New Page 1

“DIFFICULT SCRIPTURES”
Re-edited comments in Purple By TM

Chapter 9

Categories of Proof Page 106

This acquaints us with the weight and authority of New Testament teaching and instructional passages. They operate on a higher level of authority than either Old Testament law or prophecy and, along with New Testament commands, are the supreme authority to which Christians should look when determining doctrine and practice in the church today.

We understand how New Testament teaching modifies Old Testament laws and prophecy on matters such as circumcision, sacrifices, and the priesthood. But do we also accept its authority on such matters as meats and sabbath days? Or do we make the mistake of weighting law and prophecy over plain New Testament instruction? I’m afraid that is exactly what we did in years past in the Worldwide Church of God, following our own notions of what constitutes “proof.”

There is New Testament teachings on the annual festivals just as there is on foods and meats. There are verses that speak directly to the matter of “a festival, or new moon or sabbaths.” There are several passages in which the observance of such days is discussed and explained. Have we let these authoritative passages shape our doctrine and practice, or have we largely dismissed them as “difficult scriptures” in the hard-to-be-understood Epistles of Paul?

Speaking from my own experience, I would have to say we looked at such passages with deep suspicion and distrust if not downright hostility. We did not refer to these New Testament instructional passages much at all. Rather, law, prophecy, and Bible example were seen as more authoritative

Page 107

proofs than plain New Testament teaching. Why? Because these passages did not fit our prevailing Old Covenant doctrinal paradigm. Our solution was to produce imaginative explanations that usually reversed the originally intended meaning of the verses. It is clear to me now that we simply could not accept what the many New Testament teaching passages on the annual festivals had to say. Instead, we had to radically revise and reinterpret them to fit our doctrinal scheme.

Thankfully, as the result of the reforms we have experienced of late, we have come out of this doctrinal denial and can now openly examine what these passages actually say. We will do just that in the next chapter, but let’s first briefly review this discussion of categories of proofs.

We’ve looked at five categories of proofs: Old Testament laws, New Testament laws, prophecy, Bible example and New Testament teaching and instruction. We’ve seen it is the New Testament commands and teaching that are the strongest proofs and carry the highest level of authority for Christians today. We have noted that Old Testament law, prophecy, and even the example of Jesus and the apostles must be interpreted and understood in the light of New Testament teaching and commands.

If, for example, both Old Testament laws and Bible prophecy seem to suggest the observance of new moons (and they do), and New Testament teachings suggest that their observance is not required (and it does), then Christians abide by the New Testament teaching and do not require the observance of new moons.

Traditionally, following the lead of Herbert Armstrong, we have not always done this. On important doctrinal issues, including the dietary laws and annual festivals, we have weighted Old Testament laws, prophecy, and

Page 108

Bible examples over New Testament instructions and commands. The way we went about determining or “proving” our doctrines was very convincing to many, but it brought us to various wrong conclusions.

It is time to correct not only these wrong doctrinal conclusions but also the methods that produced them. It is time to bring both in line with the teachings of the New Covenant of Jesus Christ, not the Old Covenant and the law of Moses.

We will now give our full attention to the New Testament instructional passages on the annual festivals.

Chapter 10

The Verse Herbert Armstrong

Couldn’t Explain

Page 109

In the New Testament, God has given us several authoritative passages; that comment specifically on the observance of days, including the weekly and annual sabbaths and the new moons. Although they comprise God’s New Covenant instructions, and are regarded by most Christians as authoritative statements on the subject, these scriptures, unfortunately, were dismissed and devalued by the Worldwide Church of God.

In reviewing our traditional explanations of these passages, it became apparent to me that various techniques were used to minimize their importance. First, they were dismissed out--of--hand as though they didn’t require further explanation. Second, they were labeled “difficult scriptures” because we had great difficulty explaining them according to our doctrinal world view. Third, when we did try to explain these passages, we invariably had to concoct odd and strange interpretations which seemed to undermine the context of the passage as well as the author’s original intent.

The net result was a patchwork quilt of explanations. All of the verses in question are actually quite similar in content and intent, yet we assigned a different interpretation to each. Where one would expect a certain unity and coherence, one found instead a hodgepodge of ideas all pointing in different directions, with no common threads or unifying themes.

Page 110

One striking feature in the literature we published on this subject is that over the years we explained these verses different ways at different times. In this chapter we will show how elusive the “plain truth” can be when one labors, as we did, under an erroneous premise.

Let’s begin with the verse that Herbert Armstrong could not---or would not---explain. I think you will find this eye---opening. I know I did.

A correct understanding of Colossians 2:16 is critically important to the question, “What days are Christians required to observe?” In Romans and Galatians the exact nature of days under discussion in arguable. Some say, as the Worldwide Church of God once did, that the days Paul admonishes Galatians about in Galatians 4:10 are pagan, Gentile holidays. Sabbatarians usually interpret the days mentioned in Romans 14 as fast days or some kind, not days for worship. (We will examine these passages and positions later.)

In Colossians 2:16, however, we have a verse that unquestionably refers to the sabbaths, and new moons of the Old Testament, “Therefore let no one judge you in food or drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths.” There can be no confusion regarding the meaning of “a festival or a new moon or sabbaths.” Sabbaths were clearly not of Gentile or pagan origin.

In Colossians 2:16 we have the most critically important verse of the New Testament regarding the observance or non-observance of the days enjoined as statutes under the Law of Moses. Of all the passages in the New Testament on the subject, this verse strikes right to the heart of the sacred days dispute. It is essential that we get this one right.

Page 111

So how did Herbert Armstrong explain this verse? Well, actually he didn’t. We will shortly see how he dismissed it without any real explanation. Most uncharacteristically, he left the task of explaining this verse to others.

Herbert Armstrong’s treatment of Colossians 2:16 can be found in his Pagan Holidays---or God’s Holy Days---Which? It appears in the same introductory passage I quoted from earlier in connection with the law of Moses. Let’s examine a few paragraphs to see how he presents his case. Under the subhead “Study This Twice,” Mr. Armstrong writes:

“Let us warn too, that certain objections will be sure to come to mind---all of which, will be dealt with and explained later on…. Such arguments as The annual Sabbaths are part of the law of Moses, …or Col. 2:16 does away with the annual Sabbaths, are not Scriptural.”

Here Mr. Armstrong states two of the most serious objections to the observance of the annual festivals---namely, that they are part of the law of Moses (which we have already carefully examined), and the problem posed by Colossians 2:16, which labels these days as “shadows.” Yet he devotes only one paragraph to Colossians 2:16 in which he repeats his earlier argument that the weekly Sabbath and annual Sabbaths stand or fall together”:

Colossians 2:16 refers, not ALONE to the annual sabbaths, but to the annual days, the monthly new moons, AND the weekly SABBATH. Whenever the Bible uses the expression “sabbath days” with new moons and holy days, it is referring to THE WEEKLY SABBATH DAYS, the ANNUAL holy days or feast days… If Colossians does away with one, it also abolished the other.

Page 112

The argument is simple and direct, but it explains nothing. He says, in effect that Colossians 2:16 treats both the weekly and annual sabbaths the same way, and since “we all know the weekly sabbath is binding, we know Colossians 2:16 can’t possibly be used against the observance of the annual sabbaths or festivals.” That is Mr. Armstrong’s entire “explanation” of the verse!

But what is meant by “let no man judge you”? Why did Paul call sabbaths and new moons “a shadow of things to come” in verse 17. What did Paul mean mean by “shadow”? And following Mr. Armstrong’s line of reasoning that all of the things spoken of in this verse stand or fall together, shouldn’t Christians then, also observe the new moons?

Herbert Armstrong is, on any and all of these matters, strangely silent. He, perhaps very wisely, does not try to explain this verse. I can find no place in the Worldwide Church of God literature index where he ever tried. He merely dismisses it by declaring that since it obviously can’t be used against the weekly sabbath, it obviously can’t be used against the annual sabbath either. He makes no other attempt to explain the meaning of this critically important verse.

What about this approach? Is it responsible? For years, we in the church simply went along with this high—handed, authoritarian style of scriptural exegesis. It is astonishing that a verse as important as Colossians 2:16 could be so casually dismissed, and that efforts to bring it into discussion were branded “Not Scriptural.”

What about God’s admonition that we “search the Scriptures” and “prove all things”? If we truly believe “all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine,” then we must apply that principle to the study of Colossians 2:16.

Page 113

The church’s casual treatment of Colossians 2:16 did not result in a right and proper understanding of this important verse. Once again, we must critically evaluate not only the conclusions but also the methods we used to support our views---for here is yet another example of how we were led off track.

Later Attempts at Explaining Colossians 2:16

In the later literature of the Worldwide Church of God, there were two separate attempts to explain Colossians 2:16, neither of which was written by Herbert Armstrong. Both appeared in The Good News, a magazine offered to church members and co-workers. The first of these appeared in the September, 1960 issue under the title, Does it Matter What Days We Observe? The second, The Colossian Heresy appeared in the July/August, 1989 issue, more than three years after Herbert Armstrong’s death. The articles were written by different authors and have substantial differences between them.

Let me briefly summarize how each article treats Colossians 2:16-17. The 1960 Good News article concludes that the Christians at Colossae were being judged by the ascetic Gentile community for their observance of the sabbaths, new moons, and festivals. According to the author, “They were enjoying the Christian life in temperance and self-control, and especially in connection with each feast, every new moon and the weekly sabbaths!”

Then what did Paul mean by his statement that these days were “shadows of things to come”? Doesn’t that suggest that once the reality of these days had been fulfilled in Christ, their observance was no longer required? No, not

Page114

according to this article. “Shadow” acquires a curiously positive quality, and the author arbitrarily declares that “it is “better translated which foreshadow things to come.” Precisely why that is a better translation is not explained.

But based on that interpretation, the author develops his explanation of “shadow”:

Did these scriptural days foreshadow things to come? Indeed! Does the weekly sabbath foreshadow things to come? Indeed!… In like manner the annual festivals, instituted as memorials, also foreshadow the plan of God. They were given to the Church in order to keep the Church in the knowledge of that plan.

So the phrase “shadow of things to come” is viewed auspiciously, and is not to be contrasted, in the usual literary sense, with either substance or reality. According to this view, shadows are actually foreshadows or the plan of God, and as such, Christians must continue to observe them.

That is, at the very least, an original interpretation; the word shadow is never used in the scriptures to mean the foreshadowing of yet future events.

In this same article we find yet another explanation seldom found outside the Worldwide Church of God. The article goes on to define “the body of Christ” (v.17), not as the contrasting term for shadow, but as a reference to the church of God, citing Colossians 1:18 as proof, “And He is the head of the body, the church…”

According to this argument, we should let no one judge us concerning our observance of sabbaths, new moons, and festivals, except the church of God. Thus the church had the power and authority to determine whether the

Page 115

annual festivals should be kept, and appropriating that authority, the Worldwide Church of God determined, of course, that they should.

This innovative, prophetic interpretation of “shadows” coupled with equating the body of Christ with the church was, for years, the backbone of the church’s teaching on Colossians 2:16-17. Countless “difficult scripture sermonettes” were given at Ambassador College and in local congregations, rehearsing these ideas, and following this line of reasoning.

The 1989 Good News piece on Colossians, however, took a different tack altogether. This article argues for the unconditional adequacy of Christ and that Christians are complete in him. The author, for the first time in Worldwide Church of God literature, allows that Paul indeed is contrasting shadow with body or substance. Thus, he departs from the earlier “foreshadow” interpretation and does not try to make “body of Christ” into the church of God:

The matters listed, despite the claims of the Colossian heretics, could not transcend Christ, who is now the body (emphasis his), the substance, the very center of God’s plan of salvation. All else is a mere shadow that holds no value as a replacement for Christ.

This article was published more than three years after Herbert Armstrong’s death. It is doubtful, in my opinion, that it could have been written and published during his lifetime. For the first time in our church literature, “shadow” and “body” were contrasted in the typical way in which the verse is translated and understood. More to the point, shadow is used the way the Bible elsewhere uses the term. “Shadow” no longer is used to convey

Page 116

an attractive meaning or a “foreshadowing” of yet future events. The article continues,

The heretics, then, were ignorantly trying to push the church of Colossae out of the light and into shadows. Even God’s law had a “shadow of good things to come.” Even so it could not make the comers thereunto perfect (Hebrews 10:1).

And in this same article we see, again for the first time, another Bible passage introduced in which the term shadow appears. Hebrews 10 uses that same term when discussing the sacrificial law. Perhaps we can see why Mr. Armstrong was not inclined to delve into the verse, its words, and its meaning. He may not have wished to see the sabbaths and new moons associated with the now unnecessary animal sacrifices.

The 1989 explanation of Colossians 2:16-17 headed in the right direction and moved closer to the full meaning of the passage. The author rightly prioritizes Christ over commandment keeping. He writes,

Paul is not saying that there is no value to obeying God’s law. He is saying that any act one could care to mention---circumcision, keeping the new moons, sabbaths, etc. (2:11-17)----cannot replace or transcend Christ…

Paul could point out that, without Christ at the center, absolutely nothing would stand, no matter how many of God’s commandments one would care to keep, and no matter how strictly one were to keep them.

Page 117

As much as it was a step forward, the article left unanswered whether the sabbaths and new moons are required of Christians today. It courageously addressed words and related verses that Herbert Armstrong so carefully avoided, but failed to arrive at any practical conclusions. To be fair, given where the worldwide Church of God stood on doctrinal matters in June 1989, only three and a half years after Mr. Armstrong’s death, that is all it could be expected to do.

Did we all “speak the same thing” over the years? Hardly. On this verse, for which understanding about observances is so critical, we have had different arguments and explanations at different times by different ministers and authors.

We need to be mature and honest enough to acknowledge this very imperfect state of affairs. Can we humbly admit to having had a poor understanding, at best, of the one verse on sacred days we should understand the most, and the one for which we should have a good, clear, and consistent explanation?

I would like now to examine this verse even more fully in its New Testament context and squarely face its implications. It is time—in fact, long past time—that we do.

Chapter 11

Colossians 2:16-17

as the Bible Explains It

Page 119

Colossians 2:16-17 is not at all difficult to understand if we follow a principle we often quoted in the Worldwide Church of God. We always said we should let the Bible interpret the Bible. And we always said we could understand a Bible subject by putting together all the Scriptures that pertain to that subject.

What I am bout to show you is that all the key terms and phrases used in Colossians 2:16-17 can be found in other New Testament passages. Two of the phases essential to understanding this scripture are found elsewhere in Paul’s writings. Both shed considerable light on what Paul meant to convey.

In the previous chapters we saw how the Worldwide Church of God formerly explained these verses and how it was not until after Herbert Armstrong’s death that church scholars were able to discuss in writing the “difficult scripture” passages found in Paul’s epistles. In this chapter we will come to understand these verses just as Paul meant them to be understood. But I must tell you in advance that when you understand what Paul really meant, you no longer will be able to accept the Worldwide Church of God’s traditional explanation of Colossians 2:16-17.