A Key-and Erroneous- Argument Against Holy Day Observance

A key – and erroneous – argument against Holy Day observance

Steve Corley

(Incorporating some material from a sermonette given in Houston South 9/26/2009)

Given in Roanoke and Kingsport on Sabbath, 10/1/2022

Given in Knoxville on Sabbath, 10/26/2024

We have just finished the Fall Holy Day season.  Most people today who claim the title of “Christian” do not observe the annual Holy Days, just as they have also rejected God’s Sabbath.  Either they believe that all the Old Testament commandments have been “done away” except for those which are repeated in the New Testament, or they believe that the Sabbath and Holy Days are part of the ceremonial law which became no longer binding after the death and resurrection of Christ.  Many of them say the Holy Days were part of the Old Covenant only and have been superseded in the New Covenant.  They claim that observance of these days was only for Israelites under the Old Covenant. According to them, the days have no application to anyone under the New Covenant, certainly not to Gentiles. Indeed, the book of Hebrews does tell us that the Old Covenant is obsolete (Heb. 8.13).  But remember that Zech. 14:16-19 tells us that all nations – most of whom are Gentile -- will be required to keep the Feast of Tabernacles in the Millennium. A severe penalty (no rain) will be applied to nations who do not comply in sending representatives to Jerusalem during the Feast – with Egypt (certainly a Gentile nation) used as a potential specific example in this regard.  But why would God punish nations for not observing something which is obsolete?  People who claim Holy Day observance is obsolete also conveniently ignore passages such as Acts 2:1, Acts 20:6, Acts 20:16, Acts 27:9 and 1 Cor. 5:7-8 showing Holy Day observance (including by Gentile Christians) in the early New Testament Church.  I dealt with these Scriptures in detail in a previous Holy Day sermon – particularly the stay of Paul and his companions at Philippi (an almost completely Gentile city) and his observance of the Days of Unleavened Bread with Christians there.  (A plurality of these passages were written by Luke, identified as a Gentile in Colossians 4:10-11 and 14 and believed to be the only Gentile author of the New Testament.) 

We have been talking about the attitude of most “Christians” out in the world toward the Holy Days.  But we remember that in 1995 people who claimed to be within the Church of God – a group of heretics within the former fellowship of most of us – also attempted to claim that observance of the High Holy Days was not a requirement for Christians living under the New Covenant.  In one of the notorious 1995 study papers, there was an effort to deny that Zechariah 14 applied to us today – it was claimed that Old Testament prophecy could not be used to set requirements for the Church in this age.  (The time in 1995 when I saw this statement was the point when it first became clearly obvious to me that the doctrinal change movement was up to no good.)  But where did these people get their basis for ignoring Zechariah 14?  In this sermon I would like to look at a key argument which they used as a basis of their claim that Zechariah 14 does not apply today and to show why this argument is not correct.  We can title it “A Key – and Erroneous – Argument Against Holy Day Observance.”

What was the key argument that was used as the basis for this claim that Zechariah 14 could not be used to say that Feast observance is binding on us today? The actual logic of their argument was not given in the study paper itself but I would like to give credit to a certain minister for explaining to me where their argument was coming from. There are a number of clear statements in the New Testament showing that physical circumcision is not required under the New Covenant (1 Cor. 7:18, Gal. 6:12-15).  In my previous sermon on “nomos (law) – a word with multiple meanings” I pointed to the requirement for physical circumcision as a ceremonial law of the Old Covenant – one which is not binding on Christians today. 

But on the other hand let’s look at Ezekiel 44:9.  This verse, in a section surrounded by prophecies which apparently refer to the Millennium, indicates that no foreigner uncircumcised in heart or in flesh will enter the Temple.  Those who argued that Zechariah 14:16-18 does not indicate that Feast observance is required today pointed out the apparent inconsistency between Ezekiel 44:9 and the New Testament verses we have just read.  To them, the prophecy of Ezekiel 44:9 apparently indicated that physical circumcision would be required during the Millennium. As we have seen, the New Testament clearly shows that such physical circumcision is not a religious requirement under the New Covenant today.  Hence these people took the stand that one similarly could not use the Millennial requirement for Feast observance stated in Zechariah 14:16-18 to show that Feast observance is required for Christians today.  Such was the source of their statement claiming that Old Testament prophecy could not be used to set requirements for the Church in this age.

How does one answer that argument?  Is the way that the people in question interpret Ezekiel 44:9 actually correct?  Is physical circumcision actually going to be a religious requirement during the Millennium in spite of the fact that it is clearly not a Biblical requirement for Christians today?  There are at least three major possibilities for the fulfillment of Ezekiel 44:9 which are totally consistent with the New Covenant and which leave Zechariah 14:16-18 intact.  Let me give these three possible explanations in what I see as the order of increasing probability.

1. Let’s look at the entire passage containing this verse (starting in Ezekiel 44:5).  Ezekiel 44:5-9 may be an “inset” passage which is actually not a millennial prophecy at all but was simply a command for that time (when the temple was rebuilt by the returning Jews after the Babylonian exile).  This command concerning foreigners was enforced during part of the time of the Second Temple, when foreigners were indeed not allowed to enter the temple on pain of death.  The Roman government allowed the execution of even Roman citizens (who were not Jews) who were found inside the temple.  (However, there was certainly no attempt to prevent Israelites who were “uncircumcised in heart” from entering the Temple, as shown by the behavior of many of the Pharisees and others which was decried by Christ in many New Testament passages. In this way the prophecy in verse 9 was not being fulfilled at that time.)

    

2. Assuming that the passage is indeed a millennial prophecy – no one under the New Covenant, who is “circumcised” in the heart, is considered a foreigner (Eph. 2:11-13).  Ezekiel 44:9 only mentioned that foreigners uncircumcised in flesh would not enter the temple.  It said nothing about those uncircumcised in flesh who were not foreigners – who were part of spiritual Israel, the “Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16).  Hence someone who has come under the New Covenant and is “circumcised” in the heart would not be considered a foreigner and could enter the millennial temple, even if uncircumcised in the flesh.  Similar Scriptures such as Romans 2:25-29 make it very clear that the converted Christian, who keeps the law of God, is not a stranger or foreigner – even if he is physically uncircumcised.  Hence converted Christians during the Millennium would not be counted as “foreigners” according to Ezekiel 44:9 and would hence be permitted to enter the Temple.

    

3. I think this may be the most likely scenario.  Let’s even suppose that the verse does mean that no man uncircumcised in flesh will enter the temple, even if he is not a “foreigner.” How could this situation occur during the Millennium if physical circumcision is no longer a religious requirement?  Note that the verse does not say that a man uncircumcised in flesh would not be permitted to enter the temple – only simply that he would not enter it.  The specific reason he would not enter it was not mentioned.  How then would there be no men uncircumcised in flesh entering the temple even if physical uncircumcision were not a reason for forbidding entry?  An answer would be simple.  Note that most male babies are circumcised today for health reasons – even though for very few of them is it a religious requirement.  Hence might we not assume that the circumcision of male babies in the Millennium might become universal simply for health reasons, even though not a religious requirement under the New Covenant?  Then eventually there would be no physically uncircumcised male humans left on earth.  Hence there would be no man “uncircumcised in flesh” there who could enter the temple and the verse in Ezekiel 45 would be fulfilled – even though physical circumcision no longer has religious significance.  An analogy might be if a prophecy had been spoken in the pre-Flood world that in the future no woolly mammoths would enter the land.  Would that be because someone or something would prevent them from doing so?  Of course there would be no need to keep them out – the woolly mammoth became extinct around the time when we believe the Flood most likely occurred.

As Christians today we are under the New Covenant (Heb. 8:7-12), the Old Covenant having been rendered obsolete (verse 13).  The only way in which observance of the Holy Days and Feast of Tabernacles would not be binding on us today would be if observance of these days were not a requirement of the New Covenant.  We have already seen from Zechariah 14:16-18 that all nations will be required to observe the Feast of Tabernacles during the Millennium (the return of Christ having been described earlier in the chapter in verses 3 and 4).  Hence the only way that observance of these days would be binding on people during the Millennium but not binding on us today would be if people at that time were to be under a third covenant which would supersede the New Covenant – with the third covenant requiring Holy Day observance.  However, no third covenant is prophesied anywhere in the Bible – in the Millennium the New Covenant which is today in force in the Church will simply be extended to all mankind (Jer. 31:31-34, Ezekiel 36:26-27).  Hence Holy Day observance is binding on Christians today.

We have seen three different scenarios by which Ezekiel 44:9 might be fulfilled without assuming that any third covenant will be established – and within the guidelines of the New Testament stating that physical circumcision is not a religious requirement under the New Covenant.  Ezekiel 44:9 is perfectly consistent with the New Covenant being in force during the Millennium.  It is the same covenant which is in force in our lives today.  And since Zechariah 14:16-18 shows that to observe the Feast of Tabernacles will be a requirement for all nations in the Millennium – under the New Covenant – it is a requirement binding on us today under the same covenant. The argument made in 1995 by the enemies of the truth has no validity.  Ezekiel 44:9 cannot be used to demolish the clear statement of Zechariah 14:16-18 and to support the idea that Holy Day observance is not required for Christians today.  Let’s turn to Rom. 2:26 and 1 Cor. 7:19.  Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is anything – but what matters is the keeping of God’s commandments.  And one of those commandments is to keep God’s Holy Days – the “appointed times” – as we have just finished for this year.  Let us be thankful to God for giving us His truth, for giving us the opportunity to be the bellwether people, doing now what will someday be required all over the world!