[ Back ] [ Home ] [ Up ] [ Next ]

John Commits the Fallacy of Petitio Principii

The fallacy of petitio principii is committed when the premise of an argument, whether stated or implied, presumes the very conclusion that one is attempting to prove.  John’s premise is that the weekly Sabbath from which the wave sheaf is counted must fall within the days of Unleavened Bread.  Based on this unproven premise, John concludes that the wave sheaf cannot follow a weekly Sabbath that does not fall within the days of Unleavened Bread. He then introduces two other points to support his premise. Notice:

“In their limited written material on the matter, the WCG contends that having the wavesheaf offering following the Days of Unleavened Bread destroys the chronological sequence of death, acceptance and putting sin completely out of one’s life. But consider this: In every case, Unleavened Bread (putting sin out) begins before the wavesheaf (acceptance) occurs. Is not their sequence already broken even in a normal year? Must one not repent of sin before God accepts him?

“When Passover falls on a weekly Sabbath, and if the wavesheaf occurs the next day, it:

(1)  follows a Sabbath not within the Days of Unleavened Bread;

(2)  causes the wavesheaf to be performed on an annual Sabbath, a rest day; and

(3)  presents us with the peculiar symbolic picture of Christ being resurrected immediately after He is symbolically put in the grave.”

John offers no evidence that the wave sheaf must follow a weekly Sabbath within the Days of Unleavened Bread, yet he concludes that it is a violation of Scripture if the weekly Sabbath does not.  This “problem” is a result of John’s faulty interpretation of Leviticus 23:11, 15.

John offers no evidence that the wave sheaf cannot occur on a High Sabbath yet concludes that it is a violation of Scripture if it does.  This “problem” is based on the premise that the wave sheaf was never offered on a High Sabbath because it would violate the command to rest.  John offers no Scriptural evidence to support this premise.  In fact, offering the wave sheaf involved much less work than sacrificing bullocks and other animals, which were offered on every High Sabbath.

John offers no evidence that the symbolism of the wave sheaf is contradicted when the wave sheaf day immediately follows the Passover, yet he concludes that the symbolism is violated.  John ignores the fact that God’s command allows a variable number of days between the Passover and the wave sheaf.  By linking the wave sheaf to the weekly Sabbath, God established a definite sequence in the two events without setting a fixed number of days.  If it were a violation of symbolism to allow less than three days between the Passover and the wave sheaf, it would also be a violation to allow more than three days.  The Scriptures do not support John’s claim.

The fallacy of relevance occurs when the point that is presented has no logical relevance to the conclusion.  Since God’s command makes it impossible to have a set number of days between Passover and the wave sheaf day, the timing of three days in the year of Christ’s crucifixion cannot be used as a standard for observing the wave sheaf.  Whether the wave sheaf day immediately follows the Passover day or falls 72 hours after Passover, as in the year of Christ’s death, is irrelevant to the question of whether or not the weekly Sabbath from which we count to Pentecost must fall within the Days of Unleavened Bread.

John demonstrates the fallacy of relevance in the following argument.  In the process, he mistakenly places the resurrection of Christ on the weekly Sabbath “near sunset,” although it took place at the exact time of sunset, when the Sabbath ended and the first day of the week began. His next statement is nonsensical.  The symbolism of the Passover is the same each year regardless of the day of the week on which it falls. If the symbolism depended on exact timing, God would not have linked the wave sheaf to the weekly Sabbath, and the Passover to a set day of the month, which allows a variable number of days between the two events.

“Scripture shows He was put into the grave on Passover near sunset and rose 72 hours later on a Sabbath near sunset. When Passover is on a weekly Sabbath, can the same calendar day represent the crucifixion, death, burial and resurrection of Christ? Does this not destroy the sign Jesus gave as evidence of His messiahship, being three days and three nights in the grave? Only when Passover falls on Wednesday can the symbolism work precisely as it did when Christ died. Whenever Passover falls on a Monday, Friday or weekly Sabbath, the exact symbolism cannot be maintained. The WCG’s symbolism argument becomes more smoke and mirrors than fact. Where is the scriptural authority for its use?

“Can the following Sunday, Nisan 22, be wavesheaf Sunday? Yes, just as much as when Passover falls on a Monday or Friday. If Passover had been on the weekly Sabbath, Jesus would have been in the grave three days and three nights and then resurrected. Though the wait would have been longer following His resurrection, He would have been fully ready to ascend to the Father and be accepted on wavesheaf Sunday, Nisan 22.

“A calendar for 1994, published by the Messianic Jews (Lederer Messianic Publications, 6204 Park Heights, Baltimore, MD 21215), lists two days for the wavesheaf offering, March 28 (Nisan 16) for the Pharisaic tradition and April 3 (Nisan 22) for the Sadducean tradition. These modern Jews clearly recognize that the Sadducees understood that wavesheaf day could fall after the Days of Unleavened Bread.

There are a number of flaws in John’s reasoning.  He argues that a wave sheaf immediately following Passover destroys the sign of Jesus’ messiahship because it does not allow three days and three nights between the two events.  He presumes that the symbolic meaning of the Passover and the wave sheaf requires at least 72 hours to pass between their observance. He fails to consider thatGod’s command in Leviticus 23 does not always allow three full days between the two events.  When Passover falls on a Friday, only 24 hours pass between the Passover day and the Wave Sheaf Day.  The symbolism of the Passover and the wave sheaf is maintained by the sequential order of the events, despite the variation in timing.

If the symbolism depended on exact timing, God would have specified that the Passover must always fall on a Wednesday in order that the wave sheaf might always be observed exactly three days afterward.  Since God chose not to establish a set length of time between the two events, it is irrelevant to argue that three days and three nights must elapse between them.  The sign of Christ’s messiahship cannot be made a requirement for determining the wave sheaf because, as John acknowledges, the exact timing is possible only when the Passover falls on a Wednesday.

The fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam uses one of two forms of denial:  1) to argue that something is so because it has not been demonstrated that it is not so;  2) to argue that something is not so because it has not been demonstrated that it is so. John utilizes the second form of denial in his effort to demonstrate that the wave sheaf cannot fall on the First High Sabbath of Unleavened Bread.  Notice:

“Does waving the sheaf on a holy day present any problems? Yes, indeed! First, the Bible says to wave it on the day after the Sabbath. Can it legitimately be waved on a Sabbath, a holy day, a day of rest? Is it not bending the Scripture to count any Sabbath as a workday? The Jews traditionally held wavesheaf day to be a workday. Though they did it on different days, the Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes and Falashas all waved the sheaf on a normal workday. No record has ever been found of any of them offering the wavesheaf on a holy day Sabbath. Apparently, this is not because of the work involved in making the offering, but because once the offering was made, the people were free to begin the harvest in earnest. History shows the people usually began working around noon on wavesheaf day because the offering was normally scheduled to be made by a priest between 9:00 a.m. and noon.

“In “What You Need to Know About the New Testament Pentecost” in the June 1974 Good News magazine, Garner Ted Armstrong and Raymond McNair write:

“ ‘During that time of the early New Testament Church, the Sadducees and the priests took the weekly Sabbath of the Passover season as the benchmark from which to reckon the fifty days to Pentecost. It was not until a very few years before the fall of Jerusalem that the Pharisees finally got control of the Temple and changed over to reckoning Pentecost from the morrow after the first annual Sabbath during the Days of Unleavened Bread.

“ ‘. . . We are commanded to begin counting the “seven weeks” or “seven sabbaths” from (figuring inclusively), or beginning with, the wave-sheaf Sunday which must always fall during the Days of Unleavened Bread.

“ ‘. . . The Sadducees and most Christian scholars throughout history have concluded, erroneously, that the wave-sheaf Sunday could sometimes fall outside the Days of Unleavened Bread. But this is incorrect. (p. 5. Emphasis theirs.’ ”

“Where is their authority for saying that God commands us always to begin the count to Pentecost from the Sunday that falls within the Days of Unleavened Bread? No such statement appears in the entirety of the Bible, and not a single religious body, using the Bible and drawing upon their own language and history, followed that method in counting to Pentecost. Notice also that their last paragraph directly contradicts the first. How can a day be a benchmark if it is moveable? How can a rule be considered firm if what is always to be done can be changed?”

John’s argument that the wave sheaf must fall on a workday is based solely on Jewish tradition.  He offers no Scriptural evidence to support this view.  He goes on to challenge those who maintain that the wave sheaf must fall within the Days of Unleavened Bread, claiming that they are practicing what is not found in Scripture.  He ignores the fact that there is “no such statement in the entirety of the Bible” to support his own claim that the weekly Sabbath preceding the wave sheaf must fall within the Days of Unleavened Bread.  Since the command in Leviticus 23 does not clearly state whether the wave sheaf or the weekly Sabbath must fall within the Days of Unleavened Bread, we must look elsewhere in Scripture to find the answer.  To look to Jewish tradition as our authority for observing the wave sheaf would be as great an error as relying on the tradition of the 15^th Passover.

John’s question at the end of the above citation is based on the assumption that the weekly Sabbath preceding the wave sheaf must always fall within the Days of Unleavened Bread.  Since no such command is stated in Scripture, no rule is broken when the weekly Sabbath that precedes the wave sheaf does not fall within the Days of Unleavened Bread.

John Commits the Fallacy of Division

The fallacy of division is committed when the property of the whole is transferred to part of that whole. Because the wave sheaf day begins the seven-week count to Pentecost, which represents the harvesting of the saints, John reasons that the wave sheaf day also represents harvesting.  Based on this assumption, John asserts that the wave sheaf day requires labor and therefore cannot fall on a Sabbath:

“We must also consider that the wavesheaf symbolizes the beginning of the harvest. A harvest entails work, labor. The priestly labor of making the offering is not of concern here (Jesus declares them blameless for this), but the work of all (farmers, reapers, etc.) involved to produce a harvest is.

“Apply this spiritually. The wavesheaf symbolizes the beginning, the firstfruit, of God’s spiritual harvest of souls that will culminate in the resurrection of the church. If a holy day is the initial day of that work of salvation, then rest equals work. Do the Sabbath and other holy times have no meaning with respect to the Millennium, a time of rest from the trials, privations and difficulties that men have experienced throughout history? Certainly, they do. Sabbath “work” (symbolically, harvesting), in this case, is not consistent with God’s commands or the meaning of “rest.” Since the wavesheaf symbolizes the resurrected Christ accepted to begin His work, if it is offered on a Sabbath, does this not symbolically turn a day of rest into a day of work? Does not this confuse the symbolism? A harvest equates to work, and a Sabbath equates to rest. The two ideas exclude each other. The wavesheaf should not be offered on any day but a common workday.”

John argues that the wave sheaf symbolizes the beginning of the harvest, which entails labor, and therefore should be offered on a common workday—never on a Sabbath, which symbolizes rest from labor.  He totally overlooks the fact that Pentecost, which symbolizes the end of the harvest, is always observed on a Sabbath.  The same holds true for the first day of the Feast of Tabernacles, and for the Last Great Day, which picture the final harvest.  God Himself ordained that these days, which symbolically represent the harvest, be observed as High Sabbaths each year.  Thus there is no basis for the claim that the Wave Sheaf Day cannot fall on the first High Sabbath of the Days of Unleavened Bread.

John implies that for Christ to begin His work as our High Priest and Mediator on a Sabbath would violate the Fourth Commandment.  He ignores the fact that Jesus carries out His work of redemption and salvation on every day of the week in the year, including both weekly Sabbaths and annual Sabbaths, as He did during His ministry on earth.  To view His work on the Sabbath as a violation of the Fourth Commandment is not Scriptural but Pharisaical (John 5:16-17).

John acknowledges that the work required for the offering of the wave sheaf, like the work required for other offerings, cannot be construed as a violation of the Sabbath.  The priests were not only permitted but specifically commanded by God to offer sacrifices on every weekly Sabbath and on every annual Sabbath.  But John asserts that the harvesting that is associated with the wave sheaf violates the Sabbath. 

The Scriptural instructions for offering the wave sheaf do not support this reasoning.  The command for offering the wave sheaf did not require that entire fields be harvested, but only that a single sheaf be cut.  This was part of the ceremony for the offering and cannot be construed as violating the Sabbath.  The completion of the wave sheaf offering, of course, allowed the people to gather grain from the fields to eat.  Was this an act of labor that could not be done on the Sabbath?  What do the Scriptures teach? 

In the Gospel of Matthew, we find the direct teaching of Jesus Christ concerning this question.  When His disciples were condemned by the Pharisees for gathering grain to eat on the Sabbath, Jesus made it very clear that this act was not a violation of the Fourth Commandment (Matt. 12:1-8).  His teaching amplifies the law of the Old Covenant which permitted the gathering of sufficient grain to satisfy one’s hunger, and shows that this law applies to Sabbath days also (Deut. 23:25).

John Commits the Fallacy of Petitio Principii

The fallacy of petitio principii is committed when the premise of an argument, whether stated or implied, presumes the very conclusion that one is attempting to prove.  This flaw in logic is commonly known as “circular reasoning.” Because John presumes that “the rule for counting to Pentecost” requires the weekly Sabbath that precedes the wave sheaf to fall within the Days of Unleavened Bread, he concludes that it is the wave sheaf that must fall outside the Days of Unleavened Bread in some years.  Notice:

“Does having the wavesheaf after the Days of Unleavened Bread leave Christ symbolically hanging on the stake or buried during the entire period (Days of Unleavened Bread) that represents His work as High Priest, cleansing us of sin and delivering us from its power?

“The prophecy of Daniel 9:26-27 says the Messiah is cut off “in the middle of the week.” Its fulfillment is a sign of the Messiah. This means He had to be crucified in a year in which Passover fell on a Wednesday, making it impossible for Him to be killed in a year in which Passover fell on a Monday, Friday or weekly Sabbath. Thus, one crucifixion could not cover every possible day on which a Passover could fall. God opted for one that would cover the highest number of scenarios; that is, eight of nine years the wavesheaf will fall within the Days of Unleavened Bread. By itself, however, this is no reason to change the rule for counting to Pentecost in the odd year. Nothing in the Scriptures or history supports it. Changing the instruction established in Leviticus 23:11, 15 and confirmed by John 20:1, 17 introduces confusion.

“The Scriptures also demand He lay in the grave three days and three nights to fulfill the wavesheaf by being the authentic Messiah (Matthew 12:38-40). In a year like this, following the WCG’s reasoning, He is symbolically crucified on the Passover (a weekly Sabbath), buried near sunset, immediately raised the same day and accepted the next morning, having spent—at most—only a few minutes in the grave. It virtually denies the necessity of Christ having to be in the tomb three days and three nights to fulfill the sign.”

The scenario that John presents allows the wave sheaf to fall outside the Days of Unleavened Bread in one out of nine years.  His conclusion is based solely on the unproven premise that the wave sheaf must always follow the weekly Sabbath that falls within the Days of Unleavened Bread.  He refers to this interpretation of Leviticus 23:11 as an established rule, rather than as an opinion that must be proved.  He is committing the fallacy of petitio principii because his premise and conclusion are one and the same.

A second error in logic—the fallacy of relevance—is embedded in John’s reasoning.  John argues that the sign of Christ’s messiahship requires three full days to elapse between the Passover and the wave sheaf.  He overlooks the fact that when the Passover falls on a Friday, the wave sheaf falls on the second day of Unleavened Bread, which allows only one day between the Passover and the wave sheaf. God set the timing of the Passover and the wave sheaf long before the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ, knowing in advance that His commands would not allow a precise parallel with Christ’s fulfillment of these events, except in those years when the Passover falls on a Wednesday.  Since God’s command for the Passover causes it to fall on other days in the week, it is evident that God did not aim for an exact parallel.  God is a God of perfection—not a God of averages or near misses.  If He had intended to make the sign of Christ’s messiahship a requirement for observing the wave sheaf, He would have commanded that the wave sheaf be offered exactly three days after the Passover in every year. The fact that God did not ordain a specific time between the two events makes John’s point concerning the sign of Christ’s messiahship irrelevant to the determination of the wave sheaf.

John Commits the Fallacy of Relevance

The fallacy of relevance occurs when the point that is presented has no logical relevance to the conclusion.  After pointing out the flaws in using symbolism to determine whether the wave sheaf should be observed on Nisan 15 or on Nisan 22, John appeals to the symbolic meaning of holy days to support his conclusion that the wave sheaf cannot fall on Nisan 15, the first High Sabbath of the Days of Unleavened Bread: 

“The symbolism involved in the WCG’s decision brings out another problem in logic. The 1974 Pentecost Study Material, pp. 56-58, leads one to believe that the fulfillment of God’s plan must occur in a specific order: 1) Christ’s Passover sacrifice; 2) the Father’s acceptance of His sacrifice; and 3) the Christian’s ridding his life completely of sin following his acceptance of the sacrifice. They argue that a Nisan 22 wavesheaf Sunday wrongly pictures the believer putting out sin before the Father accepts the sacrifice of Christ. However, does not the eating of unleavened bread—signifying the believer putting sin out of his life—begin when Nisan 15 begins? Does not Nisan 15 begin at sunset? When wavesheaf Sunday falls on the first day of Unleavened Bread, Nisan 15 begins an entire half-day before the wavesheaf is offered! The symbolism in this illustrates that a Christian’s ridding his life of sin begins before acceptance by the Father!

“Another difficulty that enters the mix is that, symbolically, God does not give the Holy Spirit until Pentecost, long after the Christian begins putting sin out of his life—yet it is a Christian’s receipt of God’s Spirit that enables him to get rid of sin!

“Consider that Passover more frequently falls on Monday, Wednesday or Friday. When it falls on Monday, Tuesday is the first day of Unleavened Bread, and the following Monday is the last day of Unleavened Bread. In such a year, five full days elapse before the wavesheaf is cut. What is the difference whether the wavesheaf offering must wait one, three, five or seven full days during Unleavened Bread? What law is broken? Each of these four ways depicts Christ spending time in the grave, symbolically illustrating that He was truly dead and buried and fulfilled the sign of His messiahship.

“The WCG’s sequence blurs this teaching severely, besides arbitrarily altering the rule established in Leviticus 23:11, 15. In addition, it puts wavesheaf day on a holy day, a rest day, whose teaching and symbolism is entirely different. All the variables produced from the four different days Passover can fall on shows that God does not demand the symbolism to apply in any strict chronological order. Instead, the symbolism overlaps; its order is general rather than specific. It has no bearing on whether we can use symbolism to override a law.”

John contradicts his previous argument that a minimum of three days must pass between Passover and the wave sheaf, and now acknowledges that there is no such rule in Scripture.  However, he again presents his interpretation of God’s command in Leviticus 23 as an established rule and asserts that a wave sheaf on Nisan 15 is “arbitrarily altering the rule.”  He relies on the symbolism of the holy day to support his conclusion that observing the wave sheaf on a holy day contradicts God’s command to rest. 

The Scriptural commands for the observance of the Wave Sheaf Day do not support this view.  The commands in Leviticus 23:12-13 for the Wave Sheaf Day required only one sacrificial lamb, a meal offering and a drink offering, in addition to the wave sheaf.  On the other hand, the commands for the Day of Pentecost in Verses 16-21 required seven lambs, one bullock and two rams, as well as meal and drink offerings, in addition to two wave loaves.  The offerings that were required for the Day of Pentecost far exceed the offerings that were required for the Wave Sheaf Day.  Since the Day of Pentecost was ordained by God to be observed as a holy day and annual Sabbath, there is no basis for claiming that the observance of the Wave Sheaf Day conflicts with the observance of a holy day.  The account of Israel’s first Passover in the Promised Land, as recorded in Joshua 5:10-11, indicates that God’s commands for the wave sheaf offering were initially fulfilled on Nisan 15, the first High Sabbath of the Days of Unleavened Bread.

The fallacy of irrelevant conclusion is committed when a writer draws a conclusion that is not supported by the points that are presented.  In the following paragraphs, John offers a number of arguments to support his conclusion that the events recorded in Joshua 5:10-12 did not include the observance of the Passover: 

“In the 1974 Pentecost Study Material given to the ministry, the doctrinal committee bases much of its teaching for keeping the wavesheaf offering within the Days of Unleavened Bread on Joshua 5:10-12. These verses also appear in the June 1974 Good News article as authority always to count from the Sunday within the Days of Unleavened Bread. This decision runs contrary to what Herbert W. Armstrong determined before 1974 when the Passover fell on a weekly Sabbath. The study material, however, inclines the reader to understand that the author(s) believed the church should not change from what Herbert Armstrong had previously decided.

“The committee evidently decided to change primarily from a consideration of symbolism and Joshua 5:10-12. It concludes: “Putting these points all together, it appears that the wave sheaf must always have been offered during the days of Unleavened Bread—and not after that period” [p. 58, emphasis theirs]. If this is so, where is any record—let alone a biblical record—of anyone doing this?

“However, WCG never considered a great deal of information that impacts upon a true understanding of Joshua 5:10-12. The result is an error-filled interpretation.

“ ‘ “So the children of Israel camped in Gilgal, and kept the Passover on the fourteenth day of the month at twilight [ba’ereb] on the plains of Jericho. And they ate of the produce of the land on the day after the Passover, unleavened bread and parched grain, on the very same day. Now the manna ceased on the day after they had eaten the produce of the land; and the children of Israel no longer had manna, but they ate the food of the land of Canaan that year.” (Joshua 5:10-12).

“From these verses, the Pentecost Study Material concludes:

“ ‘Since the children of Israel did eat of the produce (grain) of the land on the day after the Passover (the 15^th of Nisan), and since they could not have eaten of the grain until after they had offered up the omer—they must have, therefore, offered the wave sheaf on the morning of the 15^th which would have been on a Sunday.

“ ‘This, in turn, would mean that the Passover day (the 14^th of Nisan) was a weekly sabbath; and this would show that in those years when the last day of Unleavened Bread coincided with the weekly sabbath, God directed the priests to count Pentecost from the Sunday following the weekly sabbath which immediately preceded the days of Unleavened Bread. Thereby the wave sheaf would always fall within the days of Unleavened Bread.’ ”

“To begin with, the WCG’s paper virtually ignores the circumcision mentioned in verses 2-8. These circumcisions took place sometime shortly after entering the land on Nisan 10. If the men were circumcised on the 11^th (which seems likely because Joshua would want to obey God’s command as quickly as possible), it sets up an interesting scenario in relation to Passover.

“The logistics of this undertaking demand serious consideration. It was a massive operation (no pun intended)! ‘[A]ll the people who were born in the wilderness’ needed circumcision (verse 5). How many may this have included? It may have been over million males (Numbers 26:51 records over 600,000 males 20 years and older, not including Levites and minors)! How long did these circumcisions take? Allowing one minute per circumcision performed by one person, if they were done one after another, it would take around 1,800 24-hour workdays! This major undertaking was not finished in just a few minutes or even a few hours.

“The circumcisions were undoubtedly not done like this. It is far more likely that multiple circumcisions were done simultaneously. Who performed the circumcisions? Those who were under 20 when Israel left Egypt and had been circumcised? How many of them still lived? No one knows. The priests? How many priests were there? Remember, many priests also had to undergo circumcision themselves. Did the men circumcise each other? Would a circumcised man be in any condition to circumcise another man?

“Numbers 26:62 tells us 23,000 Levite males over one month old crossed the Jordan into the land. If each one performed a circumcision every ten minutes, it would have taken two 24-hour days to circumcise over a million males. Consider just a few of the difficulties even to accomplish this: Did they continue the operations through the night hours by the flickering flames of roaring fires? They did not have portable generators and flood lights to aid them. Consider also that most of the nation was unskilled at circumcision; most Israelites had no prior experience with it since no one had been circumcised in the wilderness.

“The priests, probably circumcised last, would have been the ones most incapacitated when Passover arrived. When Simeon and Levi attacked Shechem on the third day after the men were circumcised (Genesis 34:25), they knew the men would be sore (KJV, ka’ab, ‘grief’ or ‘pain’) and unable to fight effectively. They were so incapacitated, they were unable to mount a defense for their very lives!

“Consider this in light of the scenario in Joshua 5. Even if the circumcisions were complete in one day, the 11^th, the third day, apparently the most painful day of recuperation, would have been Passover day. This raises the question as to whether the men could have slain the Passover lamb, let alone harvest a portion of a crop! When we asked a modern medical doctor how long an adult would take to recuperate from a circumcision, he answered, ‘Ten days.’ Adam Clarke, from his nineteenth-century perspective, says, ‘Three weeks’! Joshua 5:8 says, ‘They [the circumcised men] stayed in their places in the camp till they were healed’! Though not conclusive, these factors suggest the possibility that Joshua 5:10-12 record an instance of Israel keeping the second Passover.

“A chapter like Leviticus 15, covering bodily discharges, strongly indicates these men—including the priests—would have not been ceremonially clean to take Passover, if it occurred on the 14^th of the first month. In II Chronicles 30, the story of Hezekiah’s restoration of Temple worship under trying circumstances, Israel keeps both Passover and the Days of Unleavened Bread in the second month. The text clearly says that many people were not properly clean for taking Passover (verses 3, 17-18). In this highly unusual situation—in which the people could not have taken Passover until the following year unless God intervened—Hezekiah asks God to provide atonement (verses 19-20), and He does. John 11:55 provides additional evidence that ceremonial purity prior to Passover was necessary.”

John’s argument that the circumcision of the men prevented the observance of the Passover in the first month is based on modern statistics, which do not apply to the men of Israel in Joshua’s day.  John forgets that God had blessed the children of Israel—both men and women—with strength and vitality that surpassed other people of their day (Ex. 1:7-9, 19-20).  When we consider that even these people were more vigorous than modern men, it is evident that modern standards are not a reliable basis for estimating the time required for the men of ancient Israel to recover from circumcision.

John is contradicting a plain fact of Scripture when he argues that Israel was not able to keep the Passover on the fourteenth day of the first month because the men had not recovered from circumcision. The book of Joshua records that Israel observed the Passover at the time commanded by God. The circumcision of the men was completed on the tenth day of the month (Josh. 4:19); 5:2, 9), and they were whole in time to observe the Passover on the fourteenth day (Josh. 5:8, 10).  There is no question “as to whether the men could have slain the Passover lamb” on that day.  Scripture states it as fact.  Nor is there any question as to Israel’s being “ceremonially clean to take Passover.”  The men had been circumcised and they were too sore to have intercourse with their wives during the three days before Passover. To assert that Israel did not keep the Passover is a blatant rejection of the Scriptural record.

[ Back ] [ Home ] [ Up ] [ Next ]