not with the old bread full o' evil and wrongdoing, but with the unleavened bread of honesty and truth."
Anonymous 3:35 wrote, "What does "then were the days of unleavened bread" (Acts 12:3) really say?"
ReplyDeleteThis is an important question. Jesus, his disciples, Paul and other Christian NT authors all lived in the Jewish culture. Many events in the Gosopels took place in Jerusalem near the Temple. Inevitably, Jewish practice is going to be mentioned. Does a bare mention of some Jewish practice mean that from this we can take a full, flying leap into Armstrongist theology? Some of the Armstrongist spin does not even rise to the level of a good proof-text. It is just simple biased reading. Some points:
1. A bare mention does not immediately lead to a full-bore theology. A bare mention does not set aside all of Pauline theology. A bare mention may not be anything more than a comment on the scenario context. A bare mention may be a literary device. A bare mention will not be a substantive proof of anything.
2. First century Jews who were Christian almost certainly continued to participate in their culture. Christianity itself could be described as a form of Late Second Temple Judaism. Judaic Jews and Christian Jews no doubt sat next to each other in Temple worship. This does not mean that early Christian Jews regarded these cultural practices, such as circumcison, as requirements for salvation as Armstrongism asserts. (Armstrongism recognizes that circumcision is not a requirement but does not apply the principle to other cases. They instead practice containment of the circumcison principle.) This is a really, really important point that Armstrongists really, really seem to never understand. Just observing a holy day and observing a holy day in the belief it is a requirement for salvation are a world apart. The former is a cultural practice with instructive value and the latter is heresy.
3. Jesus and the disciples kept the Torah. Jesus kept the Torah at the jot and tittle level because that was his mission - to fulfill the Law and the Prophets. Jesus engaged in Temple worship. We are to follow in the steps of Jesus (1 Peter 2:21) and this includes recognizing his fulfillment of the OT and following the transition to the NT. One cannot simply follow his steps but must also follow the words he spoke that give his steps meaning and context.
On point 3 above, Armstrongists do not follow the Torah anyway. None of them wear tassels on their garments. If you were to ask, they would say "That's ceremonial" but it isn't. It was a life principle given to the entire nation of Israel and not confined just to the Priesthood and Levites.
Unless Bible readers sort these things out, a true reading of the text will be forever elusive.
Scout
In typical new covenant fashion, it's never a question whether the law should be observed, but how and what manner.
ReplyDeletePaul says in Romans 7:6 that we now serve in "newness of spirit" and not merely in the oldness of the letter. We find this illustrated in 1 Corinthians at chapter 9:9-10 and chapter 5:8.
"Let us celebrate the holyday"?
I, like most of Orthodox Christianity, view the new testament Passover/Lord's supper as a sacrament, a religious service, and not a holyday. This is shown by the fact that some take it daily, some weekly, monthly, etc. Celebrating the holyday with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth speaks for itself as to what is implied.
Also, I don't dispute Lonnie's scenario about the man taken in sin and how it was affecting the church. What we see is that the Holyday season and theme thereof was the perfect and ideal time to drive home that particular lesson!
I've stated numerous times here, and on my own blog, that there is abundant evidence in the New Testament canon that Jesus and his apostles (including Paul) were Torah observant Jews (including the Sabbath and Holy Days). This issue, however, is whether or not Scripture mandates the observance of these days by the entire community of believers - Are New Covenant Christians required to observe the festivals outlined in Torah? I believe that an overwhelming preponderance of the Scriptural evidence available to us suggests a resounding "NO" to that question!
ReplyDeleteNow, while I have no problem with Jeff and my other ACOG friends trying to observe these festivals, I feel strongly compelled to push back against any suggestion that God requires this of ALL Christians. If Jeff is convinced that he should observe the festivals in accordance with CGI practice/tradition, then he should do exactly that, and I sincerely wish him happiness and blessings in that regard. Failing to do so would violate his personal conscience, and he would NOT be acting in faith to ignore his personal convictions on the matter. However, condemning others for failing to follow the convictions of his conscience is called judging in Scripture, and a negative connotation is definitely attached to that behavior.
I agree with Jeff's statement about proof-texting, and he is probably right about what motivates most folks to engage in the practice. It's too bad that most of his ACOG brethren do not agree with him. However, whatever motivates these folks to engage in the practice, I hope that we can all agree that they are using these passages of Scripture to JUSTIFY their beliefs and practices. This is the exact opposite of the way that Scripture should be interpreted - what most scholars refer to as exegesis. In other words, we are supposed to draw meaning out of a text rather than impose our own notions on it. And, while it is certainly scriptural to be ready to explain why we do what we do, it is another thing entirely to use these texts to impose our own understanding on others.
Hence, we can attribute whatever meaning we want to impose on Paul's epistle to the saints at Corinth, but our notions cannot change what Paul actually said or what other texts have to say on a particular subject. Once again, I invite our readers to read the epistle for themselves without any commentary from me or Jeff. That completed, I think that you will be in a position to answer the question: Was Paul using the symbolism of leavening to point out the effect of one man's sin on the entire congregation? OR Was Paul enjoining this Gentile congregation of Christians to observe the Feast of Unleavened Bread? Was Paul telling them to celebrate the fact that Christ was sacrificed to pay the penalty of our sins? OR Was he instructing them in how to observe the Days of Unleavened Bread? Jeff and I have reached our conclusions - what about you?
Scout wrote,
ReplyDelete"None of them wear tassels on their garments. If you were to ask, they would say "That's ceremonial" but it isn't. It was a life principle given to the entire nation of Israel and not confined just to the Priesthood and Levites."
"Speak to the children of Israel: Tell them to make tassels on the corners of their garments throughout their generations, and to put a blue thread in the tassels of the corners. And you shall have the tassel, that you may look upon it and remember all the commandments of the LORD and do them, and that you may not follow the harlotry to which your own heart and your own eyes are inclined, and that you may remember and do all My commandments, and be holy for your God." Numbers 38:38-40
Under the New Covenant Priesthood of Jesus tassels are not neccessary because the law is written into our hearts (Hebrews 8:6-12).
"None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them" (Hebrews 8:11).
This law is kept by a Christian having God's Holy Spirit. For me personally, wearing tassels would now be disrespectful to Jesus.
"For me personally, wearing tassels would now be disrespectful to Jesus."
DeleteSo, is that to rationalize sins that you are not willing to change, or cultural biases that you believe are true?
On subject of tassels/fringes: Num 15:38 was an added law not now necessary because the Holy Spirit is now available to help in remembering the commandments...
ReplyDeleteDeut 22:12: the meaning is twisted thread which the clothing you have on right now probably has twisted thread at the edges, unless you're dressed in tattered rags.
Jeff said:
ReplyDelete"Under the New Covenant Priesthood of Jesus tassels are not neccessary because the law is written into our hearts (Hebrews 8:6-12)."
What about the other 612? Who gets to decide which laws get written and which get tossed?
Perhaps we could convene an ACOG Sanhedrin.
Tassels look good on a nice pair of Italian loafers. Seeing as how I currently own a pair, I guess you could say I'm Torah-compliant at least to that extent.
ReplyDeleteI understand that if I were a member of (yuckkkkhh!) the RCG, Buzz-Kill Dave wouldn't let me wear them to sabbath services.
You should see how the late Richard Close of UCG PA/NY switched around Jesus' words of "my yoke is easy and my burden is light" by cleverly willy-nilly sliding some Strong's Concordance terms around.
ReplyDeleteMr. Close was allowed by a few top leaders in hierarchies to push onto us of Jesus's words actually meaning the "burden is heavy" or "pushing as at an oar rowing" after cleverly, subtly sliding Strong's G1645 with Strong's G1643...what a tangent...what a "prophetic" "new truth". Mr. Close masqueraded as indeed the pleasant gentleman he was, but was allowed to be boisterously changing scripture around. His leaders trusted the tangent without fact checking, and if a layperson did bring it up to "prove all things", this error of Mr. Close was disregarded as a "non-salvation issue".
Hello Lonnie: I enjoyed your article and think I’ve learned more about the dangers of Armstrongism. A few days ago, NO2WHA posted a piece by Doug Winnail, titled "LCG: Unable to resist temptation, LCG members are unable to persevere", which I think illustrates how evil proof-texting can be.
ReplyDeleteThe scriptures Doug quoted in his message are holy and should be contemplated. However, Doug arranged a few scriptures out of their context, with the purpose of scaring, bullying, and indoctrinating the people to stay within his church.
Doug did not mention the assurance that God will complete the work he started in you (Philippians 1:6) because Doug doesn’t want the people to rest in Jesus. Doug needs the people to be fearful and trying to earn their own salvation – otherwise, the people won’t remain enslaved to the Armstrongite gospel.
The eighth chapter of Romans shows us that the Holy Spirit is the way to putting to death the sinful nature and we have full assurance that not only does God love us, nothing can separate us from that love.
As evidenced by Romans 8, the ministry of the Holy Spirit is to sanctify us, hold us, remind us that we are loved, remind us we belong to God, and remind us nothing can separate us from God. The ministry of Doug Winnail and all Armstrongites is the opposite of the work of the Holy Spirit.
"Sunday keepers are trying to stand on the shoulders of Emperor Constantine"
ReplyDeleteI always have to laugh when I read this kind of codswallop. It always tends to be someone who hasn't read anything outside of an Armstrognite booklet on church history. Hislops Two Babylons is your second Bible, a totally debunked and historically inaccurate race-baiting pile of nonsense.
Ralph Woodrow, the author of the 3rd Bible of the COG, Babylon Mystery Religion finally woke up and recognized the inaccurate writing in his own book and in Hislop's book. He later recanted his first book and wrote one explaining why he was wrong in The Babylon Connection?.
I doubt you would ever read Woodrow's book since it is much easier to keep believing old "truths" that the church used as propaganda than ever opening your mind up to explore new possibilities on how wrong we were.
The Two Babylons: A Case Study in Poor Methodology https://www.equip.org/articles/the-two-babylons/
didn't Constantine issue an executive order edict in 321 a.d. dictating to all so called "Christians" that they hereby switch their 7th day sabbath henceforth over to Sunday?
Deletehttps://www.britannica.com/topic/Sunday-day-of-week
Nothing changes here. Armstrongites continuously visit here to gratuitously pass gas, not realizing how effective our air purification system is.
ReplyDeleteRalph Woodrow probably came to the conclusion that a fake Roman Catholic Christianity is better than atheism, so he recanted on his original writings. This line of reasoning is used by ministers of all Christian denominations when errors are pointed out in their denominations teachings.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said...
ReplyDelete"Ralph Woodrow probably came to the conclusion that a fake Roman Catholic Christianity is better than atheism"
That's a pretty nasty accusation to lob against Ralph Woodrow by a Church of God hypocrite. His conclusions were built upon fact through well-researched topics and Christian principles, unlike those that continue to parrot Armstrongism as if it were a good thing.