Should we reall Keep Feast Day?

HEAR YE THE ROD

the voice of God

Should We Really Keep the Feast Days?

The subject of whether or not it is binding upon Christians today to observe the feast days has become a hot and very divisive topic in the remnant church. As I have read through materials promoting the observance of the feasts I have found that the inspired writings from Moses to Victor Houteff are repeatedly misapplied. While there are many arguments pro and con, this writer is concerned with but one thing—what does inspiration really say? To that end I will endeavor to provide answers to the following questions:

1. Are the feast days really a part of the moral law?

2. Did Paul really keep the feast days after his conversion?

3. Did the early Christian church really keep the feast days?

4. What did Rome really “trample under foot?”

5. What did God really restore to His church after 1844?

6. Where did this “new light” on the feast days really come from?

7. What was really done away with at the cross?

8. What is God really calling us to observe today?

1. Are the Feast Days Really a Part of the Moral Law?

In the following article by Ellen White I have taken the liberty of highlighting the sections relating to the moral law in green and the sections relating to the ceremonial law in blue in order to make it easier to note the transitions. Other highlights as well as Underlining, bolding, CAPS and italics have also been added to lift out salient points but otherwise the article is a verbatim quote.

I apologize if this seems to be a bit much, but frankly, I have found repeatedly that for some reason many are unable to detect either the transitions of thought or the key points embodied here and I have had to lead them sentence by sentence through the text.

Ellen White, Review and Herald, May 6, 1875

“God gave a clear and definite knowledge of his will to Israel by especial precepts, showing the duty of man to God and to his fellow-men. The worship due to God was clearly defined. A special system of rites and ceremonies was established, which would secure the remembrance of God among his people, and thereby serve as a hedge to guard and protect the ten commandments from violation. {RH, May 6, 1875 par. 3}

God's people, whom he calls his peculiar treasure, were privileged with a two-fold system of law; the moral and the ceremonial. The one, pointing back to creation to keep in remembrance the living God who made the world, whose claims are binding upon all men in every dispensation, and which will exist through all time and eternity. The other, given because of man's transgression of the moral law, the obedience to which consisted in sacrifices and offerings pointing to the future redemption. Each is clear and distinct from the other. From the creation the moral law was an essential part of God's divine plan, and was as unchangeable as himself. The ceremonial law was to answer a particular purpose of Christ plan for the salvation of the race. The typical system of sacrifices and offerings was established that through these services the sinner might discern the great offering, Christ. But the Jews were so blinded by pride and sin that but few of them could see farther than the death of beasts as an atonement for sin; and when Christ, whom these offerings prefigured, came, they could not discern him. The ceremonial law was glorious; it was the provision made by Jesus Christ in counsel with his Father, to aid in the salvation of the race. The whole arrangement of the typical system was founded on Christ. Adam saw Christ prefigured in the innocent beast suffering the penalty of his transgression of Jehovah's law. {RH, May 6, 1875 par. 4}

The law of types reached forward to Christ. All hope and faith centered in Christ until type reached its antitype in his death. The statutes and judgments specifying the duty of man to his fellow-men, were full of important instruction, defining and simplifying the principles of the moral law, for the purpose of increasing religious knowledge, and of preserving God's chosen people distinct and separate from idolatrous nations. {RH, May 6, 1875 par. 5}

The statutes concerning marriage, inheritance, and strict justice in deal with one another, were peculiar and contrary to the customs and manners of other nations, and were designed of God to keep his people separate from other nations. The necessity of this to preserve the people of God from becoming like the nations who had not the love and fear of God, is the same in this corrupt age, when the transgression of God's law prevails and idolatry exists to a fearful extent. If ancient Israel needed such security, we need it more, to keep us from being utterly confounded with the transgressors of God's law. The hearts of men are so prone to depart from God that there is a necessity for restraint and discipline. {RH, May 6, 1875 par. 6}

The love that God bore to man whom he had created in his own image, led him to give his Son to die for man's transgression, and lest the increase of sin should lead him to forget God and the promised redemption, the system of sacrificial offerings was established to typify the perfect offering of the Son of God…” {RH, May 6, 1875 par. 7}

Please note that in the passage above, the servant of God very clearly and unambiguously states that Israel only had two laws that governed them—the moral and the ceremonial, and she gives the clear distinctions between the two. She further states that the moral law had “statutes” connected with it as did the ceremonial law.

She did not say that there were three laws, or that one of the two laws had two parts. Thus to suggest that the ceremonial law was divided into a “sacrificial” part and a “feast day” part and only one of the two parts (the sacrificial) was done away with at the cross, is an invalid argument. We will see more on this issue a bit later.

She further states that “the ceremonial law” is in fact “the law of types.” I believe it is a fundamental understanding among God’s last day people that there was NOTHING typical in the moral law, and that EVERYTHING was typical in the ceremonial law, including everything that was to be carried out in observance of the feast days.

As I understand logic, if A = B, and B = C, then A = C. If the whole ceremonial law = the law of types, and the law of types = reached forward to Christ, then the whole ceremonial law = the law that reached forward to Christ.

Now let’s list out the distinctions as the prophet applied them.

The moral law

• Shows the duty of man to God

• Defines the worship due to God

• Shows the duty of man to his fellow man

• Points back to creation

• Is binding upon all men in every dispensation

• Will exist through all time and eternity

• Was an essential part of God’s divine plan

• Was as unchangeable as God Himself

• Had statutes and judgments added that:

o Specify the duty of man to his fellow man

o Were full of important instruction

o Define the principles of the moral law

o Simplify the principles of the moral law

o Increases religious knowledge

o Were to keep the people distinct from other nations

o Address such things as marriage, inheritance and justice

The ceremonial law

• Contained rites and ceremonies

• Would secure the remembrance of God among His people

• Would guard against violation of the ten commandments

• Was given because of man’s transgression of the moral law

• Was to answer a particular purpose in the plan of salvation

• Was given that the sinner might discern Christ, the great Offering

• Was itself a glorious law

• Was a provision made by Christ in counsel with His Father

• Was founded on Christ

• Was a law of types

• Reached forward to Christ

• Met its antitype in the death of Christ

• Typified the perfect offering of the Son of God

So, if I have understood what God has told us so far, there were only two laws given to His people ever, and both laws had statutes added to them.

One of those laws, the moral or Ten Commandment law, had added statutes that clarified and simplified what was in that law, and both the law and its added statutes were as enduring as was God Himself.

The other, the ceremonial law, which also had statutes added to it, specified rites and ceremonies which were typical, came about because the moral law was not being properly observed, were based on the work of Christ for our salvation, and fully met its antitype in the death of Christ, thus ending its significance.

Picking up the quote again in paragraph ten, we read:

“In consequence of continual transgression, the moral law was repeated in awful grandeur from Sinai. Christ gave to Moses religious precepts which were to govern the everyday life. These statutes were explicitly given to guard the ten commandments. They were NOT shadowy types to pass away with the death of Christ. They were to be binding upon man in every age as long as time should last. These commands were enforced by the power of the moral law, and they clearly and definitely explained that law…” {RH, May 6, 1875 par. 10}

Here God’s servant, in contrasting the ceremonial law to the moral law, says that Christ gave these additional religious precepts to guard the ten commandments, that they ONLY govern everyday life, that they are as binding as is the moral law, that they are enforced by the power of the moral law, and that they clearly and definitely explain that law.

Continuing at paragraph 13:

“The law of Jehovah, dating back to creation, was comprised in the two great principles, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength. This is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these." These two great principles embrace the first four commandments, showing the duty of man to God, and the last six, showing the duty of man to his fellow-man. The principles were more explicitly stated to man after the fall, and worded to meet the case of fallen intelligences. This was necessary in consequence of the minds of men being blinded by transgression. {RH, May 6, 1875 par. 13}

God graciously spoke his law and wrote it with his own finger on stone, making a solemn covenant with his people at Sinai. God acknowledged them as his peculiar treasure above all people upon the earth. Christ, who went before Moses in the wilderness, made the principles of morality and religion more clear by particular precepts, specifying the duty of man to God and his fellow-men, for the purpose of protecting life, and guarding the sacred law of God, that it should not be entirely forgotten in the midst of an apostate world… {RH, May 6, 1875 par. 14}

What is the will of the Father? That we keep his commandments. Christ, to enforce the will of his Father, became the author of the statutes and precepts given through Moses to the people of God.” {RH, May 6, 1875 par. 16}

Here God’s servant again reiterates the relationship of the additional principles that Christ gave (the statutes and judgments) to the moral law, and what their purpose was. It’s as if He knew (He did, didn’t He?) that at the end His people would be shallow students, illogical thinkers, and would rely on the opinions of others rather than lay all questions before Him first, so He did all He could to make clear what the purpose of the statutes and judgments was, so that we would not be deceived.

Now I am under firm conviction that we today are indeed required to observe the statutes and judgments that were given by Christ to clarify and simplify the precepts of the moral law, but I have no intention of trying to apply that conviction to anything that is a rite or ceremony intended to typify or illustrate specific points in the plan of salvation or the work of Christ for my salvation.

Further, since I believe that I have no power within myself to properly obey these precepts, even as clear as they are, I struggle against my own nature to keep self dead so that Christ, who is the author of these precepts, can have unobstructed access to my life, and can perfectly obey these precepts in me as His Father did in Him when he walked this earth 2000 years ago.

Victor Houteff, Timely Greetings, Vol. 2, No. 37, pgs. 12, 14-25

“The Bible, you know, consists of three parts: (1) History, (2) Commandments and Statutes, (3) Prophecy. The Psalms and the Proverbs, along with The Song of Solomon, come under these same categories. History tells the past, and prophecy tells the future, but the keeping of the commandments and the statutes brings the blessings that should be ours today, enlightens the soul, and shields the body. Indeed, Jesus in the commandments and the statutes is our only salvation. Am I speaking the truth?” {Timely Greetings, Vol. 2, No. 37, p.12}

Here we are told that the Bible is divided into three parts: History, Commandments and Statutes, and Prophecy, and the prophet categorically eliminates both History and Prophecy as germane to his discussion. We could then reasonably expect that the remainder of his dissertation would focus on the part of the Bible which contains the Commandments and Statutes.

Continuing now on page 14:

“You know by now that Malachi, chapters 3 and 4, prophetically speak to the people of today, to the people just before the great and dreadful day, to the people to whom antitypical Elijah the prophet is sent. And what wise counsel does the Lord give through Malachi? -- He says, "Remember ye the Law of Moses My servant." Which law? -- The law of "statutes and judgments" which the Lord commanded "in Horeb." Since this is God's faithful advice to His people of this day, we would do well to restudy this law of Moses, and to remember it, for we cannot disregard His counsel and still expect His blessings.”

Having isolated his focus to the Bible category of “Commandments and Statutes,” Bro. Houteff now begins a breakdown of what he is focusing on, beginning with the “law of Moses.”

“Broadly speaking, the law of Moses consists

Timely Greetings, Vol. 2, No. 37 14

of three parts. THE FIRST is the Ceremonial law, the law of the temple -- the sacrificial law. THIS LAW, of course, we today MUST NOT observe, except in antitype, for it foreshadowed things to come, particularly Christ's first advent. Thus it is that if we had lived in Old Testament times and had failed to comply with the sacrificial law and system of that day, we would thereby have demonstrated unbelief in Christ, Who was to come. But since we are living in the Christian era, if we should now observe the TYPICAL sacrificial law and system, we should thereby demonstrate unbelief in Christ, Who has come.

And so, as this law was nailed to the cross (Col. 2:14), we need not, and must not, observe it now.”

“THE SECOND part of Moses' law, is the law by which Israel was to rule its people, the civil, or legal law, -- the law which defines what penalty the government should impose upon those who are caught stealing, killing, or the like. Now, since we as Christians do not have a government of our own, but are still under the governments of the nations of today, we personally, or as a group are not required to enforce the legal law of Moses either.

The only law of Moses, therefore, that we can possibly be admonished to remember, is THE THIRD part of his law: the moral law, which consists of the things that pertain to us as individuals, the things that we as individuals must perform, the things that perfect our character, the things that make us a peculiar people. We therefore need to search out and do the things contained in the moral law of Moses -- "The commandments, and the statutes and the judgments."” Deut. 5:31.

Timely Greetings, Vol. 2, No. 37 15

At the beginning Bro. Houteff tells us that the Bible contains three parts, “History, Commandments and Statutes, and Prophecy.” He then eliminates History and Prophecy, leaving only the part containing “the commandments and the statutes and the judgments” to be considered.

Then, in addressing the “law of Moses,” He indicates that it too contains three main elements: 1) the ceremonial law, 2) the civil law, and 3) the moral law. He then eliminates the civil law because we do not now have our own government (a theocracy), and the ceremonial law because it was nailed to the cross. Please note carefully that Bro. Houteff calls the ceremonial law “the law of the temple” and “the sacrificial law.” These are not three separate laws, or even three parts of one law, for he calls it “this law” (singular). If any part of “this law” ends, it all ends.

Having eliminated two of the three parts of the law of Moses, he now focuses on the part that directly addresses “the things that pertain to us as individuals, that we must perform, that perfect our character, or that make us a peculiar people”, that is the moral law, which he calls “the commandments, and the statutes, and the judgments.”

Since Bro. Houteff is by claim and action an “interpretive” prophet, we would expect that he would continue to unfold what he has chosen to specifically address, and since he has narrowed our attention down to only one element of one division of Bible truth, “the moral law of Moses,” we must expect that whatever he states beyond this point must pertain ONLY to this law.

Please note very carefully that Bro. Houteff makes the same distinction as to what WE are to obey that Sis. White does—if it is TYPICAL, it is NOT TO BE OBSERVED. Only that which is connected with the moral law, which is not typical, is to be binding upon God’s people today.

“And the surest way to select these moral essentials from among those things which pertain to the sacrificial and the legal systems, is to go to the book of Deuteronomy. This book is the summary of all the laws and statutes which Moses spoke to ancient Israel, his last words.”

Again please be attentive to why the prophet has told us to go back and study the book of Deuteronomy—we are to select the “MORAL ESSENTIALS” from among those statutes and judgments that “pertain to the sacrificial and legal systems.”

Please note also that he labels the sacrificial and the civil as “systems.” This will also become more important to us as we continue.

“We shall begin with his prediction of our own situation, of our sojourning in the land of the Gentiles, as it is this day, the certification of the fact that in the counsels of Moses' writings we, too, are included.

Deut. 4:26-31 -- "I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that ye shall soon utterly perish from off the land whereunto ye go over Jordan to possess it; ye shall not prolong your days upon it, but shall utterly be destroyed. And the Lord shall scatter you among the nations, and ye shall be left few in number among the heathen, whither the Lord shall lead you. And there ye shall serve gods, the work of men's hands, wood and stone, which neither see, nor hear, nor eat, nor smell. But if from thence thou shalt seek the Lord thy God, thou shalt find Him, if thou seek Him with all thy heart and with all thy soul. When thou art in tribulation, and all these things are come upon thee, even in the latter days, if thou turn to the Lord thy God, and shalt be obedient unto His voice; (For the Lord thy God is a merciful God;) He will not forsake thee, neither destroy thee, nor forget the covenant of thy fathers which He sware unto them."

Here Moses predicted the disintegration of the kingdom then expected, and the dispersion of the people of Israel throughout the nations, the

Timely Greetings, Vol. 2, No. 37 16

exact situation in which we are today. He also herein predicted our visitation in the latter days, our time -- the time we as Christians find ourselves as fugitives and sinners among the nations, the time we are visited by Inspiration and are advised to "turn to the Lord," to "be obedient unto His voice." And if we obey, He will hear us and save us.

We should, therefore, now give ear to His voice, and whatsoever He commands we must do if we want His blessings upon us.

Remember we anciently lost the Kingdom because of disobeying His commandments and statutes, and it is certain that he will not take us back into it so long as we neglect to take heed to His voice. And here is the Voice which rings in our ears today as loudly as it did in the ears of the people in Moses' day:”

Bro. Houteff has now connected us to the law of Moses because Moses predicted what would befall both ancient Israel in their day and modern Israel in the last days. He has reminded us that it was by disobedience that our ancestors lost the kingdom, and it is only by obedience that we shall regain it in these last days, hence this subject is obviously vital for us to both understand and incorporate into our own individual lives.

He has also counseled us to go to the book of Deuteronomy to select out those things which pertain to the moral law, but as one dealing with children, he does not leave us to our own devices as we undertake this endeavor. He now takes us by the hand, and from this point on through page 22, he begins the process of “unpacking” the “third part of the law of Moses,” “the moral law,” with us in tow.

Though I encourage you to carefully read those pages for yourself, for brevity’s sake I will not repeat them here, but I will extrapolate the items that he directs our attention to so we can analyze what he has done.

Below is a list of the things that the prophet “extracts” from the writings of Moses for our edification.

• Obey the Ten Commandment Law out of love for God

• Don’t eat unclean food

• Don’t tolerate those who “pass their children through the fire”

• Don’t tolerate those who use “divination”

• Don’t tolerate one who “observe times”

• Don’t tolerate an “enchanter”

• Don’t tolerate a “witch”

• Don’t tolerate a “charmer”

• Don’t tolerate one who “consults with familiar spirits”

• Don’t tolerate a “necromancer”

• A woman must not wear a man’s clothing

• A man must not wear a woman’s clothing

• Take only the eggs or the young from a bird’s nest

• Build a barrier on the roof of your house so people won’t fall off and be hurt

• Don’t sow mixed seeds in your fields

• Don’t plow with animals that are unequally yoked

• Don’t weave mixed materials into your garments

• Don’t charge interest to a brother in the faith

• You may charge interest to a stranger

• If you make a vow to God, pay it

• Honor every promise you make

• Don’t take a brother’s means of earning a living as pledge for his debt

• Don’t take back a pledge or debt by force

• Don’t keep a poor man’s pledge overnight

• Pay a hired servant promptly that which he has earned

• Don’t muzzle the ox that grinds the corn

• Don’t have dishonest weights

• Don’t have dishonest measures

• Don’t move a neighbor’s landmark

• Don’t have sex with any animal

• Don’t attack your neighbor when no one is looking

• Confirm that you will obey all of these statutes of Moses

Here I would make a few points that seem obvious to me, though that in itself may mean nothing at all.

First of all, as one who has been admonished repeatedly by Dividians not to “add to” or “take away from” the Word of God or His servants, I refuse to take the admonition of the prophet given here beyond that which seems to me to be his sole intent. Bro. Houteff has addressed the “moral” precepts that God has always asked His people to observe in order that they may reflect His righteousness to everyone around them, making them His witnesses in the world. Was this not the problem that was so prominent among God’s ancient people? Is this not the problem that Bro. Houteff on behalf of God is addressing in trying to bring a reformation among His modern people today?

Brethren, I see not one concept listed above that is in any way a shadow of things to come, that is prophetic, that is typical, or that is even illustrative. Instead, Bro. Houteff has done exactly what he has counseled us to do; he has selected only those things that “pertain to us as individuals, that we must perform, that perfect our character, or that make us a peculiar people.”

Picking up again on page 24:

“Your obeying "all the commandments, and the statutes, and the judgments" of the moral law of Moses, you see, is your evidence that you have been born again, that you have been endowed with power from above, that you are enabled to choose the good and to refuse the evil, that you are the children of God. Keeping the commandments and the statutes in the Lord, then is the light and shield of your life. It is the outward sign that by the life of Christ you have overcome the Enemy of your soul and body. This system of worship, therefore, is truly the Righteousness by faith that brings the righteousness of Christ in the people of God…”

As Bro. Houteff prepares to close, he reiterates his point and focus – that what has taken place within is evidenced by what we do without, or “out of the heart are the issues of life,” or “faith without works is dead,” or “as ye have accepted Christ, so walk ye in Him,” or… do I need to go on? The thing that alone makes us a people fit for the Kingdom is that we reflect the life of Christ in the earth. If I have missed the point here, and I must say I don’t believe I have, then I adjure you by your Christian love for my soul that you help me clear up my thinking.

Now please allow me to summarize what God has taught us in this section by the voice of two witnesses.

• In all ages God’s people have only had two systems of law – the moral and the ceremonial

• Both the moral and the ceremonial laws had “statutes and judgments” added to them

• The moral law with its statutes and judgments

o Was written by the finger of God

o Shows the duty of man to God

o Defines the worship due to God

o Shows the duty of man to his fellow man

o Points back to creation

o Is binding upon all men in every dispensation

o Will exist through all time and eternity

o Was an essential part of God’s divine plan

o Was as unchangeable as God Himself

o Was repeated at Sinai due to continual transgression

o Had statutes and judgments added that:

♣ Were to guard the Ten Commandments

♣ Were not shadowy types

♣ Were enforced by the power of the moral law

♣ Governs everyday life

♣ Specify the duty of man to his fellow man

♣ Were full of important instruction

♣ Clearly explained the moral law

♣ Define the principles of the moral law

♣ Simplify the principles of the moral law

♣ Increases religious knowledge

♣ Were to keep the people distinct from other nations

♣ Address such things as marriage, inheritance and justice

• The ceremonial law with its statutes and judgments

o Contained rites and ceremonies

o Would secure the remembrance of God among His people

o Would guard against violation of the ten commandments

o Was given because of man’s transgression of the moral law

o Was to answer a particular purpose in the plan of salvation

o Was given that the sinner might discern Christ, the great Offering

o Was itself a glorious law

o Was a provision made by Christ in counsel with His Father

o Was founded on Christ

o Was a law of types

o Reached forward to Christ

o Met its antitype in the death of Christ

o Typified the perfect offering of the Son of God

• God admonishes us to restudy the law of Moses and remember it

• The law of Moses consists of the ceremonial law, the civil law and the moral law

• The Civil law is not to be observed because we are not a theocracy

• The Ceremonial law must not be observed because it was nailed to the cross

• The only law we are required to keep is the moral law with its statutes and judgments

• We are to select out of the law of Moses the “moral essentials” that connect to the moral law

• Any statute that is in any way typical is not to be observed today

• All of the statutes connected to the ceremonial law are typical

• None of the statutes connected to the moral law are typical

• We are to observe those statutes which “pertain to us as individuals, that we must perform, that perfect our character, or that make us a peculiar people.”

• Both Ellen White and Victor Houteff are in full agreement regarding both the moral and ceremonial laws and which of them we must observe today

But there is another side of this question that perhaps should be considered. If the statutes that specify the proper observance of the feast days are indeed a part of the moral law, then of necessity they must fulfill the purpose that the moral law fulfills, for the Ellen White says they must “clearly and definitely explain that law,” and Elijah says they must “consists of the things that pertain to us as individuals, the things that we as individuals must perform, the things that perfect our character, the things that make us a peculiar people.” To properly establish the validity of this connection we must first understand the purpose of the moral law.

According to inspiration, the following are the stated purposes of the moral law:

The law points out man's duty and shows him his guilt… {DA 608.2}

The moral law… is the foundation of His government… {AG 80.3}

The law reveals sin to us, and causes us to feel our need of Christ…{1SM 234.5}

God's law of ten commandments, His standard of righteousness… {1SM 240.2}

The moral law was never a type or a shadow... {RH April 22, 1902}

His [God's] laws were not alone for the Jewish nation... was of universal obligation… {SD 44.2}

All business matters should be transacted in harmony with the great moral law of God… {5T 428.1}

Where shall we find the will of God expressed, except in the moral law… {BEcho, June 1, 1887 par. 2}

Serves to detect sin. It discovers the defects in the moral character… {BEcho, April 16, 1894 par. 11}

The two great principles of the moral law, love to God and love to man. {RH, October 31, 1878 par. 12}

The moral law is to judge us in the last day… {RH, July 2, 1889 par. 4}

The law, which is a transcript of his (Christ’s) character… {RH, April 22, 1902 par. 20}

He (man) could… regulate his life by its precepts… {ST, July 18, 1878 par. 20}

To man… God's moral law is given to control his actions… {ST, January 23, 1879 par. 15}

The character of his kingdom and the principles which should govern it… {ST, January 15, 1880 par. 11}

The whole world will be judged by the moral law… {ST, June 9, 1881 par. 9}

Compare your character with God's moral law, the ten commandments... {ST, Sept 15, 1887 par. 9}

The living out of the law of God means a life of purity… {ST, October 22, 1894 par. 2}

The law of God... cover the moral obligation of men. {ST, October 22, 1894 par. 2}

The rule of life is to be the commandments of God… {ST, October 22, 1894 par. 3}

The moral law is God's barrier between the human agent and sin... {ST, June 5, 1901 par. 5}

The distinction between right and wrong, between sin and holiness… {ST, June 5, 1901 par. 5}

God's great moral law, the expression of what He desires His children to be… {ST, July 31, 1901 par. 1}

Pertain to us as individuals… we must perform… Perfect our character… make us a peculiar people. [2TG No. 37, p. 15]

Obeying… evidence that you have been born again… the outward sign… [2TG No. 37, p. 24]

By the law is the knowledge of sin. (Rom. 3:20.)

The law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ… (Galatians 3:24)

So then, if you can clearly discern the above functions as inherent qualities of the statutes and judgments that are a part of the ceremonial law, then without question you are perfectly correct in claiming that those statutes are part of the moral law. And if you are inclined to shatter the ceremonial law, ripping the feast days out of it, and can likewise show that the statutes and judgments that specify the feast days significantly fulfill the purposes of the moral law, then by all means proceed to make the connection. Otherwise, since two inspired witness disagree with you, perhaps reconsideration is called for?

2. Did Paul Really Keep the Feast Days After His Conversion?

This is an interesting argument, especially in light of how inconsistently feast keepers relate to the subject overall. In discussing the point of fact that neither Ellen White nor Victor Houteff observed, taught observance of, or even intimated the necessity of modern observance of the feast days, they are instant to point out that just because they didn’t do that, doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be done. After all, they didn’t have all the light on every subject. (We will discuss the source of this “new light” in part 7.)

But of course, since Paul “obviously” did keep the feast days, (which if true agrees with their position) this is of paramount importance.

So then, let’s see if this anchor is as solid as it is made out to be.

In 1 Corinthians Paul says,

“Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.” (1 Cor. 5:7-8)

See, Paul clearly says we must “keep the feast,” right? Perhaps a statement from the SRod might help us get a different perspective.

“The reason which Moses assigns for the Passover observance is that it is to commemorate Israel's going out of Egypt (Deut. 16:1-3). John the Baptist, however, imputes its significance to the coming of Christ, "the Lamb of God" (John 1:29), while the apostles assign it to His crucifixion: "For even Christ our passover," says Paul, "is sacrificed for us." 1 Cor. 5:7. And the significance of keeping the Passover, he then attaches to the ordinance of the Lord's supper (1 Cor. 11 :26). [Answerer Book 2, p.81]

It seems, much to the chagrin of some, that inspiration, addressing the very verse brought forth as proof that Paul taught feast keeping, tells us that, in fact, this is not what Paul was doing at all. After the death of Christ Paul always exchanged the observance of Passover for the observance of the Lord’s supper. But the Bible says we must have more than one witness, right?

“The interviews between Jesus and his disciples were usually seasons of calm joy, highly prized by all of them. The passover suppers had been scenes of special interest; but upon this occasion Jesus was troubled in spirit, and his disciples sympathized with his grief although they knew not its cause. This was virtually the last passover that was ever to be celebrated; for type was to meet antitype in the slaying of the Lamb of God for the sins of the world. Christ was soon to receive his full baptism of suffering; but the few quiet hours between him and Gethsemane were to be spent for the benefit of his disciples.” {Spirit of Prophecy, Vol. 3, p. 83.3}

Ellen White also confirmed that observance of the feasts was to cease, and in fact this was to be the last one to be observed.

Now we will look at another “proof” text that has with it a bit of controversy within itself.

“And he came to Ephesus, and left them there: but he himself entered into the synagogue, and reasoned with the Jews. When they desired him to tarry longer time with them, he consented not; But bade them farewell, saying, I must by all means keep this feast that cometh in Jerusalem: but I will return again unto you, if God will. And he sailed from Ephesus.” (Acts 18:19-21)

Though Paul had not walked with Jesus as the 12 apostles had, yet he had been taught personally by Christ (AA 125) and understood the gospel perfectly. As we saw above, he clearly understood that observance of the feasts was not binding because he himself replaced observance of Passover with observance of the Lord’s supper.

The phrase in verse 21, “I must by all means keep this feast that cometh in Jerusalem:” is of very doubtful origin. EJ Waggoner had this comment regarding it.

"I must by all means keep this feast that cometh in Jerusalem." Here again conjecture has been busy as to this feast. Clarke and Scott suppose it was the passover, the Biblical Commentary says, Pentecost. But all agree that the passage is very doubtful. Clarke says: "The whole of this clause is wanting in ABE, six others, with the Coptic, AEthiostic, Armenian, and Vulgate. Griesbach leaves it in the text with the mark of doubtfulness," etc. It is also wanting in various translations, and in the Revised Version. "But bade them farewell, saying, I will return again unto you, if God will." {October 4, 1883 EJW, SITI 437.3}

The most accepted translation of verse 21, as Waggoner pointed out, leaves out the phrase, “ I must by all means keep the feast in Jerusalem,” and should read, "But bade them farewell, saying, I will return again unto you, if God will." I am well aware of how disagreeable this may appear to some, so perhaps two choices would make sense. 1) Take out the questionable phrase “I must by all means keep this feast that cometh in Jerusalem,” which would remove the idea that Paul’s main purpose was to keep the feast at all, or 2) leave it in but view it in the light of the fact already established that Paul clearly understood that he was under no obligation of law or statute to keep the feast. Thus his motive for going to Jerusalem was not obedience to law or statute, but was rather another purpose which we shall look at more closely in a moment.

But I am sure some will insist that the verse is not to be tampered with and must mean what it says, so let’s add more evidence to the scales of truth. I have excerpted parts of the following quotation from the pen of Ellen White and have added emphasis and comments. Essentially the same passages were reproduced in the 1911 printing of The Acts of the Apostles, pp. 389-406, though there it has been heavily edited from the original.

Ellen White, Sketches from the Life of Paul, 1883, excerpts from pp. 194-214

“Paul greatly desired to reach Jerusalem before the passover, as he would thus have an opportunity to meet the people who came from all parts of the world to attend the feast. He had a

195

continual hope that in some way he might be instrumental in removing the prejudice of his countrymen, so that they might accept the precious light of the gospel. He was also desirous of meeting the church at Jerusalem, and bearing to them the liberalities donated by other churches to the poor brethren in Judea. And he hoped, in this visit, to bring about a firmer Christian union between the Jewish and Gentile converts to the faith.” {LP 194.2}

Please note that the purpose given here for Paul’s “observing” Passover in Jerusalem was in order that he might have opportunity to meet those attending the feast and introduce them to the gospel. In other words, as a fisherman, he chose to go where fishing would be the most productive. He was also commissioned to bring the offerings of the Gentiles to the church leadership there.

“The work of the gospel had advanced, despite all their opposition. From every quarter there came accounts of the spread of the new doctrine by which Jews were released from their distinctive observances, and Gentiles admitted to share equal privileges as children of Abraham. The success attending the preaching of this doctrine, which with all their hatred they could not controvert, stung the Jews to madness. Paul, in his preaching at Corinth, presented the same arguments which he urged so forcibly in his epistles. His strong statement, "There is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision," was regarded by his enemies as daring blasphemy. They determined that his voice should be silenced…” {LP 195.1}

Interestingly, what Paul was preaching, “released (the Jews) from their distinctive observances.” On page 390 of The Acts of the Apostles it reads, “the new doctrine by which Jews were released from the observance of the rites of the ceremonial law,” which rites, properly understood of course, also include observance of the feast days.

“At Philippi Paul tarried to keep the passover. Only Luke remained with him, the other members of the company passing on to Troas to await him there. The Philippians were the most loving and true-hearted of the apostle's converts, and he enjoyed a peaceful and happy visit with them during the eight days of the feast…” {LP 196.2}

Though perhaps a minor point, it should be noted that though Paul and Luke tarried to “keep” Passover, the others apparently felt no obligation to do so, but instead continued in their travels during the feast. Why did they not feel it necessary to avoid traveling on the feast days, and why did Paul not protest their “irreverence?”

On the broad sill of a window whose shutters had been thrown open, sat a youth named Eutychus. In this perilous position he sank into a deep slumber, and at last fell from his seat into the court below. The discourse was interrupted. All was alarm and confusion. The youth was taken up dead, and many gathered about him with cries and mourning. But Paul, passing through the affrighted company, clasped him in his arms, and sent up an earnest prayer that God would restore the dead to life. The prayer was granted. Above the sound of mourning and lamentation the apostle's voice was heard, saying, "Trouble not yourselves, for his life is in him." With rejoicing, yet in deep humility at this signal manifestation of God's power and mercy, the believers again assembled in the upper chamber. They partook of the communion, and then Paul continued his discourse till the dawn of day. Eutychus was now fully restored, and they brought him into the congregation and were not a little comforted. {LP 197.1}

As we can see, Paul’s custom was to observe the New Testament rite of Communion, not the Old Testament rite of Passover wherever his work took him.

“Paul longed to be fully united with these. He had done all in his power to remove the prejudice and distrust so unjustly excited because he presented the gospel to the Gentiles without the restrictions of the ceremonial law…” {LP 208.1}

Least we miss the point, please note again that Paul neither kept, nor taught the keeping of, any part of the ceremonial law.

“But beneath this apparent harmony, prejudice and dissatisfaction were still smouldering. Some in the church were still striving to mold Christianity after the old customs and ceremonies that were to pass away at the death of Christ. They felt that the work of preaching the gospel must be conducted according to their opinions. If Paul would labor in accordance with these ideas, they would acknowledge and sustain his work; otherwise they would discard it…” {LP 211.1}

Now we get down to the real problem that Paul was facing as a minister of the gospel of Christ, where the problem was coming from, who were really responsible for the problem, and the most significant reason for his dangerous mission to visit the leadership of the church at its headquarters in Jerusalem.

“Now was the golden opportunity for these leading men to frankly confess that God had wrought through Paul, and that they were wrong in permitting the reports of his enemies to create jealousy and prejudice against him. But instead of doing justice to the one whom they had injured, they still appeared to hold him responsible for the existing prejudice, as though he had given them cause for such feelings. They did not nobly stand in his defense, and endeavor to show the disaffected party their error; but they threw the burden wholly upon Paul, counseling him to pursue

212

a course for the removal of all misapprehension. They responded to his testimony in these words: "Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe, and they are all zealous of the law. And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.” What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together; for they will hear that thou art come. Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them; them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads; and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law. As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication." {LP 211.3}

The brethren hoped that by this act Paul might give a decisive contradiction of the false reports concerning him. But while James assured Paul that the decision of the former council (Acts 15) concerning the Gentile converts and the ceremonial law still held good, the advice given was not consistent with that decision which had also been sanctioned by the Holy Spirit.”

Do you see the problem that Paul was facing? It is the same problem that is the reason for producing this very study! While Paul was out preaching the gospel, freeing both Jew and Gentile from the claims of the ceremonial law, including circumcision, and bringing them to the antitype, the leadership of the church in Jerusalem, very prominently led by James, the brother of Jesus, was still teaching the converts from among the Jews that they should still observe the statutes of the ceremonial law, and yet be followers of the One who had fulfilled that typical system. In fact, they were teaching one thing to the Jewish converts while teaching something entirely different to the Gentile converts!

“The Spirit of God did not prompt this advice. It was the fruit of cowardice. By non-conformity to the ceremonial law, Christians would bring upon themselves the hatred of the unbelieving Jews, and expose themselves to severe persecution. The

213

Sanhedrim was doing its utmost to hinder the progress of the gospel. Men were chosen by this body to follow up the apostles, especially Paul, and in every possible way oppose them in their work. Should the believers in Christ be condemned before the Sanhedrim as breakers of the law, they would bring upon themselves swift and severe punishment as apostates from the Jewish faith…” {LP 212.1}

“The disciples themselves yet cherished a regard for the ceremonial law, and were too willing to make concessions, hoping by so doing to gain the confidence of their countrymen, remove their prejudice, and win them to faith in Christ as the world's Redeemer. Paul's great object in visiting Jerusalem was to conciliate the church of Palestine. So long as they continued to cherish prejudice against him, they were constantly working to counteract his influence. He felt that if he could by any lawful concession on his

214

part win them to the truth, he would remove a very great obstacle to the success of the gospel in other places. But he was not authorized of God to concede so much as they had asked. This concession was not in harmony with his teachings, nor with the firm integrity of his character. His advisers were not infallible. Though some of these men wrote under the inspiration of the Spirit of God, yet when not under its direct influence they sometimes erred.” {LP 213.2}

So you see, Paul did not go to Jerusalem to “keep” the feast. He actually went there to confront those who were essentially making his work of no effect by teaching the opposite of what he was teaching. And yes, as a consequence of the fact that he going to make this trip anyway, he went there bearing the gifts sent by the Gentile converts. This he hoped would soften the attitude of his brethren and make this confrontation with the leadership a little easier.

And why did the brethren really want him to go to the temple and act like a keeper of the ceremonial law? They hoped that by doing this they could deceive the unconverted Jews into believing that Christians were still keepers of the ceremonial law so that they would not be hauled before the Sanhedrin and stoned. They were afraid to face the consequences of standing as a follower of Christ!

Also please note that the concessions Paul made in an attempt to bring conciliation “was not in harmony with his teachings, nor with the firm integrity of his character.” In other words, he went too far and actually misrepresented his own position, for Paul never sanctioned continuance of the observance of any part of the ceremonial law, INCLUDING THE FEAST DAYS.

3. Did the Early Christian Church Really Keep the Feast Days?

As we saw in section 2, feast keepers want to make the record appear to show that Paul kept the feast days. Why? Well, follow the logic. Paul was specially chosen of God to be the apostle to the Gentiles. If Paul kept the feast days, it is a pretty sure bet that the rest of the apostles of Christ did too. And if the apostles kept the feast days, surely we could expect that those that were obedient to the faith because of their labors, the early Christian church, would be keepers of the feasts also. Hence, we would have a straight line of obedience to the “gospel,” right?

So then, do we find that the early church actually did keep the feast days? Short answer—yes we do! But before you choke on your tongue and reach for your hangin’ rope, let’s see if there isn’t some more logic that we can apply to make it all make sense.

Please note that in the last section we became cognizant of the fact that the leadership of the early Christian church at Jerusalem had a problem, and this problem caused them to be at odds with Paul.

First of all, “Some in the church were still striving to mold Christianity after the old customs and ceremonies that were to pass away at the death of Christ,” {LP 211.1} for “the disciples themselves yet cherished a regard for the ceremonial law.” {LP 213.2} Thus, “many thousands of Jews there are which believe, and they are all zealous of the law.” {LP 211.3} This state of affairs made the converts of Paul out of harmony with the converts of many of the other leaders of the early church, and brought the Christian church as a whole under dangerous condemnation among the leadership of the Jews.

Second, rather than humble themselves before God, seek out the real problem, repent and present a united front before the world, the church leaders remained aloof from Paul and held him, “responsible for the existing prejudice.” {LP 211.3}

What prejudice were they concerned about? “They are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs,” {LP 211.3} thus, “should the believers in Christ be condemned before the Sanhedrim as breakers of the law, they would bring upon themselves swift and severe punishment as apostates from the Jewish faith. {LP 212.1}

As we learned before, it was this turmoil in the church that caused Paul to go to Jerusalem in the first place, and then led him to agree to their charade to attempt to fool the Jews into thinking that he was really a keeper of the ceremonial law, when in fact he was not and never taught such a thing. But since it was Paul’s infamy that had spread throughout Judaism, and it was his teachings that had brought the Christians such condemnation among the Jews, they felt that he ought to be the one to “fix it,” rather than their taking the right position and standing for the truth. Does this ring a bell for anyone?

Please remember also that this problem was apparently never really resolved. Paul was taken captive at the temple and was never again free to return and to try and help the leadership do the right thing. In AD 70 the great Roman dispersion took place and the Christians were scattered throughout the then known world. Between the capture of Paul and the fall of Jerusalem we find no records indicating that the leadership ever repented and turned.

So what is the point of all of this? We already know that those that were converted through the efforts of Paul and others lived throughout Asia Minor. When Jerusalem fell those that had been “half” converted by the leadership in Judea were also scattered. Thus in the world then, as in the world today, there were Christians who circumcised their males and kept the feast days, and there were Christians who followed no such rule.

Should we then be surprised when records turn up all over the place that “clearly” show that “the early Christian church” kept the feast days? I’m not at all surprised. But before I base my theology and my actions on this historical FACT, I want to know what inspiration tells me was SUPPOSED TO BE the right position of the believers then, and what I am, as a consequence, supposed to be doing myself today.

So let’s see if God has left us in the dark regarding this matter, or whether there is clear light to guide my footsteps. As we dig deeper into this subject, it will of necessity overlap somewhat this topic with the topics of sections 4 and 5, but though there will be some repetition, I trust the focus of each section will be clear.

In The Shepherd’s Rod, Vol. 2, pages 266-273, Bro. Houteff deals with the topic “The Time For Building The Anti-Typical Temple (Church).” This is a very deep topic that requires much prayerful study, but I will attempt to draw the significant points from this section as they bear upon these topics.

Victor Houteff, Shepherd’s Rod, Vol. 2, excerpts from pgs. 266-273

The two literal temples, successively built in ancient Jerusalem, were types of two sections of the Christian church… p. 266

The first section of the Christian church ended in 538 A.D… p. 266

When Christ (the seed) came, He took this law of ordinance (the law of Moses) "out of the way, nailing it to the cross..." p. 267-8

Therefore, at the crucifixion of Christ it ceased and the heavenly one, which was foreshadowed by the earthly, began… p. 268

The first section of the Christian church, from the crucifixion to about 538 A.D… had a perfect knowledge of the work in THE HEAVENLY to that time and their faith corresponded with its service. But in 538 A.D. the faith of this divine administration was thrown out from the church, or as Daniel puts it, "trodden under foot" (Dan. 8:13), and substituted by a pagan priesthood, with pagan ceremonial, and moral laws, or papal service, and Sunday worship. Therefore… the first temple typified the first section of the early Christian church with faith in a true sanctuary service… p. 268

Solomon's temple was robbed of the sacred vessels and destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon… a type… p. 268

If the claim in this study is correct that Solomon's temple was a type of the first section of the Christian church, then there must be a perfect comparison with type and anti-type.

As type destroyed type, so anti-type must have destroyed anti-type; that is, ancient Babylon (the type of the papacy) robbed and destroyed Solomon's temple (the type of the early Christian church) and led Israel into captivity. This symbolical prophecy met its perfect fulfillment in 538 A.D. when the papacy went forth and destroyed the church (Christian), robbed them of the truth, and led the followers of Christ into captivity (subject to papal rule). As the true [TYPICAL] sanctuary worship was abolished by ancient Babylon at the captivity of Israel, with the destruction of the temple, just so the papacy did away with the truth and strategically supplanted here on earth, the meaning of the mediatorial work of Christ in the heavenly [ANTITYPICAL] sanctuary, of which the ceremonial system of the first temple was a type in the period before the judgment began.” P. 268, 270

Now let’s see if we can put the pertinent pieces together.

• Solomon’s temple in Jerusalem was a type of the early Christian church up to 538 AD.

• As TYPICAL Babylon caused the TYPICAL sanctuary service to end, so ANTITYPICAL Babylon was to cause the ANTITYPICAL sanctuary service to end.

• When Christ died, the focus of God’s people was to transfer from the TYPICAL sanctuary service on earth to the ANTITYPICAL sanctuary service In heaven.

• The early Christian church had a perfect knowledge of the heavenly to that time and their faith followed Christ’s ministration there.

• The papacy threw out faith in the divine administration of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary (and substituted a human priesthood).

Victor Houteff, Tract No. 4, pp. 25-6

"Therefore will I return, and take away My corn in the time thereof, and My wine in the season thereof, and will recover My wool and My flax given to cover her nakedness. And now will I discover her lewdness in the sight of her lovers, and none shall deliver her out of Mine hand. I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days, her new moons, and her sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts." Hos. 2:9-11.

Just as God chastened her in olden time by permitting Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, to abolish the ceremonial system by destroying ancient Jerusalem and its temple, just so did He chasten her in the Christian era by permitting Rome to gain control over her and to supplant HER TRUE RELIGEOUS SYSTEM by a counterfeit – A PAGAN PRIESTHOOD and a pagan sabbath. Then was His word FULFILLED: "I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days, her new moons, and her sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts."

Since these ordinances (HER FEAST DAYS, her sabbaths, etc.) WERE PART OF "a compacted prophecy of the gospel [the ceremonial system, 1SR 18, 2SR 11, 3Tract 72, 5Tr 62, 7Tr 28], a presentation in which were bound up the promises of redemption" (The Acts of the Apostles, p. 14), and since Hosea's symbolization has brought us into the Christian era, the

Tract 4 25

ceasing of the ordinances therefore typifies Rome's supplanting the Truth. Daniel, also, was shown that this was to be accomplished through Rome, the "exceeding great" horn, which "cast down...to the ground" the Truth "and the place of His [Christ's] sanctuary." Dan. 8:12, 11.

Now brethren, I don’t know how anyone could make it much plainer than Bro Houteff has made it, but I will try to draw it out further.

In Hos. 2: 11 God says He will cause Israel’s FEAST DAYS to cease. Right on queue Rome, following the type of ancient Babylon, took away the early Christian church’s TRUE RELIGIOUS SYSTEM. And what did Rome do? She instituted a PAGAN PRIESTHOOD. While she actually did also institute false feasts (Easter, Christmas, etc.) to replace the feasts of the Jewish converts who were still keeping the ceremonial feast days, what Bro. Houteff focuses on is the fact that the thing that Rome did that took away their TRUE RELIGIOUS SYSTEM was to install a PAGAN PRIESTHOOD. In other words, they cast to the ground the true mediatorial work of Christ in the Heavenly Sanctuary and substituted human intercessors. And Bro. Houteff further says unambiguously that THIS substitution was THE FULFILLMENT of Hos. 2:11.

Though I know I will be accused of having anything but a Christian attitude, nevertheless, how can I do less than emphasize the obvious? Sometimes I feel like I am dealing with my 7 year old great granddaughter, but I do not mean to be belligerent. I’m sure the problem must be that honest hearted people simply have taken the word of men instead of diligently studying for themselves. Did you note the EXACT words of Hosea? God said, “I will… cause to cease her feast days,” and antitypical Elijah said that this was “fulfilled” by Rome. Why then can I not simply accept the word of the prophets instead of turning over every possible rock to show that that can’t possibly be what they REALLY mean?

There is of course a valid issue that could arise here. God said that He would cause her mirth, feast days, her new moons, her sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts to end. Now since it is an enemy of God that is causing all of these things to cease, wouldn’t we naturally expect that there would come a time when God intends to restore all of these things back to His church? This is a reasonable question, but not necessarily a valid one. Consider the following scenario.

My daughter becomes involved in a cult that takes her into a lifestyle that I know will ultimately lead to her death. In the process of practicing this lifestyle she has a run in with the law and is locked up. Would it then be natural for me to be hopeful that when she is released from jail that she would have all of her deadly activities restored to her?

When God said He would cause all these things to cease, did He say that these were good things that He insisted that the church do in the first place? If you have come to believe that we today “must” keep the feast days, your answer would have to be, “of course they are good and He will restore them.”

If, on the other hand, you have come to understand that the only reason that these things existed in the early church in the first place is because of the apostasy practiced by some of the leaders of that church. For this reason, the best thing God could do for His church was to bring an enemy upon her that would finally purge these things out of her practice forever. Then, when He began to gather His people and restore His truths to them, at least these would not be things He would have to cause her to “unlearn.”

And do you believe for a moment that God’s enemy would be satisfied with this purge and leave it alone, or would it make more than perfect sense that he would do everything within his power to “restore” to God’s people the very things that God Himself had “removed” from them in order to keep them from ultimately fulfilling God’s will for them?

Fret not though, for this becomes, if possible, even more transparent through the next couple of topics. But let’s consider one more statement before we move on.

Victor Houteff, White House Recruiter, pp. 17-18

“Another point of significance of which we should take note is the fact that the messages borne by these first two groups, by ancient Israel and by the early Christians, were not of a reformatory nature; they were not old, forgotten truths in process of revival and restoration; rather each was a new revelation, "meat in due season" -- present Truth especially adapted fully to meet the needs of the people in their respective times. The former group

The White-House Recruiter 17

were inspired and commissioned to teach and practice the truths of salvation as embodied in the ceremonial system, the latter group were inspired and commissioned to teach and practice the same immutable truths in their advanced light -- advanced from typical to antitypical representation, from the ministration in the earthly tabernacle to the ministration in the heavenly one; that is, from the sacrifice of a lamb of the flock to the sacrifice of Christ Himself, the Lamb of God. Thus the latter group taught the old truths in a new and original light, in the light of the gospel -- that Christ was crucified for the remission of sin, resurrected in triumph over sin and death, and ascended to make atonement and reconciliation for the penitent sinner, not in an earthly, but in an heavenly, tabernacle.”

4. What did Rome Really “Trample Under Foot?”

So, what does this question have to do with the general topic at hand? Well, as far as feast keepers are concerned, it is very relevant, if not at the very heart of the topic. Follow the logic.

Feast keepers believe that Paul was a feast keeper. They also believe that since Paul was a feast keeper, all the leaders of the early Christian church must have been feast keepers also. Since the leaders must have been feast keepers, they must have taught all the converts to keep the feasts, hence the early church must have been a feast keeping church.

Since this “must” be true, and since the Catholic Church did institute “false” feasts to replace the “true” feasts that the early church kept, this substitution of “Christian” feasts for “Jewish” feasts must be how Rome “trampled underfoot” God’s truths. And of course, this is why it is so important that the “true” feasts be restored today.

In section two we discovered that Paul, in fact, did not keep the “Jewish” or ceremonial feasts.

In section three we discovered that some of the early church did indeed keep the ceremonial feasts, but this was in no way the will of God for them. We also saw that as part of her “punishment” He not only scattered her among the Gentiles, but separated her from her “roots” in the Jewish ceremonial system.

But lest we jump to hasty conclusions because of our own bias or prejudice, let’s seek council from Inspiration and see if there is clear guidance on this aspect of the issue.

Victor Houteff, The Shepherd’s Rod, Vol. 2, excerpts from pp. 130-4

"And by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, AND the place of his sanctuary was cast down. And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practiced and prospered." (Dan. 8:11, 12.)

“The Spirit of Prophecy, commenting on the text, says: "Then I saw in relation to the 'daily', Daniel 8:12, that the word 'sacrifice' was supplied by man's wisdom, and does not belong to the text." -- "Early Writings," p. 74. This being true, we must disregard the word "sacrifice," but hold to the "daily," although the word "sacrifice" is italicized, showing that it was supplied, a vision was given regarding the text, making it evident that a vital truth is involved in the words "daily," and "sanctuary." Whatever the "daily" may be, it was taken away by the "Great Horn."

“In Daniel 11:31, reference is made to the same incident:

Shepherd's Rod book, Vol. 2 130

"And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily,... and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate."

The verse just quoted makes clear the idea that both the "daily" and the "sanctuary" must be a part of God's truth. This thought cannot be misconstrued without doing injury to the Scripture. Note the language used: "And they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength and shall take away the "daily." After polluting the "sanctuary" and taking away the "daily," then it says: "They shall place the abomination that maketh desolate." That is to say: The "sanctuary" and the "daily" were replaced by the abomination. The abomination must be some Pagan religious institution, and that Pagan doctrine ("abomination") was to make desolate. That is to say, it laid waste the "sanctuary," the "daily," and the "truth"; or as it is expressed in Daniel 8:13, "Trodden under foot." "And it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practiced, and prospered." (Dan. 8:12.)

Jesus, speaking of the same incident, says: "When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand.") (Matt. 24:15.)

Jesus calls the "daily" and the "sanctuary," "holy place." No Pagan sanctuary would the Master call "holy place," neither can it be polluted, for it has always been unclean. No pagan daily can be holy. Therefore, the "daily" and the "sanctuary" must hold truth vital to the Christian church, and the prophet declared that it was to be "trodden under foot." The word "sacrifice" in relation to the "daily" was shown to be supplied by man's wisdom, as previously stated. It was also pointed out that the word "daily" is correct. Therefore, it cannot be supplemented by another word; it must remain as it is…”

Shepherd's Rod book, Vol. 2 131

“The Sabbath doctrine is the only Bible truth in the Christian dispensation that has to do with a definite day, hence, it is called "daily." The word "daily," in the Hebrew by Isaac Leeser is rendered "continual." Thus it clearly bears the evidence that the Sabbath (daily doctrine) is a continual and everlasting truth.

As the Sabbath (daily) was taken away, and the "abomination set up," then that which took the place of the Holy Sabbath, and the Sanctuary truth, is called "the ABOMINATION." Consequently Sunday observance and a counterfeit priesthood are the only things to which the term "abomination" can be applied, for the seventh-day was supplanted by the first day of the week, Sunday -- "the abomination that maketh desolate." That is, the Sabbath was lost sight of, or "cast to the ground," until 1844, together with the sanctuary truth. As the truth concerning the sanctuary service was "cast to the ground," (the truth of the priesthood of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary), the Pagan priesthood, or the Papal, as it is called now, was set up, thus taking away from the church the true mediatorial work of Christ…

Shepherd's Rod book, Vol. 2 132

To ascertain the prophetic time when the Seventh-day Sabbath ("daily"), and the "truth" ("sanctuary") were trodden underfoot, and Sunday observance with its Pagan priesthood set up in their stead, it would be necessary to subtract 1335 years from 1844, which would point back to 508 A.D., (dealing with the Hebrew calendar). In that year the "Daily" (Sabbath) and the "Sanctuary" truths were "cast to the ground," and the "Abomination" (Sunday) "set up."”

Please note some simple facts that have been established up to this point. According to Dan. 8: 11-12 and Dan. 11:31, the little horn power was to “take away the daily,” cast down “the place of his sanctuary,” “cast down the truth to the ground,” “pollute the sanctuary of strength,” and “place the abomination that maketh desolate.”

We are further told that the “daily” and the “sanctuary” hold vital truths for the Christian church, that the “daily” represents the seventh-day “Sabbath,” the “sanctuary” represents “the truth of the priesthood of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary,” and the “ABOMINATION” represents “a “PAGAN PRIESTHOOD.” In other words, the Sabbath day was replaced by the Sunday and the ministry of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary was replaced by the human ministry of pagan priests on earth. Do you see something missing here? What about the feast days?

Let me ask you this. If the Jewish feast days were already abolished as far as God was concerned, would it matter to Him if one dead rite was replaced by another dead rite? But if the feast days were, as the Sabbath and the heavenly ministry of the Son of God were, vital truths for His people, would not God have been just as adamant to make His people understand?

Lest we fail to understand the significance God places on these truths, He has given us clear statements through His servants, the prophets.

Victor Houteff, The Shepherd’s Rod, Vol. 2, excerpts from pp. 130-4

“Because sin entered the human family, the Lord instituted the sanctuary truth, which typically illustrates His sacrifice, death and resurrection -- the revelation of our redemption. Thus in keeping the Sabbath and sanctuary truth, we openly confess that

Shepherd's Rod book, Vol. 2 138

Christ is both Creator and Redeemer. "Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath day." (Mark 2:28.)

The Bible is the revelation of creation and redemption in Christ -- Creator and Redeemer. Therefore, the Sabbath and the Sanctuary constitute "The Truth." (See Hebrews 9:10, 4:4-10.) Thus these two doctrines are coupled together, cannot be separated, and bear the whole truth.

How do we keep the Sanctuary truth? It is kept, not in type, but in anti-type. By faith we believe that Christ, our High Priest, in the heavenly sanctuary is officiating in our behalf, as it was taught in type by the earthly sanctuary, built by Moses. As Israel complied with the requirements of its service in the type, so we must in the anti-type. Thus we "proclaim the truth [Sabbath and Sanctuary] more fully."

Did you digest that my dear reader? To fully understand the Sabbath and the Sanctuary is in fact to understand “the whole truth.” And to declare these truths in their true antitypical settings is in fact to proclaim them “more fully.” Thus, while Laodicea (and Dividians) have been waiting for some future “more fully” revelation, they have it already and don’t even realize it yet.

Victor Houteff, The Shepherd’s Rod, Vol. 2, excerpts from pp. 143-4

The reader’s attention is again called to the chart. The double track passing by Abel and around the cross, shows that the Sabbath and the Sanctuary truths are eternal and divine, and that the recognition of their sacredness had never been thrown

Shepherd's Rod book, Vol. 2 144

out from the church of God until after 508 A.D.; at which time the "goat" with his great horn "cast down the truth to the ground."

Victor Houteff, Tract No. 4, pp. 25-6

[Hos. 2:9-11 quoted]

Just as God chastened her in olden time by permitting Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, to abolish the ceremonial system by destroying ancient Jerusalem and its temple, just so did He chasten her in the Christian era by permitting Rome to gain control over her and to supplant her true religious system by a counterfeit -- a pagan priesthood and a pagan sabbath. Then was His word fulfilled: "I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days, her new moons, and her sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts."

Since these ordinances (her feast days, her sabbaths, etc.) were part of "a compacted prophecy of the gospel, a presentation in which were bound up the promises of redemption" (The Acts of the Apostles, p. 14), and since Hosea's symbolization has brought us into the Christian era, the

Tract 4 25

So then, according to the prophet, what was the “true religious system” of the early Christian church? It was not keeping the feasts of the Jewish ceremonial system which was done away with at the cross, but rather it was keeping the true Sabbath and following by faith the antitypical Lamb and Priest into the heavenly sanctuary.

As I iterated at the beginning of this section, in section two we discovered that Paul, in fact, did not keep the “Jewish” or ceremonial feasts, but that some of the leaders of the early church did.

Here in section four we have found that what Rome accomplished that was significant in God’s eyes was not the replacement of the already dead Jewish feast days with other dead pagan holidays, but was rather the replacement of the Sabbath with the Sunday and the replacement of the truth of the heavenly mediatorial work of His Son with the earthly mediatorial work of pagan priests.

In the next section we will pull all of this together into what I hope will be a more coherent whole.

5. What did God Really Restore to His Church?

Up until this point I have been trying to address specific points relative to the issue at hand so I have simply pulled excerpts from 2SR 130-4, but since Bro. Houteff was gracious enough to tie everything together in this passage, it is time to lay everything out in full context.

Victor Houteff, The Shepherd’s Rod, Vol. 2, excerpts from pp. 130-4

"And by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down. And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practiced and prospered." (Dan. 8:11, 12.)

The Spirit of Prophecy, commenting on the text, says: "Then I saw in relation to the 'daily', Daniel 8:12, that the word 'sacrifice' was supplied by man's wisdom, and does not belong to the text." -- "Early Writings," p. 74. This being true, we must disregard the word "sacrifice," but hold to the "daily," although the word "sacrifice" is italicized, showing that it was supplied, a vision was given regarding the text, making it evident that a vital truth is involved in the words "daily," and "sanctuary." Whatever the "daily" may be, it was taken away by the "Great Horn."

In Daniel 11:31, reference is made to the same incident:

Shepherd's Rod book, Vol. 2 130

"And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily,... and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate."

As Daniel was carefully watching the scene in the vision, he says: "Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot? And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed." (Dan. 8:13, 14.)

The prophetic period of the 2300 days (years), a well-known Bible truth, was first taught by William Miller prior to 1844. Therefore, we shall not give its explanation here. It is sufficient to say that the long prophetic period ended in 1844. The question was asked by one saint, How long shall be the vision concerning

Shepherd's Rod book, Vol. 2 131

the daily, the sanctuary, and the host? Then it is answered by another saint, "Unto two thousand three hundred days." It is only necessary to ascertain what two vital truths were brought to light in 1844, and we shall have the truth of what is meant by the "daily" and the "sanctuary." They are self-explanatory in both word and time -- the Sabbath and the Sanctuary truths, as they were jointly taught in 1844 A.D.

The Sabbath doctrine is the only Bible truth in the Christian dispensation that has to do with a definite day, hence, it is called "daily." The word "daily," in the Hebrew by Isaac Leeser is rendered "continual." Thus it clearly bears the evidence that the Sabbath (daily doctrine) is a continual and everlasting truth.

As the Sabbath (daily) was taken away, and the "abomination set up," then that which took the place of the Holy Sabbath, and the Sanctuary truth, is called "the abomination." Consequently Sunday observance and a counterfeit priesthood are the only things to which the term "abomination" can be applied, for the seventh-day was supplanted by the first day of the week, Sunday -- "the abomination that maketh desolate." That is, the Sabbath was lost sight of, or "cast to the ground," until 1844, together with the sanctuary truth. As the truth concerning the sanctuary service was "cast to the ground," (the truth of the priesthood of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary), the Pagan priesthood, or the Papal, as it is called now, was set up, thus taking away from the church the true mediatorial work of Christ. The truth of the sanctuary, jointly with the Sabbath, was brought to light in 1844, at which time the judgment (blotting out sin) began in the heavenly sanctuary, fulfilling the following prophecy:

"I beheld till thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of His head like the pure wool: His throne was like the fiery flame, and His wheels as burning fire. A fiery stream issued and came forth from before Him: thousand thousands ministered unto Him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before Him; the judgment was set, and the books were opened." (Daniel 7:9, 10.)

At the fulfillment of this prophecy, the first angel's message was proclaimed: "And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, saying with a loud voice, Fear God and give glory to Him; for the hour of His judgment is come." (Rev. 14:6, 7.) This is another well know Bible truth. (Read "The Great Controversy," pp. 352-356.)

Shepherd's Rod book, Vol. 2 132

The sanctuary and Sabbath truths were restored to their proper place in 1844. But the question as to the time when these two holy doctrines were "cast to the ground," or "trodden under foot," remains to be answered. The angel, speaking to Daniel relative to the time, said: "And from the time that the daily shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days. Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days." (Dan. 12:11, 12.)

It will be noticed that there is no blessing pronounced at the termination of the 1290 prophetic days (years), but there is a special blessing promised to those who wait till the 1335 days (years) are fulfilled. Therefore, at the end of the 1335 years the "daily" (Sabbath) was to be restored, and the blessing is to those who shall live from that time on, if they understand and receive its truth.

In order to understand the truth of the 1290 years ("days"), add this figure to 508, which points forward to 1798 A.D. at which time the 1260 prophetic days of Daniel 7:25 terminated with the imprisonment of Pope Pius VI. Thus the prophetic treading of the "host" ended in 1798, but the "sanctuary" and the "daily" truths were not restored and placed in the church until after the fulfillment of the 1335 days (years) in 1844. This unquestionable evidence proves that the movement that arose in 1844 is God's true church, and divinely predicted. Hence it clears up the widespread confusion in Christendom, as to which denomination has the truth for the present time; it also weeds out all the rest as false, for it is the only movement that has the truth of the sanctuary.

As the truth of the two inseparable doctrines were thrown down in 508 A.D., preliminary to the setting up of the papacy, just so the imprisonment of the pope in 1798 was preparatory to the restoration of the jointly taught Bible truths, the Sabbath and the Sanctuary. The accountability that rests on the papacy is not the observance of the day, but rather, the desire to change the law of God, as shown in Daniel 7:25: "Think to change times and laws." The papacy thought to erase the Seventh-day Sabbath

Shepherd's Rod book, Vol. 2 133

from the eternal law, and to inscribe the first day of the week in its place.

Davidians are privileged to have advance light on the issue of what was lost by the early Christian church through the unfolding of Ezekiel 4 as well as the book of Daniel, and therefore they understand that many truths were lost to God’s people trough the Dark Ages and were subsequently restored back to them up to and through 1844.

Then why focus mainly on those things connected with the prophecies in Daniel? Well, primarily because this is what the feast keepers do. It is their belief that when Daniel was told that the little horn power would think to change “times and laws,” these referred to the statutes that called for observance of the feast days, and this was what was happening when the Papacy instituted the pagan festivals of Easter, Christmas, etc.

Then too is the fact that feast keepers believe that when Daniel was told that “He [Christ] shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week He shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease." Dan. 9:27,” this meant that Christ caused the sacrifices to cease but that observance of the feast days continued, because they believe they have the privilege of ripping the sacrifices (which were typical) out of the ceremonial system (which was typical), a fact for which they have not one word of inspiration. This of course, we have already seen is based on many false assumptions regarding Paul and the early church.

This is why it is absolutely necessary to go back to the inspired writings of the one that was sent to us to give a correct understanding of these passages. Perhaps there might be some latitude available to Laodiceans who refuse to advance with the light God has given His people (thought I doubt it, for this can all be shown from the SOP), but Davidians have no such latitude. They love to thump the tracts and say “if it ain’t here, it ain’t true” or “If its not in the Golden Bowl, its not the truth” or “Where there is no type, there is no truth.” But to many, these “axioms” only hold true regarding the things they want to believe. Would that they would take the same attitude toward the feast days.

To make it all perfectly clear, according to the “interpretive” prophet, none of the grains of Ezekiel 4 represented restoration of the observance of the feast days and none of the actions of the Papacy warranted their restoration either.

So, if Christ didn’t split the ceremonial law, if Paul and the faithful apostles didn’t continue observing nor teach observance of the feast days, if observance of the feast days that did in fact exist in the early church was due to unfaithfulness rather than faithfulness, then where, pray tell, did the restoration of the observance of the feast days really come from?

6. Where did this “New Light” on the Feast Days Really Come From?

This section, of necessity, will be a bit lengthy. Much of the content is derived from an article written by Mr. Norman Bradley, and is posted in its entirety under the title “Skeleton in the Closet of 1888” at bibleexplorations.com, a site dedicated to defending modern day feast keeping, and can be downloaded in PDF form. It is a very good representation of the erroneous logic used throughout their defense.

While to some it may seem unfair because I have not chosen to reproduce the entire document while commenting on it, let me plead that the article is 36 pages long and includes much that I find unnecessary to regurgitate. It is readily available to anyone who desires to determine whether or not I have been fair in handling the writings of the opposition, thus I felt that simply giving to all the source of the document so that they may have the opportunity to peruse it at will would be sufficient.

I have chosen this article because it was sent to me by a friend who wanted to convert me to be a feast keeper. At that time I had no interest in the subject and was inclined not to look at it, but believing that I should take the time to hear the brother out, I examined the material carefully. I am very grateful that I did so, for I found that it actually gave the essential historic sources for the flawed logic that the feast keepers base their entire belief system upon, thus when I was invited by a Dividian brother to take part in a discussion on the same topic (also for the purpose of becoming converted), I already understood the errors upon which the entire system was based.

Historical Background

In the perhaps 5 years or so leading up to 1888, there was a running verbal “war” between GI Butler (GC President) and (Times editor) EJ Waggoner over which law was actually being addressed in the book of Galatians. Sis. White had counseled them to not make an issue of it because it would divide the church, which it did.

All seemed well until Waggoner, who was editor of several of our publications, began to publish articles in defense of what was at that time the majority position of the brethren, that the law in Galatians was the Moral law. After this went on for awhile, Butler who believed that it was the ceremonial law being dealt with in Galatians, felt he needed to write a rebuttal, which he published as a booklet entitled “The Law in the Book of Galatians.” This prompted a response from Waggoner which was later printed entitled, “The Gospel in the Book of Galatians.” Both booklets can be found reproduced and downloadable at : (http://dedication.www3.50megs.com/1888/waggonerbutler_twolaws3.html).

GI Butler and Uriah Smith, while holding the same views, battled with EJ Waggoner, and the theological misunderstandings and extremisms that grew out of this debate ultimately led up to the modern feast keeping movement.

Exposing the Skeleton in the SDA Closet of 1888

Unsealing the Mystery of the 1888 General

Conference Meetings in Minneapolis

“There has always been a mystery as to what really happened at that Minneapolis General Conference meeting that created such an upheaval to our church. Many books and articles have been written about it down through the 130+ years.” {Skeleton, p.1}

“Long before 1888 there was a controversy building on the question of which law in Galatians Paul was referring to, Moral or ceremonial. Much of our theology of today was determined by their decision at that time...” {Skeleton, p.2}

“In 1893 when the subject of pork eating was being discussed using the statute in Deut.14:8, “Uriah Smith explicitly rejected the applicability of the Mosaic distinction: “We believe there is better ground on which to rest [the prohibition on pork] than the ceremonial law of the former dispensation, if we take the position that that law is still binding, we must accept it all, and then we shall have more on our hands than we can easily dispose of.” {MR 852 2.} Pork eating was a statute, so the “all” must mean the rest of the statutes including the mysterious subject...” {Skeleton, p.6}

Here we are given a glance behind the scenes of events that were taking place leading up to 1888, and a chance to see how innocuously the problem started, and yet as we shall see, with such devastating results.

The problem that had arisen was as follows. When Ellen White began to teach abstinence from eating pork, she used as part of her argument Deut. 14:8. Uriah Smith had a problem with this, for it was his belief (as is true with most of Laodicea today who follow his lead) that all of the statutes and judgments in the law of Moses applied only to the ceremonial law and were done away with at the cross. He felt that should Sis. White invoke this statute in prohibiting the eating of pork, it would necessitate the restoration of all of the statutes and judgments in the law of Moses, which would of course bring in sacrifices, feast days, and the whole nine yards.

Mr. Bradley, believing that we should keep the feasts, begins to allude to a “mysterious subject” that the brethren were trying to avoid dealing with. As we shall see, he believes that at this time the truth about feast keeping was trying to come to the surface, but was being suppressed by the leadership.

“What does Ellen White say about the statutes? The following quote was written 13 years before 1888. “Inconsequence of continual transgression, the moral law was repeated in awful grandeur from Sinai. Christ gave to Moses the religious precepts which were to govern everyday life. These statutes were explicitly given to guard the ten commandments. They were not shadowy types to pass away with the death of Christ. They were to be binding upon men in every age as long as time should last. These commands were enforced by the power of the moral law, and they clearly and definitely explained that law...” {1BC 1104.6}” {Skeleton, p.6}

The complete quote is found in The Review and Herald, May 6, 1875 and is, in fact, the quote I started with in the first section of this study. I also placed with it a quote from the SRod taken from 2TG37 12-25. Since I have already addressed these passages and I encourage you to return there to review, I will now try to connect the pieces and unfold the basis of the problem.

Butler and Smith argued that the law in Galatians was the ceremonial law, while Waggoner argued that it was the moral law. It later became clear that Waggoner was far more correct than Butler and Smith, but it is here that the problem took an unfortunate turn. Many who studied this subject made a very grave error. They came to the conclusion that ALL of the statutes in the law of Moses were connected to the moral law and the only ones that were no longer binding were those that specified sacrifices.

“What does Waggoner say about this? In his commentary on Galatians 4, in his book The Glad Tidings p. 98, he quotes Malachi 4:4 “Remember ye the law of Moses My servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments.” Waggoner considered the statutes and commandments as one law throughout his writings. The leaders did not nail all the statutes to the cross, such as marriage, morality, tithe, health, etc., only the ones they did not want to keep were nailed to the cross...” {Skeleton, p.6}

Ellen White indeed said that there were statutes that connected to the moral law, not the ceremonial law. Victor Houteff took the same position. Ellen White also made a clear difference between the two and stated that we were required to only obey the statutes that were connected to the moral law. Vistor Houteff agreed. Ellen White took us on a journey on how to select out the ones that we are still required to obey. Victor Houteff did the exact same thing.

In other words, INSPIRATION tells us that the only statutes that were in fact connected to the moral law were those that WERE NOT TYPICAL AND THAT clarified and further explained the precepts of THE MORAL law, and that EVERYTHING ELSE WAS PART OF THE CEREMONIAL LAW AND SYSTEM, A SYSTEM THAT COULD NOT BE DIVIDED UP INTO PIECES BECAUSE IT WAS ALL TYPICAL, AND WAS DONE AWAY WITH AT THE CROSS.

“So far I have not given a name to this mysterious subject that is only spoken of as “this subject” or “that subject…” in the many writings following 1888, including E.G.W.’s writings. I came to the conclusion in recent years that the statutes including the annual feast days are still binding on God’s children found in Lev.23 and all through the Bible. Because of my belief in the statutes, I looked for the word “statutes” in their writings but could not find it except when it was quoted in a Bible verse and in Ellen White’s writings. It became obvious that this was a taboo subject. That gave me a clue, I’m looking for something they will not give it a proper name. This led me to think, what part of the statutes do they not like? They believed in many of them such as tithing, marriage, morality, honesty, and the Day of Atonement in 1844.

“After looking carefully down the list of statutes it became obvious it was about the seven annual feast days. Jones and Waggoner both knew how the Catholic church changed the Feast Days which were God’s appointed times for solemn assemblies. In Jones’ large history books [Great Empires of Prophecy and The Two Republics] he records how the Catholic Church changed the Passover to Easter. This is also found in Vol. 9 of the SDA Bible Commentary p. 365 under the heading “Easter Controversy”.

Bishop Enright, leading Catholic, in the USA, in 1905 wrote a letter stating that he would give a reward of $1,000 to anyone who could give a scripture proving that the Sabbath had been changed to Sunday. He ended the letter saying “the Catholic church abolished not only the Sabbath, but all the other Jewish Festivals.” The last part of this letter is never quoted by Evangelists when presenting the Sabbath. Another quote from a Catholic Catechism, “The new law has its own spirit…and its own feasts which have taken the place of those appointed in the law of Moses. If we would know the days to be observed… we must go to the Catholic Church, not to the Mosaic law.”{ Catholic Catechism}

At this point in time you may be thinking, as we have been taught concerning the feasts, that they were Jewish feasts and part of the ceremonial law, as the leaders in 1888 taught. And that is still being taught today as it is listed in the book 27 Fundamental Doctrines, p243.3, under the heading “The Ceremonial Law” If so, remember Waggoner proved them wrong and Ellen White sanctioned his teaching, putting the statutes with the moral law. {See quote on p.3 1BC1104.6} {Skeleton, p.11-12}

Here is where the confusion begins to make itself known. This brother has come to BELIEVE that the still binding “statutes and judgments” teach the feasts, and because he believes this, he seizes on every opportunity to show that EJ Waggoner and Ellen White taught that all the “statutes and judgments” are part of the moral law, and as such, must be obeyed today. Ellen White (and Victor Houteff) did in fact teach that SOME of the “statutes and judgments” were part of the moral law, that is, those statutes that clarify and explain that law and were not typical, and that the moral law was based on the eternal Father and was as eternal as He is.

But Ellen White (and Victor Houteff) did not teach that ALL the “statutes and judgments” were still binding. Instead, they made it excruciatingly clear that some of the “statures and judgments” ONLY explain and simplify the principles of the Moral law, delineating man’s duty to God and to his fellow man, and does not include any part of the typical illustration of the gospel in Christ, which was a part of the ceremonial system alone, was based on Christ’s work in the plan of salvation, and would meet its antitype at the death of Christ, thus they ignored those statutes and judgments that addressed any part of the typical the ceremonial law.

“Here is another insight into her thinking.

“I recalled the covenant which I had made with God at my husband's deathbed,--that I would not become discouraged under the burden, but would labor more earnestly and devotedly than ever before to present the truth both by pen and voice; that I would set before the people the excellence of the statutes and precepts of Jehovah, and would point them to the cleansing fountain where we may wash away every stain of sin.” {LS 269.1}…

In Lev. 23:14,21,31,41, the feasts are called statutes by God. These are not only Jewish feasts, but they are for all of God’s people. God calls them “My Feasts…” {Skeleton, p.12}

Here he quotes EGW as vowing to teach the “statutes and precepts” of Jehovah, which vow she indeed did make and keep, but then he adds, “the feasts are called statutes by God.” Please note that that is not what EGW said here, but is rather what he believes she meant, which he has yet to prove. He has however, planted that bias in the mind of the reader, and now sets out to reinforce it.

“I ask how can we as a church keep teaching an error, even yet today, when it was proven to Smith and Butler that they were wrong in including the statutes in the ceremonial law?” {Skeleton, p.12}

Notice that he has now established the “fact” that no matter where you connect them, ALL of the statutes are to be connected there. Because Butler and Smith had made the mistake of connecting ALL of the statutes to the ceremonial law, they were struggling for a way to teach abstinence from pork, which EGW taught, without having to bring back all of the ceremonial statutes too. But it was their error in including the statutes that related to the ceremonial law that caused this consternation in the first place.

If they had understood it correctly they would have known that the prohibition of pork was a statute connected to and protecting the moral law by keeping the blood and thus the mind clear, and obeying that would in no way obligate one to keep the feast days, or any typical ceremony which was a part of the completely separate and typical ceremonial law.

“All the evidence in the Bible, Spirit of Prophecy and history all tell us the Catholic Church is responsible for the change of the Sabbath and the Feast Days. Dan.7:25 “And he shall speak [great] words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change “times” and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.” See also the following translations on Dan.7:25 New American Bible -”feast days”, Good News Bible- “religious laws and festivals,” Moffat Bible-”sacred seasons,” New Catholic Translation-”feast days,”” {Skeleton, p.13}

We may individually chose to make the distinctions that this author has made, but unfortunately, as we have already seen, Inspiration does not support this distinction, just as it does not support the separation of the typical sacrificial rites from the typical feast day rites. I care not how a man may parse these verses, I care only what God has said He intended it all to mean.

“The way the leaders in 1888 and also the ministers who were under their control treated Jones and Waggoner, and also Ellen White in a very un-Christ-like manner. The following is Ellen’s description of what took place.

Her guide said, “Follow me.” I followed my guide and he led me to the different houses where brethren made their homes, and he said, “Hear the words here spoken, for they are written in the book of records, and these words will have a condemning power upon all who act a part in this work which is not after the spirit of wisdom from above, but after the spirit that descendeth not from above, but is from beneath.” {1888 Materials 277.3}

“I listened to words uttered that ought to make every one of those ashamed who uttered them. Sarcastic remarks were passed from one to another, ridiculing their brethren A. T. Jones, E. J. Waggoner, and Willie C. White, and myself. My position and my work were freely commented upon by those who ought to have been engaged in the work of humbling their souls before God and setting their own hearts in order. There was seemingly a fascination in brooding over imaginary wrongs and expressions of imagination of their brethren and their work, which had no foundation in truth, and in doubting and speaking and writing bitter things as the result of skepticism and question and unbelief.” {1888 277.4}

Said my guide, “This is written in the books as against Jesus Christ. This spirit cannot harmonize with the Spirit of Christ, of truth. They are intoxicated with the spirit of resistance and know not any more than the drunkard what spirit controls their words or their actions. This sin is peculiarly an offense to God. This spirit bears no more the semblance to the Spirit of truth and righteousness than the spirit that actuated the Jews to form a confederacy to doubt, to criticize and become spies upon Christ, the world's Redeemer. {1888 Mat. 278.1}

I was told by my guide that there had been a witness to the Christless talk, the rabble talk which evidenced the spirit that prompted the words. When they entered their rooms evil angels came with them, because they closed the door to the Spirit of Christ and would not listen to His voice. There was not a humbling of the soul before God. The voice of prayer was seldom heard, but criticism and exaggerated statements and suppositions and conjectures and envy and jealousy and evil surmising and false accusing were current. Had their eyes been opened they would have seen that which would have alarmed them, the exulting of evil angels. And they would have seen also a Watcher who had heard every word and registered these words in the books of heaven.” {1888 278.2}

I was then informed that at this time it would be useless to make any decision as to positions on doctrinal points, as to what is truth, or to expect any spirit of fair investigation, because there was a confederacy formed to allow of no change of ideas on any point or position they had received any more than did the Jews. Much was said to me by my Guide that I have no liberty to write. I found myself sitting up in bed in a spirit of grief and distress, also with a spirit of firm resolve to stand at my post of duty to the close of the meeting and then wait for the directions of the Spirit of God telling me how to move and what course to pursue.” {1888 Materials 278.3} “{Skeleton, p.14-15}

How true this is, but please note that what they were resisting was “righteousness by faith,” the “loud cry of the third angel,” not the keeping of the feast days. But having led the readers mind to equate the two, we are all of course now on the train.

“The real subject the Devil was working against was not about the “secret subject” of the pre-session, but the subject of Righteousness by Faith in the General Conference sessions. He knew that if Righteousness by Faith was promoted by the church, it would have started the count down to his last days. The “mysterious subject” of the pre-sessions was his way of preventing the Latter Rain from falling. This does not diminish the importance of the “subject” what ever it was, because it represented a refusal to obey God’s word. That let the devil get control of otherwise good men. After all, these men were elected to be the leaders of the church. Like so many other good leaders, they let power and pride get into their thinking. Therefore they made some big mistakes when Christ was no longer in control.” {Skeleton, p.17}

Please note that now that you have been led to the apparent “fact” that there was a “secret, mysterious subject” at the foundation of all of this, you are of course very anxiously waiting for the “truth” to come to the full light of day.

But what was this “secret, mysterious subject” in reality? Let’s rebuild the sand castle so we keep the facts ever before us.

Butler and Smith erroneously concluded that all the “statutes” were connected to the ceremonial law (true). EJW proved that to be an error (true). This error cause consternation among some the leading brethren because of trying to uphold abstinence from pork without bringing in the other things (feast days) that the ceremonial law teaches (true). All the statutes are part of the moral law, are binding and thus require the observance of the feast days (false). So the “secret” subject in the “pre-sessions” was in reality a resistance against both righteousness by faith “and” the keeping of the feast days (false).

Brethren, pure error is seldom deceiving, but the right mix of truth and error can be deadly to those unaccustomed to living by “every word” of God.

“Fact 9: Today our church teaches that we keep many of the statutes, but the annual feast day Sabbaths, which are statutes also [Lev.23: 14,21,31,41] are nailed to the cross. This teaching cannot be proved by the Bible, the Spirit of Prophecy or history.” {Skeleton, p.19}

It was because of this statement that I opened this study with the SOP statement from Ellen White found in The Review and Herald, May 5, 1875 and the SRod statement found in Timely Greetings Vol. 2, pp. 12-25. Though I believe repetition is a very effective teaching tool that God’s servants should employ “repeatedly” (pun intended), I have chosen only to review the highlights, though I STRONGLY encourage you to go back to section one and make sure you are clear on all the points INSPIRATION brings to our attention.

By the words of two INSPIRED witnesses we have been taught the following things:

• In all ages God’s people have only had two systems of law – the moral and the ceremonial

• Both the moral and the ceremonial laws had “statutes and judgments” added to them

• The moral law with its statutes and judgments

o Was written by the finger of God

o Shows the duty of man to God

o Defines the worship due to God

o Shows the duty of man to his fellow man

o Points back to creation

o Is binding upon all men in every dispensation

o Will exist through all time and eternity

o Was an essential part of God’s divine plan

o Was as unchangeable as God Himself

o Was repeated at Sinai due to continual transgression

o Had statutes and judgments added that:

♣ Were to guard the Ten Commandments

♣ Were not shadowy types

♣ Were enforced by the power of the moral law

♣ Governed everyday life

♣ Specified the duty of man to his fellow man