Sermon: How to Count to Pentecost in 2025
#1814-AM
David C. Grabbe
Given 19-Apr-25; 67 minutes
description: There has been a subtle doctrinal shift in how the Church of God counts to Pentecost, like the cultural rebranding which switched the political colors of the two major political parties during the 2000 U.S. election. Leviticus 23 commands God's people to count to Pentecost "from the morrow after the Sabbath" culminating on the day after the after the seventh Sabbath. Historically, God's Church followed the Sadducean practice anchoring the count to the weekly Sabbath during Unleavened Bread, with the Days of Unleavened Bread, even if the offering occurred on a holy day or a high Sabbath. In 1974, the church surreptitiously aligned itself with the Karaite practice of always putting Wavesheaf day within Unleavened Bread. Proponents tried to link Christ's resurrection with Unleavened Bread, at the cost of overriding clear, well-established, biblical commands. Unlike the change of observing Pentecost from Monday to Sunday, this additional subtle change was never explained publicly. Herbert W. Armstrong never publicly spoke or wrote about this second change. God's called-out saints must return to the original method for 1.) Scriptural integrity-the Sabbath refers to a weekly Sabbath rather than a high day. 2.) Historical and Theological Consistency-The Sadducees, who controlled the Temple at this time, used this method. 3.) Practical Faithfulness-the Wave Sheaf signals a task reserved for a workday rather than a Holy Sabbath. 4.) Guarding against doctrinal drift—just as slight changes in tradition can obscure core truths, such as Sunday worship replacing God's Sabbath, and adding requirements not found in Scripture, risks the danger of making the commands of Almighty God "of no effect." The count to Pentecost in 2025 and every year thereafter, must begin on the Sunday after the weekly Sabbath during Unleavened Bread.
transcript:
American politics are contentious. I’m not telling you anything new here. In every presidential election, the red Republicans battle against the blue Democrats, with mud-slinging and dirty tricks all around. During this last round, the red Republicans were victorious and got their guy into office, and here we are, living through history.
Now, my interest in this is not the politics. My interest is the colors—red and blue. Almost nobody thinks about where the color designations of red for Republicans and blue for Democrats came from, but there is an illuminating fact of history here.
These color designations originated with the media outlets that present the maps of the state vote tallies on television. The current color scheme was implemented for the election in the year 2000 between George W. Bush and Al Gore. The largest media companies got together some 25 years ago and decided on a uniform color scheme for their political reporting, and what they decided was that Republican-majority states would be represented by red and Democrat-majority states would be represented by blue.
But there is more to this story, because a fast-one was pulled on the American people. You see, prior to the 2000 election, the political maps were not necessarily uniform, but where they were uniform, Republican states were represented as blue, and Democrat states were represented as red. But in 2000, the media quietly reversed that.
Maybe this seems trivial, but it matters because the color red has been the symbol of communism since communism’s beginning. It started with Red October in 1917, when Vladimir Lenin’s Bolsheviks revolted against the government in Russia. The Bolsheviks wore red. The “Red Army” later became the name for the Soviet military. During the 1920s and 1950s, America had the “Red scare” or “Red menace,” when there was concern that communism might be making inroads here. You don’t hear that anymore. China used to be referred to as “Red China.” You don’t hear that anymore, either.
During the Cold War, those with leftist leanings used the slogan, “Better Red than dead” to suggest that it was better to live under communism than to die in a nuclear war. Of course, that slogan was turned around by anti-communists, who said, “Better dead than Red.” Generations of Westerners associated red with communism, but now that is being undone.
The left-leaning media outlets in this nation rebranded politics in 2000. They cloaked the Democrat party to move it away from any association with communism. Blue is associated with calm and stability, but the Democrats generally agitate for change, being neither calm nor stable, as a generality. And the media painted the right-leaning Republican party with a red brush, and now a Republican political convention these days is a sea of red shirts and red hats. In addition to communism, red is associated with anger and violence, even though (until recently) the Republicans have generally been those trying to conserve what the nation has been—to keep it stable and calm. I think that somewhere, a cabal of schemers is probably still snickering at how easily the people have been manipulated.
It was a marketing masterpiece. Those under a certain age today have only ever known this political color scheme. It is how they see the world. It would take something extraordinary for it to ever revert. For my part, it would be far more fitting for the party with greater communist leanings to be represented by red again, but that’s not a barricade I am willing to die on. There are far more important matters to focus on, especially today.
My concern here is not politics, nor even the cleverness of the media. The purpose of this history lesson is to demonstrate how a quiet change that nobody notices can become the de facto reality that is reinforced each time it is put into action.
We began with this anecdote because there is a parallel with something that happened in the church of God. A quiet change was made some 50 years ago that almost nobody noticed but which has become reality. Like the political rebranding, this change has inertia on its side, which means it is easier to continue it than to admit what happened and turn things around.
I am referring to the change in how to count to Pentecost in a year when Passover occurs on a Sabbath, which is our topic for today since today is the Sabbath within the Feast of Unleavened Bread.
For some background, in 1974, the Worldwide Church of God made two changes to how it counted to Pentecost. One was announced and fully explained. That was the change from a Monday Pentecost to a Sunday Pentecost. Everybody knew about that change. Not everybody agreed, but it was at least out in the open.
But there was a second change that was not announced to the church, let alone adequately explained. That was the change that said that the day of the Wavesheaf offering always had to be within the Feast of Unleavened Bread.
We will get back to the history of this quiet change later, but first, we will review the biblical instructions for when to begin the count to Pentecost:
Leviticus 23:9-11 And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, “Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: ‘When you come into the land which I give to you, and reap its harvest, then you shall bring a sheaf of the firstfruits of your harvest to the priest. He shall wave the sheaf before the LORD, to be accepted on your behalf; on the day after the Sabbath the priest shall wave it.
Leviticus 23:15-16 ‘And you shall count for yourselves from the day after the Sabbath, from the day that you brought the sheaf of the wave offering: seven Sabbaths shall be completed. Count fifty days to the day after the seventh Sabbath; then you shall offer a new grain offering to the LORD.
Before we get to the instructions for the Wavesheaf offering, we must recognize and follow through on our individual responsibility within this. It says to count “for yourselves.” The instructions are for each individual. If you were to analyze all the times “you” and “your” are used in this chapter, you would see that the instructions here are for the individuals within the nation, not just the priests. Thus, the date of Pentecost is not an administrative decision. God wants each one of us to go through this exercise.
Now, as it says, the sheaf of the firstfruits is to be waved by the priest on the day after the Sabbath. That is clear as far as it goes, but there is also enough that is not directly stated within these verses that several different interpretations developed.
The first question that arises is, which Sabbath? There are 52 weekly Sabbaths and seven annual Sabbaths, but verses 11 and 15 just say “the Sabbath.” That seems like a lot of possibilities. In reality, though, most of the Sabbaths cannot be candidates here. By using the rest of Scripture, as well as the context, we can start eliminating Sabbaths.
Deuteronomy 16, which we will turn to later, says the count, and thus the day of the Wavesheaf offering, begins when the Israelites start to the put the sickle to the grain. The first grain that ripens each year is barley, so that is the grain they would put the sickle to first each year. So, we know the Wavesheaf is in the context of the early barley harvest.
We can confirm this beginning by noticing something about the end of the count. Exodus 34:22 says that the Feast of Weeks is at the beginning of the wheat harvest, which is in late spring. When we overlay the basic facts of two different grain harvests with seven weeks between them onto the agricultural calendar, the only way for this to work is for the Sabbath in question to be within the month of Abib. In fact, the name Abib refers to the green ears of barley.
But we can narrow it down even more because Leviticus 23 is sequential. It lays out the annual feasts in the order they occur during the year. So, notice what comes immediately before the instructions for the Wavesheaf: verses 6-8 are the instructions for Unleavened Bread. That’s the context in which God instructs His people to offer a sheaf of the firstfruits on the day after the Sabbath.
The next question that arises is, which Unleavened Bread Sabbath is the anchor here? The first and last days of Unleavened Bread are annual Sabbaths, and Unleavened Bread also has a weekly Sabbath within it. The Jews never reached a consensus on this matter.
But there is a related question that must be considered, and that is, which Sabbath did Christ and the apostles and the first century church use as their anchor? This question will help to hedge us in and keep us from going off track in our conclusion, so keep it in mind and we will return to it later.
Getting back to what is meant by “the Sabbath,” the Hebrew in verses 11 and 15 has the definite article (ha) before the word “Sabbath.” In roughly 95% of the places the definite article is used in relation to the word “Sabbath,” it refers to the weekly Sabbath. So, that usage strongly suggests the weekly Sabbath within Unleavened Bread is the anchor.
Now, let’s look at the surrounding context again. This may be surprising, but the first and last Days of Unleavened Bread are not called “Sabbaths” in this chapter. The Days of Trumpets and Atonement are called Sabbaths in this chapter, as well as the first day and the 8th day when we get to the instructions for Tabernacles. Now, the first and last Days of Unleavened Bread are called Sabbaths elsewhere, but there is a notable absence in this chapter. They are not referred to as Sabbaths here. So, if we are looking for “the Sabbath” that precedes the mention in verses 11 and 15, we have to go back to verse 3, which is about the weekly Sabbath.
So, this gives us the first method for counting to Pentecost. We identify the Sabbath that is within Unleavened Bread, and then the next day is both the first day of the week and also the first day of the count.
This is the method that the Worldwide Church of God used prior to 1974. However, they misunderstood what the phrase, “from the day after the Sabbath,” in verse 15 means. Prior to 1974, the church believed that “from” meant that the day after the Sabbath was not included in the count. So, for them, Monday was the first day of the count, and Monday was also the day of Pentecost, seven weeks later. But as their understanding grew, they realized that the Hebrew indicates that “from” here means “beginning on” rather than “beginning after.” That was the main change in 1974.
This way of counting that uses the weekly Sabbath within Unleavened Bread came to be known as the Sadducean method because it is how the Sadducees, the priests, understood and practiced these instructions. But just to clarify, this does not mean that the church was or is looking to the Sadducees for doctrinal guidance. Christ warned against their general doctrine, just as He warned against the doctrine of the Pharisees. That does not mean the Sadducees got everything wrong, but rather that Christ’s followers should not leave any teaching unexamined. However, this is one area where the church agrees. So, for the sake of convenience, I will refer to this way of counting simply as the Sadducean method.
Within this method, if Passover occurs on the weekly Sabbath, as it did this year, the only weekly Sabbath within Unleavened Bread is the last day of Unleavened Bread—today—and so the count begins with the following day (tomorrow).
The Sadducees found no reason why Wavesheaf day could not be just after Unleavened Bread in these special years. For them, the key was simply identifying the Sabbath within Unleavened Bread, and that is how the WCG understood it as well, even with its variation that put an extra day in. It was still based on the weekly Sabbath within Unleavened Bread.
The other common way of counting to Pentecost is the one used by the Pharisees and by most Jews today. It uses the first day of Unleavened Bread, the high holy day—Abib 15—as “the Sabbath.” Wavesheaf day, then, is always on Abib 16. And because the beginning of the count is fixed on the Hebrew calendar, the end is always the same. In the Pharisaic method, the Feast of Weeks is always on the 6th day of the 3rd month, the month of Sivan.
However, there are some significant problems with using the first day of Unleavened Bread as “the Sabbath” here. The first problem is that there is no need to count if the result is the same each year, yet God says to count. Pentecost is unique because God does not give it a month and day designation like He does for every other feast. There is no mention of the 6th day of the 3rd month. Instead, He says to count, showing that it will not be the same each year. He says to count twice in this chapter and twice more in Deuteronomy 16.
The second problem with the Pharisaic method is found in verse 16. It says to “Count fifty days to the day after the seventh Sabbath.” The endpoint is the day after the seventh Sabbath. The count consists of complete weeks that begin with the first day of the week and end with the 7th day—the Sabbath. However, if one uses the Pharisaic method, and the high day Sabbath is on a Thursday (for example), the count would begin on a Friday and then the Feast of Weeks would be on a Friday, which is not the day after the Sabbath.
Some rabbis tried to get around this obvious violation by arguing that the word “Sabbath” in verse 16 could mean “week” because the word for “week” (#7620) is a root of the word for “Sabbath” (#7676). In this way, they interpret the command to mean to count fifty days to the day after the seventh week, which would allow their Pentecost to be on most days of the week. However, in no other place does the word for Sabbath in these instructions mean “week”—it means, “Sabbath.” Pentecost is the day after the seventh Sabbath, and not merely the day after a seventh week. So, the Pharisaic method already has two strikes against it, and we will see a third strike when we get to the New Testament.
Now, another question arises from these verses. That is, is it the Sabbath or is it the day after—the morrow after—that must occur within Unleavened Bread? Everybody agrees that the context here is Unleavened Bread. But the question is whether the instructions indicate the Sabbath or the day after the Sabbath.
In most years, the outcome is exactly the same. The decision point comes in the years like this one when Passover is on a weekly Sabbath, which means the only weekly Sabbath within Unleavened Bread coincides with the last day. The Sadducean method says that’s just fine—the count begins the next day, just like in every other year. It is consistent.
However, there is another interpretation to this, which is what the WCG instituted in 1974. It says that it is the day after—Wavesheaf day—that should always be within Unleavened Bread.
Incidentally, the WCG did not come up with this. The first record we have of this approach comes from the Karaite Jews, who arose in the 8th century AD. Their tradition is to use the Passover Sabbath and the first day in these years, but the first recorded mentions of their tradition are not until a millennium or so after Christ and the founding of the church.
Now, everybody who has ever looked at the Wavesheaf instructions has noticed that there is not a clear statement on this point. There seems to be some ambiguity. To solve it, the Karaites latched onto Joshua 5, which they believe shows the Wavesheaf being offered on the holy day, even though it is not recorded. But the ambiguity is more apparent than actual: The Wavesheaf instructions, both here and in Deuteronomy 16, tell us what we need to know to answer this question. It has been here all along. God answers this question in His instructions, if we are willing to live by every word.
If you look back at Leviticus 23:10, it says, “When you come into the land which I give to you, and reap its harvest, then you shall bring a sheaf of the firstfruits of your harvest to the priest.” The Wavesheaf came from the harvest. This is right in the instructions. There had to be a harvest for there to be a Wavesheaf. The day the Wavesheaf was offered was the day the harvest began. This is a critical point.
Yet if we put Wavesheaf day on the high holy day, we also put the harvesting, from which the Wavesheaf was taken, on a Sabbath as well. That should cause some alarm bells to go off, and I hope it does.
However, if instead we begin with upholding the sanctity of the holy time, we exclude the holy day as a candidate for Wavesheaf day. The simple conclusion is that there is no problem with the harvest beginning the day after Unleavened Bread, especially when the alternative is to profane an annual Sabbath.
Perhaps we can excuse what happened in 1974 as an unintentional oversight regarding the holy time because today we are looking at this matter as words on a page or maybe a calendar on a wall. It is more academic than practical for us. But for the generations of Jews and other Israelites—including the early church—who had to put all these instructions into practice, this suggestion turns a holy day into a common workday. We are far removed from agriculture, but they were not, and harvesting and holy days do not mix.
Again, we must ask the question of when and how the Wavesheaf was observed by God’s people in earlier times. God is consistent. He would not have the early church count to Pentecost one way but then change things up after the Industrial Revolution since physical harvesting does not have much bearing on the church today.
It is also worth remembering the reasons God scattered ancient Israel. God recorded their example for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come, and upon whom judgment has begun as the house of God. This means that when we see the present-day church scattered and divided, we should examine the examples and patterns of Israel to understand cause and effect, and what we may need to correct in ourselves.
In this regard, God says through Ezekiel (in chapter 20) that the primary sins of Israel that caused her scattering were idolatry and Sabbath-breaking. Their idolatry was blatant, involving literal foreign gods. Idolatry in the church today would be more subtle, but it could involve putting anything above God and His word, such as organization or a leader or a committee.
Israel’s Sabbath-breaking included violating the weekly Sabbath, the annual Sabbaths, as well as the land Sabbaths. God is jealous of the time He sets apart. Yet many claiming the name of Christ believe in a changeable god who was adamant about holy time in one epoch of history but ambivalent about it in the next. This is convenient for them because if God is not concerned about holy time today, then they don’t have to be concerned about it, either.
Relatedly, from numerous anecdotes that have accumulated, there seems to be a growing laxity and carelessness regarding holy time in the greater church today. If that is true, perhaps that is part of the reason that the idea that God intended the Israelites to harvest on a holy day has not registered as entirely incongruous.
There is a noteworthy example of God’s holy time being upheld in the story of Christ’s burial. It is found in Luke 23. As we understand, Jesus died on Passover, Wednesday afternoon, and Joseph of Arimathea took His body and put it into his tomb shortly before sunset, at which point the first day of Unleavened Bread began.
What is significant is Luke 23:56, which says,
Luke 23:56 “Then they [referring to the women who had followed Christ from Galilee] returned and prepared spices and fragrant oils. And they rested on the Sabbath according to the commandment.”
When you combine the gospel accounts (see Mark 16:1), the preparation of the spices and oils by the women could only have taken place on Friday, the preparation day for the weekly Sabbath. And then they rested on the Sabbath, according to the commandment. But this also means that they had rested on the first day of Unleavened Bread as well—they did not do their preparation of spices and oils on the annual Sabbath either.
Think about how these dedicated women accounted and prioritized, and then compare it to how we might prioritize in the same circumstance. They were intent on preparing the body of the Messiah. They knew who He was, and they wanted to do this service—this very good work to honor Him. We might think that if ever there was an ox in the ditch, this was it! Surely, this work in honor of the Messiah would trump the commandment. But for them, it did not. The annual Sabbath and the weekly Sabbath were still days of rest. These women prioritized the holy time above this honorable, good work.
Now, think about their approach as it relates to the question that is in the background: If these devoted followers were still prioritizing the command to rest above even preparing the body of the Son of God, what might they think of the suggestion that the harvest from which the Wavesheaf was taken could begin on a high holy day? You have to draw your own conclusion, but for me, that seems highly unlikely.
Now, we will go to the other instructions for counting to Pentecost, which are found in Deuteronomy 16:
Deuteronomy 16:9 “You shall count seven weeks for yourself; begin to count the seven weeks from the time you begin to put the sickle to the grain.
These instructions do not mention either the Sabbath or the Wavesheaf offering. Instead, they say to begin the count from when you begin to put the sickle to the grain. Now, you might also notice that the words “the time” are in italics, meaning they were added by the translators to help us understand the Hebrew. It is not an incorrect addition, but it introduces some ambiguity for English-speakers. That is, depending on our inclination, we may see some leeway, like maybe it means, “season” or “general time.”
I bring this up because the suggestion has been put forward (to get around the obvious problem of beginning the harvest on a holy day) that perhaps Israel could have offered the Wavesheaf on the holy day but not started the harvest until the next day.
But there are some things to consider. First, the added words, “the time,” introduce ambiguity that is not in the Hebrew. This is how The Tanakh—a Jewish Bible—renders it:
Deuteronomy 16:9 (Tanakh) You shall count off seven weeks; start to count the seven weeks when the sickle is first put to the standing grain.
What that shows is that the count begins when the harvest begins. And we saw in Leviticus 23 that the count begins the day the Wavesheaf was offered, which was the day after the weekly Sabbath. So, this reinforces that the harvest and the Wavesheaf and the count all began on the same day. Thus, if the Israelites offered the Wavesheaf on the holy day but waited until the next day—Monday—to begin the harvest, according to this verse, counting seven weeks would yield a Monday Pentecost because their harvest began on a Monday. So, that idea introduces some problems. And there is also not a record that the Israelites did anything like that. It is just supposition.
It is also worth pondering why there is an impulse to try to find a way around what is in these verses. It’s because these verses and their ramifications argue against a conclusion that has already been reached. That is, the idea that the Wavesheaf must occur within Unleavened Bread is based on the symbolism that Christ fulfilled the Wavesheaf—which is quite true—and He did it during Unleavened Bread, and therefore, Wavesheaf day must always occur during Unleavened Bread. We’ll get to the symbolism later, but for now, just notice how having that conclusion causes these original, God-breathed instructions to be reinterpreted and even muted so the preferred outcome will work. If we find ourselves trying to get around something in Scripture, we should stop and evaluate whether we are being objective, and whether we are determined to live by every word of God.
When we take Wavesheaf day back to its essence, it is about reaping a harvest from what was sown by one’s own hand. The Wavesheaf then came from that harvest, but there could be no offering if there was not a harvest. At its core, Wavesheaf day was about harvesting, and then acknowledging God with the first portion.
Harvesting is completely at odds with the intent of a high day Sabbath. Any individual harvesting on a holy day would not have been guiltless because harvesting is servile work. The linkage between the day of the Wavesheaf offering and the underlying harvest precludes Wavesheaf day from occurring on the first day of Unleavened Bread.
Significantly, while the various Jewish groups at the time of Christ had different ideas about when to begin the count, one thing they did agree on was that Wavesheaf day was always a common workday, not a holy day. Because it was the day the harvest began, they all agreed that Wavesheaf day was not fitting for an annual Sabbath.
Getting back to the larger question of how the early church counted, the New Testament is silent on any difference between how Christ and the disciples and early church kept Pentecost and how everyone around them kept it.
This situation is not the same as the question over when to keep Passover. As we know, the Jews came up with several combinations of times and locations for Passover, including at home and at the Temple, as well as at the beginning of the 14th and at the end of the 14th, and the New Testament shows those different practices. However, the New Testament also settles that question through Christ’s example. He kept the Passover with the disciples at the beginning of the 14th.
But Pentecost is different. Neither Jesus nor the apostles weigh in on this matter. Josephus and other historical writers provide no details about how the early church counted Pentecost in general, let alone how it counted it when Passover occurred on a Sabbath.
Now, we must bring God into this picture. That should go without saying, but what I mean is that God is faithful, and He would not leave us without the means to appear before Him on the correct day. So, we need to consider what God has left for us, because He did leave evidence for us. It just may not be in the form we are looking for.
God recorded in His word that there were two primary Jewish religious groups at the time of Christ and the early church. (There were three groups if you count the Essenes, but they are not mentioned in Scripture.) And God ensured that there is a historical record of how those groups counted to Pentecost. Finally, He shows within His word which group was wrong. When combined with what we have already seen in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, it makes for a very easy conclusion.
Please turn to Mark 16, where we will see something that has been lost in translation:
Mark 16:9 Now when He rose, early on the first day of the week, He appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom He had cast seven demons.
Our focus here is the phrase translated, “first day of the week.” The Greek behind this phrase is prōtē sabbatou. You might recognize sabbatou as Sabbath. In this case, it uses the concept of the Sabbath to designate a week, since the Sabbath is essentially what gives definition to the week. And the word prōtē, or protos, means “beginning,” in this case. This is how the translators designate the first day of the week—it was the beginning of the week. The word “day” is implied and thus added by the translators. So, this verse is talking about something that happened on the day we call Sunday. This is all straightforward.
But now, look back to verse 2, where we find the exact same English phrase, but notably different underlying Greek:
Mark 16:2 Very early in the morning, on the first day of the week, they came to the tomb when the sun had risen.
We see the same English phrase, “on the first day of the week,” and again the word “day” is supplied. The word for “first” is not prōtē this time, but the word mia, which is similar—it means “one” or “first.” But what is significant is that the word translated “week” is sabbatōn, which is the word for Sabbath or week, but it is plural. This is a very significant phrase—mia sabbatōn. This was not just the first day of the week. Mia sabbatōn means this was the first of the weeks—plural. This was the first day in the count to the Feast of Weeks.
All four gospel writers use mia sabbatōn, this phrase that indicates the first of the weeks to describe this special day. You can find the same Greek phrase in Matthew 28:1; Luke 24:1; and John 20:1.
The Companion Bible, written by E.W. Bullinger, brings this out in its comments on John 20:1, one of the places mia sabbaton is used. Here is Bullinger’s explanation:
. . . The expression [mia sabbatōn] is not a Hebraism, and “Sabbaths” should not be rendered “week” [singular], as in [the Authorized Version] and [Revised Version]. A reference to Leviticus 23:15-17 shows that this ”first day” is the first of the days for reckoning the seven Sabbaths to Pentecost. On this day, therefore, the Lord became the firstfruits (vv. 10, 11) of God’s resurrection harvest (I Corinthians 15:23).
Thus, hidden in the Greek in all four accounts of Christ’s appearance after His resurrection is the Bible’s designation of Wavesheaf day.
Now, this does not speak to the question of whether it is the Sabbath or Wavesheaf day that must be located within Unleavened Bread. We’ve already seen that Scripture highlights the labor on Wavesheaf day, so in that sense, the question has already been answered.
But what mia sabbatōn does establish is that Wavesheaf day is the day after the weekly Sabbath, not the day after the annual Sabbath. If the Pharisees had their way, they would have started their count on Friday, the day the women were preparing the spices and oil. But all four gospel writers deliver this third strike against the Pharisaic method of counting. All four writers designate this first day of the week as also being the first of the days for reckoning the seven weeks to Pentecost. This was the day of Christ’s appearance and His acceptance by the Father.
So, just to refresh the score, at the time of Christ and the founding of the church there were two methods of counting to Pentecost—two contenders, if you will. There were the Sadducees and the Pharisees. The Pharisees have just been struck out by the gospel writers. The Essenes never made it to the ballpark. And the Karaites wouldn’t field a team for almost a millennium. So, the Sadducees are the last ones standing in this contest.
Now, there is something else to understand about the Sadducees. They weren’t just a religious party; they were associated with the priesthood. They paid more attention to the instructions for the Temple rituals than the Pharisees because that was their job. Again, their doctrines were not perfect, but in general, the Sadducees upheld the ceremonial instructions better than the Pharisees because those duties fell within their domain.
This is significant because there is strong evidence, both within Scripture and within the historical record, that the Sadducees were in control of the Temple at this time. This means that things like offering the Wavesheaf, including which day to do so, would have been up to them. The Pharisees had a different opinion on when to offer the Wavesheaf, but they were not in the position to do it for the nation.
Thus, at the time of Christ’s ministry and the founding of the church, the Wavesheaf offering for the nation was overseen by the Sadducees. The Sadducees maintained that it is the Sabbath within Unleavened Bread that is the anchor, and Wavesheaf day is the next day, even if that means the Wavesheaf is offered on the day after Unleavened Bread. And we have no record or even hint of Christ or the Apostles or the church disagreeing with the Sadducees on this matter—until 1974.
The history of the change in Wavesheaf day indicates that it did not receive the same rigorous evaluation or seeking of God as the Monday-to-Sunday change. It appears that a decision was made without all the information. Unlike the Monday-to-Sunday change, the Wavesheaf change was made without any public acknowledgement that something different was being done. It was instituted very quietly, and then inertia kicked in, and a new rule and a new practice became the norm with hardly anybody recognizing it.
I am going to borrow a page from the late Charles Whitaker and put some endnotes and links in the transcript so you can search this out for yourself. The first link is the Pentecost Study Material, which was compiled in 1973 and 1974 and sent to the ministry[i]. It is dated April 22, 1974. It is 80 pages long, and roughly 90% of it is about the Monday or Sunday Pentecost issue. It leaves no stone unturned on how to understand the word “from” that had caused the Worldwide Church of God to keep Pentecost on Monday. But there are a mere six pages (pp. 52-58) about the Wavesheaf question, and a final page that draws attention to this critical issue (p. 74).
I will read to you what that final recap says. It was written by Dr. Charles Dorothy, who was the head of the doctrinal taskforce that did research and made recommendations. He was the one who assembled the Pentecost Study Material. He writes on page 74:
The chief problem which the Worldwide Church of God faces this year at Pentecost has nothing to do with the above [meaning, Monday or Sunday]. This separate problem involves whether we count Pentecost for 1974 from within or without the Days of Unleavened Bread. The last time we faced this particular calendar configuration was 1954 when our knowledge of the calendar was not so complete as it is now.
This year (as again in 1977 and 1981) the Passover falls on the weekly Sabbath. The next day, the first annual Holy Day, is Sunday and would normally be used to count "away from." But we have thought it best to wait till the following Saturday (which is the final High Sabbath as well), so that the next day, Sunday, could be a work day, and thus start the work of harvesting. [So, he recognized that Wavesheaf day was a work day.] Depending on which Sunday we count from this year, Pentecost VARIES BY A WHOLE WEEK.
Some brethren are concerned over this alleged "arbitrary" decision, especially since Joshua 5:10-11 seems to show the Israelites counted that Pentecost from Sunday, the High Day within Unleavened Bread. More study is needed and more is being done.
This shows that the doctrinal committee had decided to use the last day of Unleavened Bread so the next day could be a workday. And yet that decision was not carried out. Also make note of that conclusion by Dr. Dorothy: “More study is needed and more is being done.” However, nothing more was ever published in the way of a study. In fact, the final decision appears to have been made before the Pentecost Study Material was sent out.
The second link is to an issue of The Bulletin, which was an internal church newsletter [ii]. Contained within it is a letter from Garner Ted Armstrong (p. 3), dated March 30, 1974, or about three weeks before the publication of the Pentecost Study Material and the excerpt I just read. In his letter, he states that in various meetings, they resolved the Wavesheaf question, and they concluded that Pentecost would be May 26 of that year, meaning they were using the holy day as Wavesheaf day. Again, this was in a letter dated three weeks before Dr. Dorothy’s published recommendation or decision to use the last day, and his conclusion that “More study is needed and more is being done.”
The third link is to a copy of the June 1974 Good News magazine [iii], which contains an article by Garner Ted Armstrong and Raymond McNair entitled, “What You Need to Know About the New Testament Pentecost” (p. 1). That article moves from using the terminology of “the Sabbath within Unleavened Bread,” to the terminology of, “wave-sheaf Sunday during the Days of Unleavened Bread.” It states that “this wave sheaf was always waved on what we call a Sunday during the Days of Unleavened Bread.” That’s simply not true. The Sadducees did wave the sheaf just after Unleavened Bread in years like this. The article also has an inset called, “The True Day of Pentecost” (p. 4) which contains two paragraphs on how the Wavesheaf must be offered within Unleavened Bread because of Joshua 5. Thus, the official change was made in two paragraphs in an inset.
That is the extent of the material available to us to evaluate this change that affects when God’s people assemble before Him.
But there is also material that is notable because of its absence. That is, while Herbert Armstrong is quoted within the Pentecost Study Material (p. 52) and mentioned in Garner Ted’s letter, we have no record of Herbert Armstrong ever publicly commenting on, or even acknowledging, the Wavesheaf change, only the Monday-to-Sunday change.
Pat Higgins searched this out, and he could not find any place where Herbert Armstrong mentioned Joshua 5, or that Wavesheaf day always had to be within Unleavened Bread. So far, we have no evidence that he ever studied out the Wavesheaf question himself. In fact, he wrote a Good News article in 1981, which was another year with a Sabbath Passover. In that article, he used the same language to describe the count that he used before the change. He said, “God leaves it to us to COUNT for ourselves, beginning WITH the morrow after the Sabbath during the Festival of Unleavened Bread.” [iv]
So, while other Worldwide Church of God literature was changed to reflect the new rule that the Wavesheaf had to be offered during Unleavened Bread, the single mention that we have from Herbert Armstrong still uses the previous language.
As some of you will remember, Herbert Armstrong could not do anything quietly. If he was involved in some effort, he talked about it. If he made a change, he went on record and explained where he had been wrong—he was not silent about it. And yet he was silent about the Wavesheaf change. You can draw your own conclusions, but his silence is a curious part of this history. It may be that Herbert Armstrong did what everybody else did (and continues to do) and just used the calendar supplied by the church, instead of doing what the Scriptures command and count for himself.
But this change was made by someone, and once it was made, it has had inertia on its side, so that now it is the status quo, just like if you grew up thinking Sunday is the Sabbath, or red is for Republicans.
Ironically, the Wavesheaf change inadvertently undermines some of the foundational arguments used to prove that Pentecost should not be on a Monday. In other words, it sets up some contradictions that were never resolved before the change was pushed through.
One contradiction is that the Pentecost Study Material makes the case that Wavesheaf day was the first full harvest day (pp. 27-28, 64-65, 72), which is true. But it never analyzes the implications of offering the Wavesheaf and beginning the harvest on a holy day. There is no acknowledgement that, had the Israelites in Joshua 5 or the Sadducees or the New Testament church followed this new rule, they would have broken an annual Sabbath by harvesting on it. Aside from Dr. Dorothy’s conclusion, the closest it comes is a statement that when the manna “did not appear on the 15th [in Joshua 5] . . . the Israelites were thrust necessarily upon the harvest of the land” (p. 58).
Whoever wrote that part is suggesting that if the Israelites did not harvest, they would have starved, and thus, it was acceptable for them to do servile work—customary work—on the annual Sabbath. But by the same token, the author is also saying is that the same God who faithfully provided a double-portion of manna every sixth day for 40 years (so Israel would not have to gather on the Sabbath) neglected to provide for His people, forcing them to labor on a holy day. So, the sanctity of a Sabbath is being impugned here, as well as God’s providence. Again, we need to discern where God is in this scenario.
If we were to apply that approach to our circumstances, we could justify doing work for our employers on a holy day because it is “necessary.” We have to pay the bills, and God would not want us to starve or be homeless. Yet the day is either set apart by God and for God, and it is holy, or it is not. God did not forget to provide for the Israelites—they had food from the east of the Jordan (Joshua 1:11). God did not require them to profane a Sabbath.
A second contradiction the Wavesheaf change introduces has to do with the Sadducees. The Pentecost Study Material makes the case quite strongly that the Sadducees always kept Pentecost on Sunday, and that the Sadducean method is the correct way to count (pp. 40, 76). However, the new rule that Wavesheaf day must fall within Unleavened Bread undermines the very case that was made that the Sadducean method is correct. It cannot be both ways—either the Sadducean way is correct, or it was not.
A third contradiction follows the second one. The Pentecost Study Material makes the point that Christ and the disciples would not have kept Pentecost differently from the religious authorities, which were the Sadducees. I will read some of the authors’ statements:
The purpose of this paper is to discuss some of the problems as they relate to the question of Pentecost. It seems to me that the contemporary counting of Pentecost in the time of Christ is very important. If there is no New Testament evidence of disagreement with the current practice, that is a fairly strong argument for how we ought to keep it. If [Christ] did disagree with the Jews, it is essential to know what [H]e disagreed with. (p. 29)
Another one:
“It is interesting that—despite the argument over Pentecost between the Sadducees and Pharisees and later Jewish groups […we could put the Karaites in there] —the New Testament gives no hint the Christians kept it differently from those around them. Christ still regarded the temple as [H]is Father's house. He nowhere condemns the priests for their carrying out of the temple functions (even though many of them conspired against [H]im). Is this good grounds for assuming [H]e had no quarrel with the way—or the time—they kept Pentecost?
At many points the New Testament has left us a clear record of where Christians should differ from Jewish practice. Why was this not done with Pentecost? Is it because Christ kept Pentecost as it was kept in the temple—according to Sadducean practice?” (p. 35)
A final quote:
“All in the Church of God agree that the New Testament apostles and disciples of Jesus Christ would not have been keeping Pentecost on the wrong day. Neither would they have been assembled on the same day as the Jews at the Temple — unless the day they were all keeping in 31 AD was the correct day. We therefore know that neither the Pharisaic way of reckoning . . . nor the Essene way of reckoning . . . could have been correct. Neither of these erroneous days were selected by God as a day on which to send the firstfruits of the Holy Spirit. This only leaves one other manner of reckoning Pentecost among the Jewish religious bodies of the Apostles' day - that of the Sadducees; and it so happened that they were in control of the Temple.” (p. 40)
So, on one hand, the paper upholds the Sadducean method and concludes that it must have been what Christ and the Apostles followed since there is no recorded disagreement. But on the other hand, requiring the Wavesheaf offering on the first day would have put those practicing it at odds with the Sadducees and the Temple. Yet, as the paper says, there is no record of disagreement. And we can add, there is also no record or even hint that anybody at the time started the harvest on a holy day.
It’s no wonder that Dr. Dorothy concluded by saying that “more study is needed.” He could see that there were cracks and incongruities, and that the study material did not present a uniform picture, even though it appears he had decided to go with the later date—the Sadducean date—for Pentecost. And yet the date of Garner Ted’s letter to the ministry indicates the decision regarding the Wavesheaf change had already been made, and these inconsistencies were never addressed.
Now, the new rule of always placing Wavesheaf day within Unleavened Bread is based on two reasons. The first is the Joshua 5 scenario. But you can take heart: We are not going to Joshua 5. This past week, we published an article entitled, “Did Israel Offer the Wavesheaf in Joshua 5?” The article compiles and explains the various problems with the Joshua 5 scenario that we have found over the years. Untold numbers of electrons have already been sacrificed to that end, so there is no need rehash those problems now.
But I will reiterate that one of the major problems with the Joshua 5 assumption is one we have already encountered today. That is, the high holy day, the first day of Unleavened Day, is turned into a day of work—a lot of work. Leaning on the Joshua 5 scenario reveals a very serious question as to whether holy time, and holiness in general, mean the same thing to the church as they do to God. Our minds should rebel at the conclusion that God’s intent was for the Israelites to harvest, thresh, winnow, and grind grain for baking unleavened cakes on a Sabbath.
The other reason given for the new rule that Wavesheaf day must always occur within Unleavened Bread is symbolism, and specifically Christ’s fulfillment of the Wavesheaf during Unleavened Bread. And it is true that Christ fulfilled the Wavesheaf during Unleavened Bread. It is also true that the year of His resurrection was not a Sabbath-Passover year, so that calendar configuration really does not add anything for us.
According to the part of the Pentecost Study Material that suggests the Wavesheaf change, Unleavened Bread pictures a Christian coming out of sin. Symbolically, then, it does not make sense that a Christian could come out of sin before Christ’s acceptance by the Father, as pictured by the Wavesheaf offering. Based on that, they say it is not fitting for the Wavesheaf to ever be offered outside of Unleavened Bread (pp. 56-58).
But there are some difficulties with this line of reasoning. One is that symbolism should not override a command or other instruction of God. In this case, symbolism is used to justify beginning the harvest on an annual Sabbath. In one sense, that is only a step removed from Protestantism saying that because Christ is our rest, we don’t need to bother with keeping the Sabbath. Symbolic interpretation should not make the word of God of no effect. For the church of God, His law remains—it is not nullified by symbolism.
Another difficulty relates to the meanings that are assigned to the feast and the Wavesheaf offering. The problem is that the feasts and sacrifices have numerous facets and themes, and depending on which theme or lesson is chosen, a different teaching can be extracted. For example, the Pentecost Study Material says the Wavesheaf offering is a type of Christ’s acceptance by the Father, and Unleavened Bread is a type of coming out of sin. But these are not the only meanings of either type, and maybe not even the meanings that Scripture highlights.
We will start with the meaning of Unleavened Bread. This was a large part of what Richard spoke about on the first day. As he showed, this feast overwhelmingly points to Christ and His work, both in terms of His being the unleavened bread that gives us spiritual life, as well as His deliverance of us from this world and its “pharaoh.” What we do in avoiding leavening is our response to His deliverance, and it is only possible because of the strength we receive from eating the Bread of Life, which is Christ. This feast is about Him, not what we do in response. It is a feast “to the LORD,” not a memorial of our works.
Moreover, Egypt is less a symbol of sin than it is a symbol of the environment of sin, meaning, this world. That is what the Israelites were delivered from and what we were delivered from at the beginning of this walk to the Promised Land.
Similarly, it is true that the Wavesheaf was held up for acceptance by God, which Christ certainly was. However, the New Testament uses the symbol of Christ as the Wavesheaf in a different way:
I Corinthians 15:20-23 But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming.
This teaches that the symbolism of Christ as the Wavesheaf, the Firstfruits, has to do with the promise of resurrection—of life after death. Christ became the Firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. Just as He was raised up, so also those who belong to Him will also be raised up, not to mortal life, but to eternal life.
As we can see, each type has different facets or elements, and thus, there are different ways of interpreting them, and we must evaluate which interpretation has the most support from Scripture. But this is precisely why it is risky to determine the timing of a holy day based on symbolism—because symbolism, by definition, is subject to interpretation. Determining the timing of an annual Sabbath based on symbolism and sequence rather than the instructions is fraught with danger, especially when it involves ignoring the sanctity God gave to His holy days.
The Wavesheaf offering was the first part of the first harvest of the year, held up to God to acknowledge Him as the Giver and Provider. The Wavesheaf is about the harvest, and the beginning of seven weeks that culminate in the Feast of Harvest.
But Unleavened Bread is not about a harvest. It is about deliverance and about our source of strength. Thus, it does not matter whether the Wavesheaf offering always falls within Unleavened Bread because the Wavesheaf offering is not an Unleavened Bread symbol. It is a harvest symbol. Moreover, the Father’s acceptance of the Wavesheaf offering and His resurrection of Jesus Christ are not dependent on the timing of His deliverance, which is the primary meaning of Unleavened Bread.
To put this another way, Christ’s opening of the way for the resurrection of His people to eternal life does not have to happen before His deliverance from the environment of sin. As a clear example, the Father drew 12 disciples out of the world and to His Son—He delivered them—before Christ’s resurrection and ascension as the Wavesheaf.
God gave us what we need in Leviticus 23 and Deuteronomy 16 when He said to count from the day after the Sabbath within Unleavened Bread, and God also tied the Wavesheaf offering to the harvest, which eliminates it from taking place on a holy day. This is the method of counting the Sadducees arrived at, and they were the ones carrying it out at the time of Christ and the founding of the church. We have no need to lean on the uncertainty of Joshua 5 nor the tenuous interpretation of symbols in just the right way. We only need to identify the Sabbath within Unleavened Bread and begin the count on the following day, and we get a consistent count to Pentecost each year.
So, if you have not already done so, get your calendars, and start counting.
[i] Pentecost Study Material: https://pdf.cgg.org/Pentecost_Study_Material_1974.pdf
[ii] The Bulletin (April 1974): https://pdf.cgg.org/Bulletin_1974_0402_Pentecost_change.pdf
[iii] Good News (June 1974): https://pdf.cgg.org/GoodNews_June_1974_Pentecost_change.pdf
[iv] Here are three quotes from Mr. Armstrong where he cited the old rule (underscores added):
From the article “Pagan Holidays-or God’s Holy days-Which?” on page 6 of The Good News for June 1951:
“…count seven WEEKS from the particular Sunday following the weekly Sabbath in unleavened-bread week….”
From the article “What You Should Know about Pentecost” on page 3 of The Good News for May 1954:
“…on the day following the weekly Sabbath during the days of unleavened bread ….”
From the article “What You Should Know about Pentecost” on page 4 of The Good News for May 1981:
“…God leaves it to us to COUNT for ourselves, beginning WITH the morrow after the Sabbath during the Festival of Unleavened Bread.”
. . .
Forty-eight years ago I checked with every translation into English of the Bible, and every translation of that time said count 50 FROM the Sunday following the weekly Sabbath during the seven-day Festival. Then we discovered — and I forced men on the committee that translated the Revised Standard Version to admit — that it is a misleading translation to those who speak only English and are not familiar with Hebrew usage — that it should be translated "on" or "beginning on."
DCG/aws/dcg