|
|
The fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam is committed when an argument uses the statements of a highly respected individual to secure acceptance of a conclusion. In this case the respected individual is Dr. Charles V. Dorothy. In the first section of John’s paper, he casts doubt on a Nisan 15 wave sheaf by grossly misrepresenting Dr. Dorothy’s statements. John has created a psychological impression and packaged this impression as evidence. Notice:
“In 2001, Passover once again falls upon a weekly Sabbath. This is of special interest because it presents us with the infrequent situation of the Days of Unleavened Bread beginning on a Sunday and ending on the weekly Sabbath. Although this may occur twice within three or four years, its normal average throughout history is about once every nine to ten years. For a twenty-year period that ended in 1974, it occurred only in 1974 itself. Within the church of God, there are differences of belief about whether it should begin counting to Pentecost from within or without the Days of Unleavened Bread when this situation arises.
“When this occurred in 1994, we sought the counsel of anyone within the church who felt moved to contribute suggestions. We received many sincere and helpful papers, whose authors diligently researched the matter to confirm it to themselves then shared what they had learned for all to benefit. We feel moved, however, to reopen the subject because more information has come to light in the intervening years. We think this new material clarifies and strengthens our position, confirming that God led us to make the correct decision.
“When the Sunday or Monday observance of Pentecost became an issue in the Worldwide Church of God (WCG) in 1973-74, a committee was formed to research into all aspects of the issue. When the ministry received the committee’s conclusions, the Sunday-or-Monday issue was firmly resolved, and we wholeheartedly agree with the Sunday conclusion.
“However, the particular issue this article addresses was left unresolved in the study material given to the ministry. The introductory letter to the Pentecost Study Material authored by Charles V. Dorothy is dated April 22, 1974, and the ministry did not receive this material until after this date. At that time, Pentecost 1974 was scheduled for June 3.
“The following quote is from the Pentecost Study Material, p. 74, under the heading, “Another Critical Problem.”
“ ‘The chief problem which the Worldwide Church of God faces this year at Pentecost has nothing to do with the above [the Sunday-Monday issue]. 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. 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. [Emphasis theirs.]
“However, this suggestion was ignored, and a decision was made to count to Pentecost from within the Days of Unleavened Bread. A letter dated March 30, 1974, under the signature of Garner Ted Armstrong, informed the ministry that the date of Pentecost was being changed to May 26. A curious fact arises when one compares the dates on the two letters: Garner Ted Armstrong’s letter clearly shows that a decision had been made when to count Pentecost in these odd years before Charles Dorothy’s letter—stating that more study needed to be made—was sent out!
“Another quote from the Pentecost Study Material, p. 52, helps to show how critical this issue is, since it also touches on our observance of Pentecost in 2005 and 2008:
“ ‘Here, then, is the crucial question: how should we count the days to Pentecost? From the Sunday during the days of Unleavened Bread? Or, should Pentecost be counted from the Sunday immediately following the weekly sabbath which must occur during the Days of Unleavened Bread? In other words, is it imperative that the weekly “SABBATH” fall during the days of Unleavened Bread? Or, is it essential that the SUNDAY following that particular weekly “sabbath” must fall within Unleavened Bread?
“ ‘These are more crucial questions than might appear at first; for in those years where the last day of Unleavened Bread also happens to fall on a weekly sabbath (producing a “double Sabbath”), the offering of the wave sheaf is made to fall after, outside the days of Unleavened Bread. This is, indeed, what is happening this year. [Emphasis theirs.]’ ”
“The WCG’s decision sometime prior to March 30, 1974, was made on the basis of symbolism and a misunderstanding of Joshua 5:10-12. This article will show that the doctrinal committee overlooked a great deal in the Scriptures relating to Joshua 5:10-12 especially. This overlooked material renders Joshua 5:10-12 unusable as evidence for counting from within the Days of Unleavened Bread when Passover falls on a weekly Sabbath.”
In committing the fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam, John has completely misrepresented the statements made by Dr. Charles V. Dorothy concerning the issue of whether the wave sheaf should fall within or without the Days of Unleavened Bread. A careful reading of the paragraphs cited from his study paper will show that Dr. Dorothy is questioning the earlier decision of the church to count from the final High Sabbath in order to have the wave sheaf fall on a workday. It is this “arbitrary” decision that was causing concern among some of the brethren because the account in Joshua 5:10-11 “seems to show the Israelites counted that Pentecost from … the High Day within Unleavened Bread.” The apparent discrepancy between the Scriptural account and the church’s practice of counting from the last High Day had led to Dr. Dorothy’s question: “how should we count the days to Pentecost?” The second citation from the study paper clearly shows that Dr. Dorothy is questioning the church’s longstanding practice of placing the wave sheaf “outside the days of Unleavened Bread” (see p. 4).
John points out that Dr. Dorothy urged further study of the wave sheaf issue. But John overlooks the fact that Dr. Dorothy also stated that further study was already in progress. If this additional study had led to conclusions which supported the church’s practice of counting from the last High Sabbath, this practice would have continued. The fact that the church altered its former practice shows that the weight of evidence contradicts a count from the last High Sabbath.
The fallacy of petitio principii occurs when the premise of an argument, whether stated or implied, presumes the very conclusion that is to be proved. Notice the implication that is embedded in the following explanation of the count to Pentecost:
“Using common logic, we can tell that God could easily have given a set calendar date for Pentecost, just as He did for all the other festivals. He could have instructed us to keep it on Sivan 6, but He does not. Therefore, the Pharisees, modern-day Jews and even some who call themselves Christians are wrong to keep it on Sivan 6 year after year unless God’s method of counting happens to end then.
“He instructs us to count, but any count that begins on a fixed date will end on a fixed date. It is apparent that this is something He does not want because He does not give us a fixed date. No valid reason for counting exists except the one given in the Bible. Setting Pentecost by beginning the count on a fixed date—and thus ending on a fixed date—makes void God’s instructions for counting. We count because God commands us to count!
“This makes determining the starting date for the count crucial. Leviticus 23:11 and 15 both tell us to begin counting “the day after the Sabbath.” If this were a holy day Sabbath, it would be telling us to count from the day after a fixed date, on either Nisan 16 or 22. This means that Pentecost would fall on either Sivan 6 or 12. Why does God not simply set one of those dates in the first place?
“The weekly Sabbath falls on different calendar dates and therefore so does the day after the weekly Sabbath. Understand why this is so: According to the Hebrew calendar rules, Passover, Nisan 14, can fall on a Monday, Wednesday, Friday or weekly Sabbath. Thus, the first day of Unleavened Bread can fall on either a Tuesday, Thursday, weekly Sabbath or Sunday. The last day of Unleavened Bread, just like the Passover, can fall on a Monday, Wednesday, Friday or weekly Sabbath.
“If the Passover, Nisan 14, falls on a Monday, the date of the weekly Sabbath will be the 19th, and wavesheaf Sunday will be the 20th. If it falls on a Wednesday, the weekly Sabbath date will be on the 17th, and wavesheaf Sunday will be the 18th. If it falls on Friday, the weekly Sabbath date will be the 15th and also the first day of Unleavened Bread, and wavesheaf Sunday will be the 16th. If it falls on the weekly Sabbath, the next Sabbath within the Days of Unleavened Bread will be the 21st (see charts).
“We can see that the date of the day after the weekly Sabbath that falls during the Days of Unleavened Bread will also move about because of the weekly Sabbath’s relationship to the day on which Passover falls. This ensures that Pentecost will be on one of four dates in Sivan, and forces us to count every year (unless we just look at a correctly prepared chart).”
John correctly interprets the command to count to Pentecost as evidence that the wave sheaf, which begins the count, is not a fixed date. He is correct in concluding that the date of the wave sheaf is determined by the weekly Sabbath, which may fall on different calendar dates. However, his explanation concerning the weekly Sabbaths that fall during the Days of Unleavened Bread is misleading because he implies that the wave sheaf occurs after the last day of Unleavened Bread (the 21st) when that day falls on the weekly Sabbath. His argument presumes that the wave sheaf must follow the weekly Sabbath that falls within the Days of Unleavened Bread, which is the very point he is attempting to prove. Thus he commits the fallacy of petitio principii.
The fallacy of irrelevant conclusion is committed when the facts that are presented do not support the conclusion. Because the commands for counting to Pentecost are given in conjunction with the commands for the Days of Unleavened Bread, John concludes that the wave sheaf, which begins the count, must follow the weekly Sabbath that falls within the Days of Unleavened Bread:
“This begins to illustrate why the Sabbath mentioned in Leviticus 23:11, 15 must be a weekly Sabbath as the Sadducees of the first century and Herbert W. Armstrong practiced, not the first day of Unleavened Bread as the Pharisees believed, nor the last day of Unleavened Bread as the Essenes and Falashas (Ethiopian Jews) kept…).
“The question, then, is which Sabbath do we need to isolate to arrive at the correct date for Pentecost? The Sabbath we choose to begin the count is significant, or else we could arbitrarily decide to count from any Sabbath. Confusion would be the result. Even though the Old Testament instruction seems ambiguous on this point, it is reasonable to conclude that, since the counting instructions given in Leviticus 23:11, 15 and Deuteronomy 16:9 are given in relation to the Days of Unleavened Bread, the Sabbaths of Unleavened Bread are significant. Because Unleavened Bread is seven days long, one and only one weekly Sabbath, with its varying date, will always fall within it. If we were to deny this link between Unleavened Bread and when the count to Pentecost begins, God’s counting instructions become unusable.”
John begins his argument by stating two fundamental facts: 1) the Sabbath in the counting instructions is a weekly Sabbath, and 2) this weekly Sabbath is significant to a correct count. He proceeds to reason that because the counting instructions in Leviticus 23:11, 15 and Deuteronomy 16:9 are found with commands for the Days of Unleavened Bread, the weekly Sabbath that falls within the Days of Unleavened Bread is significant. He concludes that this must be the Sabbath that is designated by the Scriptural instructions to count. In doing so, he rejects any other method of counting as unworkable.
An examination of the instructions in Leviticus 23:11, 15 and Deuteronomy 16:9 does not support John’s conclusion. The instructions in Deuteronomy 16:9 simply command that seven weeks be counted. The instructions in Leviticus 23:11, 15 specify that the count must begin “from the day that ye brought the sheaf of the wave offering,” which is not the Sabbath but “the morrow after the Sabbath.” Since the Scriptural instructions concern the count to Pentecost, and the Sabbath is not included in the count, there is no basis for claiming that the Sabbath takes precedence over the Wave Sheaf Day. The fact that the Wave Sheaf Day begins the count shows that it is of primary significance in the count to Pentecost. John errs because he views the weekly Sabbath as the beginning of the count, rather than the wave sheaf, as evidenced by his own words (see paragraph 2 in the citation on page 8). It is misleading to focus on the significance of the Sabbath and overlook the greater significance of the Wave Sheaf Day. There is no Scriptural basis for John’s conclusion that it is more important for the weekly Sabbath to fall within the Days of Unleavened Bread than for the Wave Sheaf Day.
The fallacy of non sequitur, literally meaning “it does not follow,” is committed when the conclusion of the argument is wholly unrelated to the evidence given in the premise. The following paragraph contains this fallacy:
“Although the wavesheaf is normally offered during the Days of Unleavened Bread, the connecting link between the wavesheaf and Unleavened Bread is the Sabbath. The Sabbath day is the sign between God and His people (Exodus 31:12-17), not just in identifying who they are, but in this case, it also serves as the focal point in counting to Pentecost. Because we must first identify the Sabbath to begin the count, it is the Sabbath that must fall within the Days of Unleavened Bread, not necessarily wavesheaf Sunday. In the odd years when Passover falls on a weekly Sabbath, the only Sabbath day within Unleavened Bread is the holy day at its end. Nevertheless, this Sabbath, a double Sabbath, is of greater importance for beginning the count, not the wavesheaf offered the next day.”
It is true that we must identify the Sabbath before we can begin the count. But it does not follow that the Sabbath must fall within the Days of Unleavened Bread. John’s conclusion is completely unfounded because he is reasoning in reverse. He fails to consider that it is impossible to identify the Sabbath without knowing in advance whether or not that Sabbath must fall within the Days of Unleavened Bread. Since the commands in Leviticus 23:11, 15 do not specify that the Sabbath that precedes the wave sheaf must fall within the Days of Unleavened Bread, there is no basis for viewing this interpretation as the standard for identifying the Sabbath. We must identify the correct Sabbath by searching the Scriptures to determine how God’s command was fulfilled by the children of Israel, to whom it was delivered.
The fallacy of irrelevant conclusion occurs when a writer draws a conclusion that is not supported by the facts he presents. While the information that follows is instructive, it does not support John’s conclusion concerning which weekly Sabbath we are to count from. Notice:
“Another reason that we should count from the weekly Sabbath is the appearance of the definite Hebrew article ha that normally precedes “Sabbath.” In the entire Old Testament, this designation, hashabbath, is almost unanimously reserved for the weekly Sabbath (about 95% of the time). In Leviticus 23, a form of “Sabbath” appears in Hebrew twelve times and “Sabbaths” twice. The article ha appears before “Sabbath” three times, and each time it refers to the weekly Sabbath. Two of these occurrences concern the Sabbath in question (verses 11, 15). Once it appears before “Sabbaths” (verse 15), also referring to weekly Sabbaths.
“It is not surprising to find no reference to Jesus or the early church involved in the wavesheaf ritual…). However, they were very much aware of it, and it clearly shows in the accounts of Jesus’ resurrection. In almost all translations, John 20:1 is rendered, “On the first day of the week. . . .” In Greek, this phrase is te mia ton sabbaton. Sabbaton can be used in a singular or plural sense to designate “Sabbath” or “Sabbaths” or “week” or “weeks.”
“Notice what Bullinger in the Companion Bible says about this Greek phrase:
“ ‘The first day of the week = ‘On the first (day) of the Sabbaths” (pl.). Gk—Te mia ton sabbaton. The word “day” is rightly supplied, as mia is feminine, and so must agree with a feminine noun understood, while sabbaton is neuter. Luke 24:1 has the same. Matthew reads, ‘towards dawn on the first (day) of the Sabbaths,’ and Mark (16:2), ‘very early on the first (day) of the Sabbaths.’ ”
“Our understanding of the importance of the wavesheaf in relation to both Christ’s acceptance and the counting of Pentecost should lead us to see that the gospel writers were clearly establishing the exact day of Christ’s acceptance: the first day for counting to Pentecost. John 20:16-19 absolutely proves from the Bible which Sabbath during the Days of Unleavened Bread God intends us to use to determine wavesheaf Sunday. These verses show that Jesus ascended to the Father to be accepted on the day following the weekly Sabbath. Taken together, these factors point conclusively to the wavesheaf day as being on a Sunday, the day following the weekly Sabbath within the Days of Unleavened Bread.”
John is correct in stating that the Hebrew text of the Old Testament and the Greek text of the New Testament both support a wave sheaf following the weekly Sabbath. But John’s statements concerning the Hebrew hashabbath and the Greek sabbaton have no bearing on which weekly Sabbath should determine the wave sheaf. The use of these terms in Scripture neither proves nor disproves his claim that this weekly Sabbath must fall within the Days of Unleavened Bread. Nor does John 20:16-19 prove which Sabbath determines the wave sheaf. It is true that the Sabbath preceding the wave sheaf fell within the Days of Unleavened Bread in the year of Christ’s crucifixion, but it should be noted that the wave sheaf also fell within the Days of Unleavened Bread that year. However, it is not possible for both the wave sheaf and the weekly Sabbath that precedes it to fall within Unleavened Bread in every year. When the Passover falls on a weekly Sabbath, a decision must be made as to whether the Sabbath preceding the wave sheaf or the wave sheaf itself should fall within the Days of Unleavened Bread. John 20:16-19 cannot be used to decide this question because the Passover did not fall on a weekly Sabbath in the year of the crucifixion.
The fallacy of irrelevant conclusion occurs when a writer draws a conclusion that is not supported by the facts he presents. Notice John’s faulty conclusion concerning the symbolism of the wave sheaf:
“Symbolism is an effective teaching tool, and the Bible uses it extensively. It can be used to hide clear understanding for a time, or clarify it when the time comes, according to the Creator’s purpose. Taken by itself, the symbolism within the wavesheaf offering is clear. But its relationship to other instruction [sic] is not always understood.
“To which festival is the symbolism of the wavesheaf offering most closely related, Passover, Unleavened Bread or Pentecost? On the calendar it is most closely associated with Unleavened Bread because it is observed either within it or adjacent to it. Because each in its place plays a part in His purpose, all of God’s festivals and rituals have a relationship with each other. Some festivals and rituals, though, have a closer relationship with some than they do with others. For instance, the Lamb slain on Nisan 14 has a direct and powerful relationship to Passover—in fact, Passover revolves around it. Its relationship with the other festivals, however, seen in the focus of their teaching, begins to become more distant, though still essential.
“Thus it is with the wavesheaf offering. Although it is observed in or near the Days of Unleavened Bread, its purpose and symbolism are directly tied to Pentecost fifty days away. Symbolically, it has a much less direct relationship to Unleavened Bread than to Pentecost.
“Passover and Unleavened Bread, though next to one another on the calendar, do not teach us the same things. The same is true of Tabernacles and the Last Great Day. Proximity on the calendar does not indicate the closeness of the symbolic relationship.
“Passover pictures Christ crucified for the forgiveness of our sins, as well as the means and cost of redemption from Satan, sin and this world. Unleavened Bread depicts our liberation and what God does to make it possible. It also shows our continuing responsibility to keep ourselves free by striving not to sin and overcoming by the power of God. The symbolism and instruction of these two are clearly related but much different.
“The wavesheaf offering pictures the firstfruit of the first harvest of the year offered before God for His acceptance. Spiritually, it pictures Christ—the firstfruit of God’s first spiritual harvest of souls—ascending after His resurrection to be accepted before God as the offering for our forgiveness and as our High Priest, enabling Him to administer the Holy Spirit and mediate for us before God.
“Pentecost depicts the giving of God’s Spirit to impregnate us as His children, thus putting us into the church, giving us power to overcome sin, and enabling us to be resurrected (born again) as firstfruits into the Kingdom of God as part of the same spiritual harvest that began with Christ. Both the wavesheaf and Pentecost depict a harvest. One event begins it, and the other ends it. The wavesheaf begins the count, and Pentecost ends it. If Christ had not been resurrected (harvested), or His sacrifice accepted, there would have been no Holy Spirit sent to mankind, no church and no reason for Pentecost to be observed by Christians because there would be no harvest.
“Conclusion? The wavesheaf offering has a direct connection to Pentecost and nearly a direct one to Passover, but only an indirect one to Unleavened Bread. The harvest symbolism and the fact that wavesheaf offering day begins the count that ends at Pentecost nearly detach the wavesheaf from Unleavened Bread but firmly attach it to Pentecost. In other words, it is in reality a Pentecost ritual, not an Unleavened Bread ritual. What symbolic reason is there in this to conclude that the wavesheaf must always be offered during the Days of Unleavened Bread?”
John is correct when he states that “the Lamb slain on Nisan 14 has a direct and powerful relationship to Passover.” Likewise, the meaning of the wave sheaf is inseparably linked to Passover, as it was necessary for the crucifixion of Christ to take place before He could ascend to the Father and be accepted as our Wave Sheaf. John acknowledges that the wave sheaf “…pictures Christ—the firstfruit of God’s first spiritual harvest of souls—ascending after His resurrection to be accepted before God as the offering for our forgiveness and as our High Priest….” But John totally ignores the fact that Christ’s ascension occurred during the Days of Unleavened Bread. By placing the wave sheaf outside the Days of Unleavened Bread, he severs the direct link between Christ’s sacrifice on the Passover day and His ascension as our Wave Sheaf during the Days of Unleavened Bread. The Wave Sheaf Day and its meaning cannot be detached from the Passover and the Days of Unleavened Bread. The New Testament fulfillment of the wave sheaf by Jesus Christ, as recorded in the Gospel accounts, does not support John’s conclusion that there is no direct link between the Wave Sheaf Day and the Days of Unleavened Bread.
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.” John’s premise is that the weekly Sabbath from which the wave sheaf is counted must fall within the Days of Unleavened Bread. He presumes this to be a command of Scripture and maintains that this “rule” prohibits the wave sheaf from following the Passover when it falls on the weekly Sabbath. Notice:
“In 2001, with Passover falling on the weekly Sabbath, the holy days of Unleavened Bread are the next day, Sunday, and the following weekly Sabbath. As we have seen, this raises the question of which Sabbath begins the count. Is it legitimate to consider Passover, Nisan 14, a weekly Sabbath, as the day preceding wavesheaf Sunday?
“This entails considering Passover as a day of Unleavened Bread, as well as the priests making the wavesheaf offering on a holy day, the first day of Unleavened Bread. If we do this, the command to offer the wavesheaf on the day after the weekly Sabbath that falls within the Days of Unleavened Bread is broken. The alternative is to wait until the following Sunday, the day after the weekly Sabbath that is definitely within the Days of Unleavened Bread (also the last day of Unleavened Bread). We must ascertain if Passover can legitimately be considered one of the days of Unleavened Bread or within them. If it can, this makes a difference of one full week as to when Pentecost is observed.
“ ‘To do so, however, confuses the teaching about the two. God made it very clear in Leviticus 23:5-6 that Passover is the 14th, and Unleavened Bread begins on the 15th. Though related, they are two distinct and separate festivals:
“ ‘On the fourteenth day of the first month at twilight [ben ha’arbayim, “between the two evenings”] is the LORD’S Passover. And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the Feast of Unleavened Bread to the LORD; seven days you must eat unleavened bread.’ ”
“On the 14th the firstborn were killed, on the 15th Israel left Egypt (Numbers 33:3). They are two distinct and separate—though related—operations. In Exodus 12:15, 19 God says that the Days of Unleavened Bread are seven days long, not eight as they would be if we add Passover.
“Some have been caused to stumble at Exodus 12:18-19 because, without a bit of research, it only seems to say that Passover is a day of Unleavened Bread:
“ ‘In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at evening [ba’ereb, “even,” “evening,” “twilight,” “dusk” at the end of the day, not the beginning], you shall eat unleavened bread, until the twenty-first day of the month at evening. For seven days no leaven shall be found in your houses. . . .’ ”
“To confirm that ba’ereb occurs at the end of the day, notice Leviticus 23:32 where it is used in relation to Atonement.
“If Exodus 12:18-19 is saying one should begin eating only unleavened bread at the beginning of the 14th and cease eating it at the beginning of the 21st, then Passover becomes the first day of Unleavened Bread, a holy day, and Nisan 20 becomes the last day of Unleavened Bread! Although unleavened bread is required for the Passover meal—no sacrifice at any time was ever to contain leaven (Exodus 23:18)—the Bible never refers to the whole day as unleavened.
“Hidden in the Greek of Matthew 26:17, Mark 14:1, 12 and Luke 22:7 is a reference to Passover as “the first of the unleaveneds.” A comparison with the Old Testament, however, discloses this to be only the popular usage of some during New Testament times. In the Old Testament, something akin to this is found in Deuteronomy 16, where a festival is called “Passover,” while the context clearly describes the first day of Unleavened Bread. People popularly used Passover and Unleavened Bread interchangeably, and the Bible notes this practice, though “Passover” was the term generally used for the whole period.
“Doing things like this is not uncommon. Today, we commonly refer to the Feast of Tabernacles and the Last Great Day as either the “Feast” or “Tabernacles,” even though we clearly understand that the Feast of Tabernacles and Last Great Day are separate festivals. So it was with Passover in the time of Christ and the apostles. Neither our use of “Tabernacles” nor the Jews use of “Passover” alters the authority of the Scriptures.
“Passover and Unleavened Bread are separate festivals, each with a different focus related to the other. To blend them to the point of making them one festival stretches the Scriptures and introduces confusion into the instruction. The Pharisees did this and proved that the mixture produces weakness, not strength. Thus Passover, even when it occurs on a weekly Sabbath, is never part of the Days of Unleavened Bread and cannot be used for determining wavesheaf day.
“We must conclude, then, that, if we do not accept the fact that the Sabbath mentioned in Leviticus 23:11, 15 is the weekly Sabbath within the Days of Unleavened Bread, we are left without any real defining point from which to begin the count. Only these two verses in the Old Testament show when to wave the sheaf. Why not any other Sabbath, either holy day or weekly? John 20:1, 17 absolutely confirm that Jesus was “waved” on the Sunday following the weekly Sabbath within the Days of Unleavened Bread. When Passover falls on the weekly Sabbath, the only Sabbath within the Days of Unleavened Bread is also the last day of Unleavened Bread. When Passover falls on the weekly Sabbath, should we throw out the rule used to calculate Pentecost for all other years? Pentecost is always calculated from the weekly Sabbath within the Days of Unleavened Bread. Nowhere does God say to alter that rule during a year like this one.”
John’s interpretation of Leviticus 23:11 and 15 as a command to offer the wave sheaf on the day after the weekly Sabbath during the Days of Unleavened Bread is so firmly fixed in his mind that he can see no other possible answer to the question of when to begin the count. Because he has presumed that his interpretation of God’s command is correct, he presents this interpretation as a fact of Scripture, failing to see that his premise and his conclusion are one and the same. His reasoning is circular, beginning and arriving at the same point, without any valid evidence to support his position.