A Critique of David C. Pack’s "The
Sabbath or Sunday, Which?"
By William Hohmann
Per Gavin at http://otagosh.tripod.com:
Bill Hohmann's name is
familiar to many past and present WCG members. Bill posts regularly on a
variety of boards, and if memory serves me has commented on the COGs at least
once on national television in the
Recently Bill took the bit
between his teeth once again and took apart Dave Pack's Sabbath booklet.
Indeed, he's done so in such detail that I suspect his critique is longer than
the Pack original. The first two chapters appear online at AW
Extra(http://groups.google.co.nz/group/aw-extra) and the rest will follow soon.
Bear in mind that Pack's
writing is a rewrite (one might even use the term rePACKaging) of the Herbal
originals. Anyone who still thinks Which Day is the Christian Sabbath? is a
bullet-proof treatise of Biblical truth might well learn a thing or two as
well.
But, as Bill himself rightly
warned me when he sent the document, it's a long one, so be prepared to buy in
groceries.
[But as you can see, I have
all eight chapters right here, at Whistler’s Tune. Once again Bill Hohmann has done a superb job
of delving into, thoroughly analyzing and explaining the subject at hand.
Although not a short read by any means, it does provide an excellent rebuttal
of Sabbatarianism, as taught by the Armstrongites, point by point. If the subject of the Sabbath has been a continual
burr under your saddle, and you’ve not quite been able to rid yourself of some
guilt feelings about no longer observing it, you need to read this article.
Just in case someone is
wondering just who Dave Pack is, he’s the founder and pastor general of the Restored
Church of God (RCG)- a church he founded in an attempt to restore the “truths”
Herbert Armstrong taught, but which were rejected by the WCG and others after
his death. One wonders, however, which decade of HWA’s teachings Pack has
determined reflect the real “truth.”
Was it HWA’s teachings in
the 1930’s and 40’s, where an anchor “truth” was that Hitler was not dead, but
in hiding, waiting to usher in the tribulation as the beast power? Or was it in HWA’s teachings of the 50’s,
60’s, and early 70’s, when eschewing doctors, divorce and (sometimes) makeup
were key and vital “truths”? Or possibly
Pack should focus on the late 70’s and early 80’s, when divorce and doctors were
now OK, and a key “truth” this decade would be to follow wherever God’s true
“Apostle” led his sheep, ignoring those nasty rumors surfacing about corruption
in the highest church offices.
Actually, it’s fairly obvious
that David Pack avoided all the anguish and heart-burn of comparing his hero’s
ever-changing teachings by simply focusing on his devotion to the memory of HWA
. . . who cares if he made a few
mistakes along the way? And hey, if HWA
could gather a flock of sheeple, why couldn’t he? After all, HWA’s death did leave an unfilled
niche in the religious market, right? The
rest is history – Pack has gathered a small flock, but as a “shepherd” he
wields such a mean staff, that he has of recent years been decimating the flock. Who would have thunk? How uncharacteristic of a WCG split-off
“pastor general” to mistreat his wide-eyed, seeing-a-wolf-behind-every-tree
sheeple!
In case anyone might want to
contact Bill, his e-mail address is: wmhohmann@peoplepc.com. Whistler]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction
Like Herbert Armstrong’s
"Which Day is the Christian Sabbath?", David Pack follows HWA’s lead,
seeing as Armstrong’s booklet is copyrighted. No matter, for David Pack follows
in the tradition of HWA in his booklet, using a plethora of argumentation in
order to justify sabbath keeping. You would think that if a teaching or belief
were true, it would not take nearly 100 pages in a booklet to make the case. In
this, we see the author trying to prove the sabbath as required of Christians
through this process of swamping him in so much material that it would be
extremely time consuming to wade through and disprove, while at the same time
appearing to be an example of comprehensive truth, when in fact it is not.
Truth should be easy to discern, and truth should not need to rely on
assumption and human rationalization; a mixture designed to insure one is misled
into falsehoods and deception.
Please note that the title
of Pack’s booklet is almost identical to Herbert Armstrong’s "Which day is
the Christian Sabbath?" The real question is whether the sabbath is
required of Christians regardless of the status of Sunday and how that day is
used or observed, and David Pack knows this. But by redefining the debate to be
one of "if not A, then B" the unwary reader who has little knowledge
or understanding of scripture can be indoctrinated into sabbatarianism, and
subsequently milked out of tithes for years to come before he or she would
learn enough to see that the sabbath is not required of them any more than
scripture required them to tithe to them. Some people never wake up to the
reality of scripture, and spend the rest of their lives feeding wolves to their
own detriment.
Sections of the booklet will
be quoted, and then commented upon. Each quote from Pack’s booklet will be
indented and start and end with ***, to set it apart from my comments.
Chapter 1 - Astonishing Admission
***I
grew up in a large, respected Protestant church. I can recall sitting on a
stool wearing a bow tie in Sunday school at age three, surrounded by other
children. As I grew older, Sunday school became Sunday church services, with
everyone taking for granted that we were there on the right day. No one
remotely suggested otherwise. We all appeared weekly in our "Sunday
best."***
This is David Pack’s opening
statement. He makes the assumption, even at an early age, that the people
around him were keeping Sunday as though it were a "right" day, as if
to imply there is a wrong day to worship. Those with a proclivity to legalism
view all around them from the perspective of right and wrong; good or bad; evil
or righteous. Everything is black and white: there is no room for grey.
For instance, the title of
the booklet belies this black and white thinking; either Saturday is the day
Christians are required to rest and worship God, or Sunday is. No other
possibilities are entertained. In keeping with this rationale, the author, if
he were aware of other possibilities, has long since discovered it is
counter-productive to entertain and "disprove" other possibilities
that have the potential for his followers to think for themselves, casting off
the black and white thinking they are indoctrinated with. What if Christians
are not required to keep any day along the requirements of the Old Testament
Sabbath? The very idea is perceived as absurd to many of those who insist on
keeping either Saturday or Sunday. Could people on both sides of the debate be
fundamentally wrong in their premises? Why not?
***In
1966, at age seventeen, I was challenged to look into the Bible to see what it
actually says on the matter of Sunday-keeping. I was absolutely shocked by what
I found! You will be also. While the world is geared contrary to Sabbath
observance on the seventh day of the week, I realized there was no excuse for
breaking the Sabbath. I found the Bible was PLAIN, leaving no room for doubt.
The scriptures about the Sabbath and Sunday were most CLEAR. I saw that common
objections to Sabbath observance were easily disproven, if one had an open
mind.***
And what exactly shocked
David Pack? That he discovered exactly what he was led to discover – That
nowhere in scripture was Sunday treated like the Sabbath day! Gasp and horrors!
Come to think of it, Monday through Friday are not treated like the Old
Testament Sabbath either. What a revelation... And speaking of an open mind,
those that have bought into Sabbatarianism are quick to judge others who do not
buy into the sabbath argument as being close-minded. But in reality, it is they
who ignore the real issues and what scripture says.
But now for an influx of
logic. Do most all these 2000 plus denominations in
The author declares he
realized he had no excuse for breaking the sabbath. He claims the Bible is
"plain" and leaves no room for doubt; that arguments to the contrary
are easily "disproven" if one but has an open mind.
Unfortunately, those who
find themselves indoctrinated into the teachings of the Old Testament writings
of Moses end up with a veil before their eyes, seeing as they have embraced the
Old Testament / Covenant at the expense of the New Testament / Covenant.
2 Corinthians 3:12-13 Seeing
then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech: And not as
Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not
steadfastly look to the end of that which is abolished: But their minds were
blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading
of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ. But even unto this
day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart. Nevertheless when it
shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away. Now the Lord is that
Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
But in the old testament /
covenant, there is bondage, as the apostle Paul brings out in Galatians 4:22 -
5:1.
Does one who has a veil
before their eyes then have an open mind? No. It is closed; it is sealed; it is
blinded to the truth found in the new covenant / testament, for this mind
thought to place the new wine in that old wineskin system of the old covenant;
unable to discern what is plainly stated in both the old testament and the new:
the new covenant was not to be like the old one. (Jer. 31 & Heb. 8)
The "objections"
(proofs) that the sabbath and other points of law are not binding on Christians
– the literal sons of God, is beyond comprehension of those who have bought
into the old covenant paradigm. They have unwittingly rejected the very gospel
of Jesus Christ, and as such He has relegated them to this condition of
spiritual blindness until such time as He sees fit to remove that veil from
before their eyes. Only God can do it. I can’t do it, and what I write here cannot
do it. All this critique can do is help prevent others from falling into this
spiritual pit, and hopefully produce enough comprehension in those who believe
they have to keep the sabbath that these "objections" are not so
simply dismissed as they thought. Perhaps it will spur some to truly study and
seek God and quit excepting their beliefs on a tarnished platter as they have
been doing without realizing it.
***Unless
God did not exist, and the Bible was the word of men—merely ancient Hebrew and
Greek literature—I had no choice but to observe the Sabbath.***
Notice the lack of logic
following the premise. The premise does not lead to this conclusion. But if one
is reading along, being careless, they just might accept the conclusion.
If we prove to our own
satisfaction there is a God, why would we conclude that something God commanded
of another would be required of us? Do we use this shaky logic to conclude we
should sacrifice our first born male children as God commanded Abraham in
regards to Isaac? Of course not! So why would we conclude we are to keep the
sabbath command that was given to Israel, especially when it was required of
them through the instrument of a covenant – a legally binding agreement that,
in this case, was between God and Israel and no one else? Why would we ASSUME
the sabbath and any of the rest of this covenant Christians were never a party
to is required of us? It is a dangerous assumption, and accuses God of being
careless concerning His covenants and what He requires of Christians.
***Since
proving that God exists and the Bible is His Word, and since seeing proof of
the Sabbath command from the Bible, I have not attended church on Sunday or
observed that day. I found that the Fourth Commandment is a LAW. When kept, it
brings spiritual blessings, "keeping" those who obey it. When broken,
it brings spiritual curses, "breaking" those who disobey it.***
Is there a command in the
Bible to keep the sabbath? Yes, it was commanded by God of Israel, with Moses
being the mediator of that law. Is Moses the mediator of the new? No. Were
Christians a party to that old covenant law? No. Is there a new covenant? Yes.
Is the new covenant like the old? No.
Are there spiritual
blessings for keeping the sabbath? No. You can search all of scripture, and you
will find nothing there about spiritual blessings for keeping the sabbath or
any of the old covenant law.
Were there spiritual curses
for breaking the sabbath? No more than what the people were already under in
that regard. Transgression of any of the law brought about condemnation. There
were no rewards beyond the physical for
There is the placement of
that veil before the eyes, which is actually a merciful act on God’s part, for
what if the person in question truly understood the consequences of choosing
the law over Christ and His Sacrifice? Can you sacrifice Christ over and over
again each time you transgress the law? And if you insist on keeping laws such
as the sabbath command, you will transgress. You are not God; you are not
perfect in this regard. God has one too many Satans running around who thought
he could be like God.
***However,
almost all professing Christians are in agreement about Sunday observance,
thinking it to be the Lord’s Day" of the New Testament.
Are
they correct? Does the New Testament establish Sunday in place of the Old
Testament seventh-day Sabbath? Did Christ do away with the Sabbath, making
Himself "Lord of Sunday"? Vast numbers are told— and believe—that He
did. But, if Christ established Sunday to replace the seventh-day Sabbath, why
did He tell His disciples, "Therefore the Son of man is LORD ALSO OF THE
SABBATH" (Mark 2:28)?***
Whether almost all
professing Christians believe Sunday to be the "Lord’s Day" of the
New Testament or not is irrelevant. If they are wrong, it does not validate
sabbath observance. It is not either / or. It is not black and white.
The author then sets up a
classic straw man argument regarding the question of replacement theology in
regards to Sunday, using a conclusion that is both false and eisogetical.
Christ did not tell his disciples he was lord of the sabbath, but the religious
leaders of that time who accused his disciples of gathering and eating grain on
a sabbath, contrary to the law, which they did! Christ did not deny they broke
the sabbath, but rather showed them that his disciples were not guilty of sin
before God even as king David was blameless for eating the show bread that was
not lawful for him to eat. The common excuse Sabbatarians use to explain this
is the "right of kings" explanation, yet at that time, David was not
yet king. There is something else at work here, and the Sabbatarians are unable
to comprehend it. It is spiritual, and those locked up in the physical, letter
of the law have no spiritual discernment.
***Have
you ever noticed this verse? Probably not. Yet there it is in the New
Testament. Most ministers are fond of preaching from the New Testament, almost
to the complete exclusion of the Old Testament. But have you ever heard a
preacher mention this passage? Almost certainly not—and this is just one of
many plain scriptures about the Sabbath.***
If this is just one of many
plain scriptures about the sabbath, taken out of context and treated
eisogetically, then it makes you wonder what the other "plain"
scriptures say. The subject where this is cited is about how "man"
ended up worshiping the sabbath and serving the sabbath instead of the sabbath
serving the man. And in this case, it is in regards to the man to whom it was
given. The sabbath was not given to all mankind, it was given to
***Most
generally accept common religious practices without question, choosing to do
what everyone else does because it is easy, natural and comfortable— because
there is a certain "safety in numbers." The power of peer pressure
alone makes most practice what is acceptable—and fashionable. Most follow along
as they have been taught, assuming what they believe and do is right. They take
their beliefs for granted, almost never taking time to PROVE them.***
Is this proof of anything,
or is it a generalization couched in an accusation? Couldn’t we say then the
same thing about many Sabbatarians today; that they take it for granted they
are supposed to keep the sabbath, and have never really proved it to themselves
– that they just accepted the "proof texts" that are invariably taken
out of context such as the one cited above? And is there no peer pressure
amongst Sabbatarians?
***A
study of the Bible, on almost all doctrines generally accepted by the churches
of this world—professing Christianity—reveals that they have almost no biblical
basis whatsoever. This statement is shocking, yet true!***
There is Hebrews chapter 6
where Christian doctrines are mentioned, and the sabbath is not listed with
them. Hmmm. And really, what does this accusatory statement prove in regards to
the sabbath? Nothing.
***But
here is an irony: When confronted with the truth of what the Bible really says
on a matter, most will attempt to deny the facts, however indisputable. They
will twist, distort and blur the issues in order to hold to cherished beliefs,
preferring what is familiar to what is RIGHT—and TRUE!***
Here we find another
accusation. But what is of interesting note is what Jesus and Paul had to say
about those who resort to this methodology; that they are guilty themselves of
the same thing.
The Bible does not support
the belief Christians are required to keep the sabbath. It is provable. But
could it be that they will also twist, distort, and blur the issues? What did
the author do above? He quoted a passage out of context and treated it
eisogetically. He claimed Christ spoke the statement to his disciples when in
fact it was spoken to Jesus’ detractors. He attempted to put it in a light it
is not in, in order to bolster his belief and teaching!
Here are some facts
concerning the sabbath.
1. It is one point of law in
the covenant law God made with
2. If either party to a
covenant dies, they are no longer held to, or obligated to the conditions of
that covenant. Christ died. Christians die (to the law-covenant) through
baptism. Paul uses the marriage covenant to explain this in Romans chapter 7.
The Sabbatarian would have us believe we are not only bound to a condition of a
covenant we were never a party to, but insists Christians are still held to it
even if they are dead to it. This would be like saying a man is still bound to
a wife who died, even though she is dead.
There are more facts such as
these. The Sabbatarians such as the author deny the veracity of these facts and
others in favor of their pet belief, and resort to the same tactics they accuse
others of.
***The
Sabbath question is somewhat different. Though, in the end, most people are
unwilling to observe it, many ministers, theologians and religionists openly
acknowledge what the Bible says about the Sabbath. When pressed, they admit the
Bible authorizes observing the seventh day. You will be stunned at their
honesty!***
A simple question here. Have
you gone and asked ministers, theologians and religionists about this? What do
they really answer? Yes, indeed the Bible authorized observance of the seventh
day, but not for Christians. They are honest alright; unlike the author who
leaves out this little detail as to how many of them answer.
***Catholic
publications, popes, cardinals, bishops, theologians, historians, professors,
and the
The author goes on to quote
a number of Catholic sources where they lay claim to changing the days on their
own authority. The conclusion we are supposed to come to is that, seeing as
they had no authority from God to do so, the sabbath must therefore be the day
Christians are supposed to keep.
But there is more to it than
this simplistic rationale. The Catholics claim they changed it, but cannot
prove they changed it. It is a case of bragging on their part. They want to
look like the authority in this regard, with the Protestants following their
lead. But you can search through everything the Catholic church has in their records,
which go back even before what we recognize as the Catholic church, and you
will find absolutely no evidence to support their claim they changed the
sabbath day to Sunday. What pope made the change? What council? When? Where?
Their own records and documents are silent on the subject.
So why are we to believe
them? Because we want to? If you believe what they say in regards to the
sabbath and Sunday, then why don’t you believe them on everything else they
say?
In quoting these Catholic
and other sources, we find the author making this comment:
***"Question:
Which is the Sabbath day?
"Answer:
Saturday is the Sabbath day.
"Question:
Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?
"Answer:
We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church, in the
Council of Laodicea (A.D. 363), transferred the solemnity from Saturday to
Sunday."
-
Peter Gerermann, "The Convert’s Catechism of Catholic Doctrine," 2nd
ed., p. 50, 1910
[Author’s
Note: At this same fourth century Council of Laodicea—in A.D. 363—the following
edict was passed: "Christians must not Judaize by resting on the
Sabbath." The penalty for disobedience was death!]***
First of all, there is no
declaration of a penalty of death for disobedience. This claim is a total
fabrication. Let’s look at what this says in its totality:
CHRISTIANS must not judaize
by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honouring the
Lord's Day; and, if they can, resting then as Christians. But if any shall be
found to be judaizers, let them be anathema from Christ. (Canon XXIX)
The Christians are told to
rest on Sunday, "if they can". If they could not, it was not an
issue. What was important was that they were not to be Judaizers. What is a
Judaizer? One who insisted Christians had to keep the old testament
commandments, such as the fourth. And being found anathema was not a death
sentence. The person had the ability to "repent" of their heresy.
There was no practice of torturing the individual to death.
***It
is ironic that at least three well-known Protestant figures here freely admit
that the Sabbath has never been changed and is still binding on Christians—but
do not keep it themselves!
Here
is what Christ said about the popular commandments and traditions of the
world—and its churches: "IN VAIN do they worship Me, teaching for
doctrines the commandments of men…Full well [these men know exactly what they
are doing] you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your own
tradition" (Mark 7:7, 9).***
The author makes the above
statement after citing a number of Catholic and Protestant sources regarding
their take on the sabbath day. Missing from these quotes were any comments by
any theologians in regards to the ten commandments being the old covenant and
the covenant relationship between God and
In this statement by the
author, he again practices that which he accuses others of in regards to the
misrepresentation of scripture. This quote from Christ that the author claims
is addressing the popular commandments and traditions "of the world – and
its churches" was actually addressed to the Jews who had and kept the ten
commandments!
***Let’s
plainly frame the question: Do we observe the day that GOD commands—or do we
observe the traditional day that the Roman Catholic Church commands, and
Protestants endorse? This church and its daughter churches are wrong on
virtually every doctrine in the Bible—salvation, heaven, hell, method of
baptism, the Law, the definition of sin, the trinity, which annual days should
be observed by Christians, prophecy, and many more. Over and over, it has
substituted its commands and traditions in place of what God plainly says in
His Word. Should you follow its authority, believing it to be greater than the
authority of God?***
Is this truly "plainly"
framing the question, or is it loading the question? We are given only an
"either - or" situation. No other possibilities are offered or
entertained. In regards to a day dedicated to God:
Romans 14:5 One man
esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every
man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
If Christians were supposed
to be esteeming the sabbath, then could Paul have made such a cavalier
statement? Are we supposed to believe that Paul couldn’t possibly been referring
to sabbath days here? Could Paul have possibly been that careless?
And speaking of these other
things; salvation, heaven, hell, baptism, law, sin, and the trinity, you who
are in the Sabbatarian folds would be shocked to learn that what you believe concerning
these things are flawed also. Did you know scripture says Christians are dead
to sin and the law? Can a dead person be held to that which he or she died to?
Can a dead person still be bound to a living mate? If you believe you have to
keep the law and are alive to sin, then people must be bound to past mates in
the resurrection after all, regardless of what Christ had to say on the
subject.
***It
IS possible to worship God in vain. Therefore, you must find out, once and for
all, whether Sunday-keeping and worship is what God expects of you—or even
permits.***
Let’s see if we understand
what the author is implying here. If you worship God on Sunday, you are
worshiping God in vain. By extension, worship on any other day besides the
sabbath must also be in vain. Or is it a matter of keeping or observing another
day in relation to worship? A person who is retired and doesn’t work on any day
must really have a problem.
There is another angle to
this I doubt the author will address, which I will bring up later in regards to
how one determines which day is the sabbath in relation to
***Technically,
this book could end here. Though we will see that a few, very weak arguments
are put forth in favor of Sunday, in a sense, there is no further room for
argument. If those who keep Sunday will so freely acknowledge that they have no
authority from God—in His Word, the Holy Bible—for doing so, and the plain
biblical command is seen, observance of the Sabbath has been clearly
established!***
This book could end here if
it were truly a matter of one or the other. And if the sabbath has clearly been
established, there wouldn’t be a need for nearly another 80 pages of material
in this booklet, which I am reading as I go along making this critique. Seeing
though that there is no command in scripture for Christians to keep the sabbath
under the new covenant, much more assumption and rationalization is needed to
make the case convincing enough so that once the one being exposed to this
information for the first time, or those who bought into the sabbath in the
past who are reading this, will be less likely to stray from sabbath keeping
and the keeping of the rest of the law that serves the leaders of these groups
so well. What better condition can a wolf ask for than to have the sheep in a
psychologically conditioned "cage" they refuse to flee from as they
get sheared?
***But
God has much to say about the crucial importance of observing His Sabbath every
seven days. This includes understanding WHY Christians must do this. What you
will read in the remainder of this book is not supposition. It is scriptural
fact—PROOF from God—that the Sabbath was commanded 6,000 years ago. You will
see that neither God nor His command has ever changed!***
We see here now several claims
which the author states will be proven out in what follows. He claims there is
no supposition here. His last claim is that neither God nor His command has
ever changed. Are we to conclude that, even though we see where other commands
of God that have changed, regardless of whether God has changed or not, somehow
the sabbath command is the exception? Isn’t this a case of supposition then?
Chapter 2 - From the Beginning
***This
book will examine many verses from the Old Testament. Of course, it is there
that the Sabbath is first mentioned. However, one of the strongest verses in
the entire Bible on the subject of God’s Sabbath day is found in the New
Testament! Speaking to His disciples, Christ said, “The SABBATH was made for
man” (Mark
Notice the author states
that he is going to examine many verses from the Old Testament. It’s a
no-brainer that there is much said about the sabbath there; after all, it’s the
“Old Testament” Old Covenant made with
An examination of the
scriptures leading up to this shows it is the old covenant he is talking about.
Is the sabbath command found in the old covenant? Yes indeed; the old covenant
is specifically equated with the ten commandments in scripture.
As far as Mark
***Recognizing
that Christ is doing the creating, here is the next passage following the
creation of man and the completion of the sixth day: “Thus the heavens and the
earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the SEVENTH DAY God ended
His work which He had made; and He rested on the SEVENTH DAY from all His work
which He had made. And God blessed the SEVENTH DAY, and sanctified IT: because
that in it He had rested from all His work which God created and made” (Gen.
2:1-3). The very first thing that CHRIST created after man was the Sabbath.
This occurred over 2,000 years before the first Jew (Judah) was born. The
Sabbath was never merely for the Jews, or ancient
Did God “create” the first
day? Did He “create” the sixth day? These were days where the physical things
of creation were created. Days came along automatically. Tomorrow will come
without God “creating” it along the lines of that creation that was finished at
the end of the sixth day. At the end of the sixth day, God was done creating.
Genesis 1:31-2:1 And God saw
every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening
and the morning were the sixth day. Thus the heavens and the earth were
finished, and all the host of them.
God rested from creating on
that seventh day; He didn’t continue creating by creating a repetitive day of
rest. God rested – ceased from His creating on that particular seventh day from
the creation that was completed the sixth day, and He sanctified THAT
particular seventh day, and not the recurring seventh day.
The author desperately needs
to establish the recurring seventh day sabbath here in order to make the case
for it applying to Christians who were not a party to the old covenant, and to
make the case that the sabbath is somehow special and “eternal.” But the
seventh day isn’t called the sabbath here, and there is no internal evidence
God sanctified every seventh day. Nor is there internal evidence Adam and Eve
were commanded to keep the sabbath, or anyone else prior to
***The
last part of Genesis 1 records the creation of man on the sixth day. This
passage reveals that the Father and Christ (remember, Christ did the
creating—He was the God of the Old Testament) created man for a great
purpose—to reflect physically and take on spiritually God’s “image” and
“likeness.”***
Genesis relates that man was
made in God’s image. Whether this image is a reflection of the physical
appearance, or a reflection of the mental makeup is questionable. What the
scriptures do not relate is that man was to “take on” God’s spiritual image.
This is speculation. When Adam and Eve partook of the forbidden tree, the
statement was made that man had now become like God, knowing good and evil. So
this “great purpose” was that Adam and Eve sin in order to be more like God?
***God
does everything for a purpose. He wanted His creation, man, to be able to rest
one day after working for six previous days. We will learn later that the
Sabbath involves a SPECIAL COVENANT—a Sabbath covenant—between God and His true
servants.***
So... what kind of “work”
did Adam and Eve perform, seeing as God had provided everything they needed in
the garden? Adam did not have to work for his food until after the fall:
Genesis 3:17-19 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast
hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I
commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy
sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and
thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the
field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the
ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt
thou return.
***The
Mark 2 account occurs on the Sabbath and begins in verse 23, with the disciples
plucking ears of corn for food as they strolled along listening to Christ’s
instruction. The Pharisees challenged them, thinking they were doing things
“not lawful” on the Sabbath. Christ’s response was to show that, as the Author,
Creator and Lord of the Sabbath, He— not the Pharisees or anyone else—could
speak with authority about how to observe it. In other words, Christ governs
all matters in relation to the Sabbath. As Maker, Sustainer and Author of the Sabbath
Covenant, He alone deserves the title “Lord of the Sabbath.” Neither any church
nor any man can take this role from the One who created the Sabbath for His own
purpose!***
Notice that the author is
still hammering on Mark 2 after stating earlier there were plenty of other
passages of scripture in the New Testament dealing with the sabbath issue.
Does the narrative in Mark 2
state that Christ and the disciples were walking along, with the disciples
being instructed by Christ on some issue? No. Did Christ inform the Pharisees
they did not break the sabbath? No. What did Christ say to them? That if they
understood what it meant to have mercy and not sacrifice, they would understand
what was going on, and that they would not have condemned the guiltless. This
is stated in Matthew where this event is related by Matthew. Strange, don’t you
think, that the author does not bring this out, but rather focuses on the
“sabbath made for man” and about Christ being lord of the sabbath,
extrapolating from this eisogetically in order to make the case all mankind
should be keeping the sabbath?
***The
Pharisees had 65 separate “do’s” and “don’ts” governing almost every tiny
aspect of how the Sabbath should or should not be kept. Their man-made
regulations, developed over centuries, had turned the Sabbath into bondage
instead of the blessing for mankind that God intended it to be. Many things
were considered “not lawful.”***
As an interesting exercise,
contact the author’s group, and ask for this list of 65 do’s and don’ts.
Were the actions of the
disciples contrary to this list, or were their actions actually a case of
breaking the sabbath? Let’s use some
critical thinking and see what we come up with.
Was it a transgression of
the sabbath command for one of
The author would have us
believe it was a sin to try to gather manna that wasn’t there on a sabbath, but
it would have been alright for one to go and, say, pick dates from a date tree
when
Now we are led to believe
the disciples gathering grain to eat on a sabbath was not a violation of the
sabbath command. According to the letter of the law, they were guilty, even as
David was guilty of eating the show bread that was not lawful for him to eat.
But Christ, who is “lord of the sabbath” declared they were blameless. Why? And
lest we overlook it, the priests labored on the sabbath and were blameless
also. Again, why? How? The answer does
not sit well with sabbatarians such as the author, so he avoids the whole
issue.
The letter of the law is not
the criteria! The spirit of the law is
what is important; the intent and what is in the heart! But this just won’t do for those who insist
on holding to the letter of the law, such as the sabbath command. It is the
actual physical day that is important, and not intent. So in order to nullify
the words of Christ, which are not found in Mark, the author again uses
theological sleight of hand to distract our attention to other things in the
narrative that take our focus off of what is really happening and what is
really important.
The Pharisees focused on the
letter of the law. Jesus focused on the spirit of the law. The author focuses
on the letter of the law, and ignores the real subject of the narrative; that
the letter is not important, but the spirit is, and this is what is related to
what Jesus called the weightier matters of the law, justice, mercy, and faith;
which things are obscured in the keeping of the letter of the law. Jesus is
pointing to what is coming; the new covenant and the spirit of the law. The
author is busy pointing back to the old covenant and the letter of the law.
***Also,
in Mark 3:1-6, the Pharisees watched Christ to see if He would heal on the
Sabbath. When He perceived that they sought to accuse Him, Christ asked, “Is it
lawful to do good on the sabbath days, or to do evil? To save life, or to
kill?” (vs. 4). The Pharisees would not answer Him. Christ immediately healed
the man, after which the Pharisees sought to KILL Him. What an indictment
against self-righteous human nature! Christ’s example shows that it is
permissible to do good on the Sabbath and, in certain circumstances, to relieve
suffering. This is in harmony with the spirit and intent of the Fourth
Commandment.***
The Pharisees knew what the
law said; that no work was permitted to be done on a sabbath. They were so hung
up on the letter of the law and their dedication to the law, they could see
little else. The author claims their actions are an indictment against
self-righteous human nature. Not quite. It is an indictment against the
self-righteousness that comes from keeping the letter of the law; this is the
legalistic nature:
Philippians 3:8-9 Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss
for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have
suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win
Christ, And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the
law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is
of God by faith:
The author also says that a
work on the sabbath is permissible, “in certain circumstances, to relieve
suffering.” What are the circumstances
where it would not be permissible to relieve suffering on a sabbath? Does the
reader begin to comprehend the problem here? One is always in doubt as to what
he can or can’t do on a sabbath. Paul said that whatever is not of faith is
sin. It’s a lose-lose for the one who believes they must keep the sabbath, and
their reliance on the modern Pharisees who insist we keep the letter of the law
in regards to the sabbath is increased.
Instead of the letter and
the spirit being in harmony regarding the sabbath, they are in conflict, and
the Pharisees were tied to the letter. They already knew what happened when
breaking was a result of
their hearts of stone. Does the statement above about relieving suffering “in
some circumstances” sound like a heart of stone or “flesh?”
***In
the same account found in Matthew 12:11-12, Christ used the analogy of rescuing
an animal in distress. To this the Pharisees agreed. Yet they did not allow for
Christ to heal people on the Sabbath. He used this same analogy in Luke
13:15-17, of loosing livestock from a stall to lead them away for watering on
the Sabbath, with which the Pharisees also agreed. But they protested Christ’s
healing of an Israelite woman bound with an 18-year affliction. While these
accounts are never a license to break the Sabbath, they explain that Christ
allowed certain necessary physical duties to be carried out on this day. The
Sabbath is made FOR mankind, as a BLESSING— not to create a list of strict
man-made “do’s” and “don’ts,” thereby making it a curse.***
The author continues to show
his ignorance. These events were examples of breaking the sabbath and being blameless.
The author blinds himself to this, claiming these events reflect actions that
were necessary; as though they had to be done then and there. The woman who was
healed of an affliction of 18 years could easily have waited just one more day
to be healed.
These events were not
carried out as a matter of necessity; they were acts and actions of mercy. The
disciples could have waited until later to eat – they wouldn’t have starved to
death in the meantime. An ox in a ditch would keep just fine until sunset. If
anything, the animal would have calmed down after awhile, and it may well have
been easier. But along with the letter of the law in the old testament were
these examples of exceptions when it came to the sabbath. They were hints of
what was to come and that the letter of the law makes way for the spirit and
intent of people’s hearts, and the
freedom from the letter of
the law that accompanies the replacement of the heart of stone with the heart
of flesh, aka God’s Holy Spirit put within the man, also referred to as the Law
of God that is placed within the man.
It is NOT the ten
commandments; it is NOT the letter of the law– it is the spirit of the law
without the letter (Romans 7:6). It is the two great commandments upon which
all the law hung on. It is about “fulfilling” the law, and not about “keeping”
it. Keeping the law does not fulfill the law.
One fulfills the law when they have the Spirit of God in them; that
Spirit of love; that “law” of God that is truly spiritual in nature and not
tied at all to the letter of the law.
***Exodus
31:17 states, “In six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh
day He rested, and was refreshed.” Did Christ need to rest? The Bible states
plainly that God “faints not, neither is weary” (Isa. 40:28). While God
certainly was refreshed, it was not because He was tired and “needed a break.” It
would make no sense for God to make a day of rest on the first day of the week.
Think about this. What would be the point of God making the Sabbath to begin the
week so that He could rest from six days of work He had yet to perform? Christ
says in both the Old and New Testaments that He never changes (Mal. 3:6; Heb.
13:8). Therefore, God (Christ) could not ordain the Sabbath as the seventh day
of the week only to later change it to the first day.***
The author insists on
defining this “rest” as recuperation even though he agrees God (Christ) does
not tire. He rested from this work of
creation because He was done with that work of creation. A lawyer in court, when he is finished,
“rests” his case. He is through; he is done. There is nothing more to be done
along those lines for that case. Yet the author earlier insisted God was not
done and was not “resting” from that creation because He was still creating on the
seventh day after all, creating it as a recurring day of rest, which the
context does not support.
The author also again
hammers on the straw man of Sunday. He is still working from the misleading
premise that if God’s rest day for Christians isn’t one day, it must be the
other. Like Hitler taught, repeat a lie often enough, and people will start to
believe it.
***Invariably,
when people are tired, they must rest. The purpose for God resting was entirely
different—and far greater in meaning than first meets the eye. This is
important because some assert God rested on the seventh day to satisfy His own
personal fatigue. Of course, this makes no sense whatsoever if the Sabbath was
made “for man.” It was never “for God.”***
The true rest of a Christian
is to enter into God’s rest, as brought out in Hebrews 3 and 4. So whose rest
is the true rest? The sabbath day rest
was a shadow of Christ and the rest found in Him (Col. 2:16-17). The true rest;
the true “sabbatismos” is God’s rest. The sabbath day rest was for
this is doing exactly the
same thing
***The
Sabbath is a 24-hour period of time God has made holy once every seven days. It
begins at sunset Friday and ends at sunset Saturday.***
Leading up to this, the
author brings out how God blessed and sanctified the sabbath at Sinai. What is easily overlooked is that, if God had
done this blessing and sanctifying of the recurring sabbath at creation, then
there would be no need for God to do it all over again here.
The author also uses this as
a means to insist it is holy time for all mankind, and that leads up to this
declaration above. The author is right in one way, and wrong in another. Sunset
at the end of the sixth day does not occur at the same time everywhere on
earth. For every 1000 miles you go west
from
People on the east coast of
It’s like a computer program
that tries to process conflicting instructions; it crashes. Instead of
conceding the obvious, they look for excuses to ignore it. The most common
excuse is to claim one traverses the international dateline. This however does not alter sunsets for one
traveling east. And if the international dateline had been placed in the middle
of the
***You
must come to realize the Bible has SUPREME AUTHORITY in all spiritual matters,
involving both belief and practice. Romans 8:9 says that one is not a Christian
if he does not have Jesus Christ, through the Holy Spirit, living within him.
God’s Spirit is holy. It will not enter one who refuses to follow that which is
holy.***
Here is an excellent example
of a claim to which the author offers no concrete proof of, yet people would be
uneasy to not believe. Yet this declaration is not entirely accurate, and actually
proclaims a false gospel.
To whom does God give His
Spirit? Those who believe the gospel. Christ and the apostles warn Christians
about those who would proclaim Jesus as the Christ, then proceed to deceive
people with some of them preaching false gospels.
God’s Spirit enters one upon
their belief (faith) and understanding of the true gospel. This process is not
dependent upon what the person believes or follows in regards to what is holy
or not. Were the sacrifices holy unto God? Was circumcision important to God?
God nearly killed Moses because his sons were not circumcised. Is circumcision
holy? This then is another example of rationalization in order to get people to
believe something that has no real scriptural support.
***Christ
kept the Sabbath (Luke
Christ was born under the
law. Regardless, Luke
There are times Christ
violated the letter of the law concerning the sabbath. John even goes so far as
to declare Jesus broke the sabbath. Sabbatarians are quick to claim he did not;
that John was making the statement from the perspective of the Jews, yet Jesus
himself declared that he worked on the sabbath, and that his Father works also.
John 5:15-18 The man departed, and told the Jews that it
was Jesus, which had made him whole. And therefore did the Jews persecute
Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath
day. But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work. Therefore
the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the
sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.
Why would John write from
the perspective of the Jews? He wouldn’t. But this is intolerable to the Sabbatarian,
and it must be explained away somehow, by any means. If Christ didn’t always
adhere to the letter of the law in regards to the sabbath, then how can they
insist everyone else has to?
The quote above regarding
God not changing, citing Malachi 3:6 when read disproves this whole line of
reasoning of the author. God said in the
law that if
required to keep this law–
any of it!
Here is a more detailed
explanation.
God and Christ “Change Not”
This concept is redefined to
mean God does not change regarding the law. He gave the law, therefore He isn’t
about to “change” and repeal it. As proof, they cite the following: For I am
the LORD, I change not;—Malachi 3:6
What you never see is the
end of the verse: For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob
are not consumed.
Why were the sons of Jacob
not consumed, according to the law? Strange, don’t you think, that the very
scripture that explains why those under the old covenant were not consumed
according to the covenant, is used to try and prove the law remains inviolate
and unchanged?
The LORD shall open unto
thee his good treasure, the heaven to give the rain unto thy land in his
season, and to bless all the work of thine hand: and thou shalt lend unto many
nations, and thou shalt not borrow. And
the LORD shall make thee the head, and not the tail; and thou shalt be above
only, and thou shalt not be beneath; if that thou hearken unto the commandments
of the LORD thy God, which I command thee this day, to observe and to do
them: And thou shalt not go aside from
any of the words which I command thee this day, to the right hand, or to the
left, to go after other gods to serve
them.
But it shall come to pass,
if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe to do
all his commandments and his statutes which I command thee this day; that all
these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee: Cursed shalt thou be in the city, and cursed
shalt thou be in the field. Cursed shall
be thy basket and thy store. Cursed
shall be the fruit of thy body, and the fruit of thy land, the increase of thy
kine, cursed shalt thou be when thou goest out.
The LORD shall send upon thee cursing, vexation, and rebuke, in all that
thou settest thine hand unto for to do, until thou be destroyed, and until thou
perish quickly; because of the wickedness of thy doings, whereby thou hast
forsaken me. The LORD shall make the
pestilence cleave unto thee, until he have consumed thee from off the land,
whither thou goest to possess it. The
LORD shall smite thee with a consumption, and with a fever, and with an inflammation,
and with an extreme burning, and with the sword, and with blasting, and with
mildew; and they shall pursue thee until thou perish. — Deuteronomy 28:12-22
This was all in relation to
the law and
***I
ask again: Does it make any difference to God which day men choose to make
holy? Can they arbitrarily select any day they wish and designate it “holy”?***
So far, the author is
following right along the lines of HWA’s sabbath booklet. It is a rehash of the
same trite arguments lacking in proof. If one stops and thinks about it, they
will realize this is the methodology used to get people to accept something
that cannot be proven. It is the methodology of teaching deceptions. Everything
is rationalized and presumed. Man cannot
make something holy. What man can do is enjoin on people beliefs and practices
God does not enjoin on them.
The author then proceeds to
use the “burning bush” analogy even as HWA did. God’s presence was there, and
Moses was told to take off his shoes, for the ground was holy. The problem with
this analogy is that right now, God’s presence is not in that piece of ground.
If you were to walk over it today, wearing shoes, you would not be struck
dead. God’s presence is not there now,
even as Christians are not required to keep the sabbath, regardless of its
status in relation to
***There
is a direct connection to the Sabbath in this point. Here is what the prophet
Isaiah wrote: “If you turn away your foot from the sabbath, from doing your
pleasure [business] on My holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of
the LORD, honorable; and shall honor Him, NOT doing your own ways, nor finding
your own pleasure, nor speaking your own words: Then shall you delight yourself
in the LORD; and I will cause you to ride upon the high places of the earth,
and feed you with the heritage of Jacob your father: for the mouth of the LORD
has spoken it” (58:13-14). This plain passage explains that there are ways to
profane God’s holy Sabbath. Like the ground around the burning bush, we are
commanded to take our feet (our shoes) off God’s holy time—time that points to
Him and has His holy presence in it. Either we believe the ideas and customs of
men—and their churches—or we believe the plain commands from ALMIGHTY GOD!
Either the opinions—and acceptance— of God-rejecting human beings are important
to us, or the opinion of God is! Which do you value?***
One of the most important
things to know and apply when studying scripture is to take into account who is
speaking and who is being spoken to. Here we have God through the prophet
Isaiah speaking to the children of
And once again the author
tries to force the reader into an either / or situation, which is actually a
case of “you lose – he wins.” We should
examine for ourselves what God wishes us to do as Christians, and not rely on
any man to tell us, using such disreputable methods to do it. Does God command
Christians to keep the sabbath or not? Where is the “thus saith the Lord” to
Christians? Why are we left trying to decide the matter based on assumptions
from what God commanded Israelites?
***Adam
and Eve kept the Sabbath almost immediately after they were created on the
sixth day. Their son Abel is called “righteous” (Matt.
This is a case of A proving
B and B proving A. We have no evidence
that Adam and Eve kept the sabbath. It
was only from inference that the conclusion was drawn from God blessing that
particular seventh day He rested from his work.
Abel is called righteous. Why? Because he kept the sabbath? Is all
righteousness in scripture derived from keeping the sabbath and the other
commandments? Hebrews chapter 11 declares otherwise regarding Abel and others
and righteousness. It was due to their faith they were deemed righteous, and
not law. To further prove this:
Romans 3:21-23 But now the righteousness of God without the
law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Even the
righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all
them that believe: for there is no difference: For all have sinned, and come
short of the glory of God;
***Abraham,
often called “the father of the faithful,” kept God’s Sabbath. Notice: “Because
that Abraham obeyed My voice, and kept My charge, My COMMANDMENTS, My statutes,
and My laws” (Gen. 26:5). This verse is most plain. Abraham kept God’s Sabbath!
It is the Fourth COMMANDMENT.***
Here we see assumption at
work again. It is assumed by the author that the commandments, laws, etc. given
to and required of Abraham are the same commandments given and required of
And Moses called all
Moses claims Abraham, who
was one of the fathers, did not have this covenant law
I have actually heard one
Sabbatarian claim every translation of this passage is wrong. Yet he never
offered any evidence to support his claim. He, like most Sabbatarians, was so sure
he and others like him were right, that they were willing to ignore plain
statements in scripture that refuted their beliefs. Such is the power of the
veil before the eyes. It is a strong delusion.
***There
is a reason this is especially critical to understand. Many who refuse to
accept God’s Sabbath, forgetting it was made at creation, claim that God’s
Commandments did not exist until Moses received them at
More repetition concerning
the sabbath being instituted at creation. And now an accusation. It is those
who refuse to accept God’s sabbath that dare to claim the law didn’t exist
until Sinai. How dare these dirty, rotten sabbath haters! Just ignore what Moses himself wrote as
quoted above regarding this law; this covenant law. But notice now something
else has been subtly added to the mix; now the author is claiming all the
commandments were given at creation! If the author continues to follow the
pattern of HWA, you will soon see that even more than this was extant from
creation. This horse has quite a number
of carts in front of it. In the meantime, think to yourself how the ten
commandments would relate to Adam and Eve. It makes for interesting
meditation. Covet that which is my
neighbor’s? What’s a neighbor?
***“Sin
is the transgression of the law” (I John 3:4). Because the Law did exist from
creation, God could tell Cain, before he killed Abel, that “SIN lies at the
door” (Gen. 4:7), if he did not control his attitude.***
Only the King James
(Authorized) translation uses this translation that incorporates this
interpretation. Sin is (Gr.) anomia and not “the transgression of the law”.
Anomia means lawlessness and iniquity. Not all sin is defined as breaking the
law. Only if it were could this translation be true, which it is not. Sin is
iniquity, which covers all definitions of
sin. Sometimes one could
break the letter of the law and not be guilty of sin.
In Sabbatarian legalism,
everything is seen through the colored lenses of the law. If Cain sinned, it
must have been against the law. Yet before he killed Abel, he was already not
accepted by God. There was something already amiss. The Sabbatarian would
conclude he had transgressed another point of law, ignoring where the problem
lay and only dimly perceived by the author; his attitude. The problem was with
his heart, and this led to the murder. The legalistic, letter of the law would
have you conclude Cain did not sin until he killed Abel, but doesn’t God look
at the heart and intent? God already had no respect toward him and his
sacrifice because of this, before he killed his brother. Wasn’t God warning him
and telling him he would be accepted and even have dominion over his brother if
he were to but change?
***Human
beings must justify their rebellion against God’s Commandments. Human nature
hates His law (
I wish I could convey to the
reader the nausea associated with going over these proof texts that are used to
strong arm people into doing those things contrary to scripture and the will of
God for Christians under the new covenant.
There is no need to justify
oneself here. This is nothing more than another subtle accusation levied
against those who refuse to fall for this line of reasoning. Who in scripture
uses accusations against others instead of dealing with the facts? Satan and
his children. God commanded Abraham to
sacrifice Isaac. It was a commandment
from God. It was one of God’s commandments.
So, if we refuse to do this also, depending upon God to perhaps stop us
before we kill our sons, then we are in rebellion. We can apply this line of
logic to circumcision also. Look how important it was that God was even about
to kill Moses. Look what God says is to happen to one who does not practice
circumcision. They are to be cut off; cast out. Those who refuse to practice
circumcision surely are rebelling against God and the command of God in this
respect.
Human nature indeed hates
God’s law, as he quotes above also. But what is God’s law? Is it the ten
commandments, as the author assumes? In Romans 7 and 8, two laws are being
contrasted; one law is of the letter. It is also referred to as the law of sin
and death. The other law is a spiritual law that is not of the letter, and it
leads to life. It is a law of love. Which one is God’s? The law of the spirit–
the law of that love that comes about as a result of God’s Spirit within. And the carnal man “hates” this law indeed,
for there is no real love in the natural man. And it is only appropriate that
the author cites James 2 where James uses the old covenant law to explain how
this law of love and of the Spirit, also referred to as the law of
And what exactly is the
whole law? Is it just the ten commandments? When Jesus was asked a question
concerning the law, he didn’t just respond with that which was located solely
within the ten commandments. To Jesus, every command and requirement penned by
Moses was the law. So if we Christians sin by breaking even one point of that
law, we are already guilty before God, for there are 613 laws, many of them
impossible to keep today, such as the sacrifices. But again, James is not validating
the old covenant law for Christians. He uses it as an example. Read the chapter
carefully, taking it in context.
***The
Bible records there were 600,000 men, age 20 and above, who left
the
desert.***
The author continues to work
from assumptions. The children of
***When
God liberated them, they had long forgotten the identity of the true God and
His Sabbath. This is why the Sabbath command begins, “REMEMBER the Sabbath
day.”
More claims based upon false
premises which are assumptions. But this is really reaching now, that God told
them to remember the sabbath because they had forgotten it.
If I tell my child to
remember to turn the light off when he leaves his room, I am not telling him
because he might have forgotten to do it yesterday. I want to make sure he does
it today when he leaves his room, and to remember to do it whenever he leaves
his room. I am not interested in whether he did it yesterday or not; whether he
forgot to do it yesterday or not. If I tell my child to remember to brush his
teeth before going to bed, it is not necessarily because he or she forgot to do
it the night before.
In the commandment, God
gives
***Set
all confusion and
The author tells us to set
Exodus 16:4 Then said the LORD
unto Moses, Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you; and the people shall
go out and gather a certain rate every day, that I may prove them, whether they
will walk in my law, or no. And what could have been simpler or easier to do
for
***God
says, “The Eternal has given you the Sabbath.” We have seen that this world’s
theologians have given mankind and professing “Churchianity” Sunday (the day of
the sun)—and we will learn that it comes from rank paganism!***
God said to
***The
Ten Commandments were never called the law of Moses, but rather the Law of
God.***
There are only four places
in all the old testament where the phrase, “law of God” is used. In three of
these passages, it is in the context of the “book of the law of God.” What was
written in this book of the law of God– just the ten commandments? In no place
is the “law of God” associated with just the ten commandments. It is but
another construct of the author’s to bolster his claim using more deceptive
statements toward that goal. But again, the author must do this; chop up the law
in order to make his case for keeping some of it, seeing as there are
scriptures that talk about and end of the law. Seeing as it is in his mind this
cannot be, it necessitates constructs such as this one.
If however the author is
correct in that the ten commandments are separate from the law of Moses,
wouldn’t we expect Jesus Christ to have made the distinction in the new
testament? Do we find any evidence to support this claim there?
The term “law of God” is
used but three times in the new testament, and none of them are quoted from
Jesus. All three are found in Romans by Paul, and he does not make the
connection with the law of God being specifically the ten commandments. He does
contrast the “law of God” with another law; a law of sin. What is this law of
sin? Where did it come from? Paul claims that the law of the Spirit of life in
Christ has freed him from this law of sin and death. If this Spiritual law of
life freed him from this other law, then he was at one time captive to this
other law; this law of sin and death. And
what, pray tell, is this law
of sin and death?
Romans 7:8-11 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment,
wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was
dead. For I was alive without the law
once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. And the commandment, which was ordained to
life, I found to be unto death. For sin,
taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.
It is none other than the
law found in commandments that brings about condemnation to those who
transgressed it. It is the old covenant ten commandments that Paul also calls
the ministration of death and condemnation in II Corinthians chapter 3. This is
not the law of God for Christians; it is the law of sin and death and
condemnation. The law of God for Christians
is that law of the Spirit
found in Christ that leads to life and frees the Christian from this old
covenant ten commandment law that leads only to death.
Still not convinced? Then try this. The tree of life in the garden
of Eden; what did that tree represent? Jesus Christ. What does the tree of the
knowledge of good and evil represent that also has a fruit that leads to death?
The law, including the ten commandments.
Romans 7:5 For when we were
in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our
members to bring forth fruit unto death.
Again, the choice is simple.
Embrace Christ and life, or embrace the law and embrace death.
“But God gave the law; the
ten commandments to
***The
law of Moses consisted of: (1) The civil laws, which were statutes and
judgments that Moses relayed to the people from God, recorded in Exodus 21-23
and in the remaining books of the law and (2) the ritualistic laws (or ergon)
that were added later, summarized in Hebrews 9:10. They were ordinances
regulating the job of the tribe of Levi in temple service and sacrifices
(Leviticus 1-7) and associated functions. The Greek word ergon means “works,”
as in the “works of the law,” as found in Galatians 2:16. This refers to the
labor involving the Levitical rituals that were abolished by Christ’s
sacrifice.***
The law of Moses consisted
of everything related from God to
The author also equates the
ritualistic laws as being “ergon” or “works”, as though this term was used in
scripture to describe this division in the law. But scripture makes no such
divisions, nor do the scriptures use “ergon” (a Greek word) to further define
or differentiate ritualistic laws. Again, the author resists the plain language
of scripture in Hebrews 9, unable to accept what is truly written, hence this
chopping up of the law and this insistence that it is just the ritualistic laws
that were done away. Verse 1 of chapter 9 shows it is the covenant being
discussed, and these things spoken of here are a part of that covenant.
If these divisions in the
law were legitimate for the purpose put forth by the author, where some of it
could be abrogated without affecting the rest of it, then James in James 2, if
James were using the law in the manner the author insists, couldn’t and
wouldn’t have said the whole law.
As before, if this construct
regarding the law were true, you would think we would find examples of it in
scripture, and validation in the life and words of Jesus. Do we see Christ
making these distinctions in the law? No. When Jesus uses the term “the law” it
is used as a whole. He claimed the law was given to
John
What point of law addresses
murder; what “category or division”? The
ten commandments. Through this construct concerning works of the law and
Galatians 2:16, the author uses this to redefine works of the law to mean only
those points of
law located in the
artificial division of ritualistic laws.
The unasked question in regards to all this is: Who defines which laws are ritualistic,
ceremonial, civil or moral? The author? So a simple exercise then– what
category of law is circumcision?
The author makes the
argument that sabbath observance is required for a variety of reasons, one of
them being it existed prior to the law being given at Sinai. Well, circumcision
existed prior to Sinai, and for this we actually have scriptural evidence. “Ah”
says the Sabbatarian, “Circumcision did not exist from the beginning.” Ok then, how about sacrifices? We have actual
evidence they existed from the beginning. God killed animals in order to clothe
Adam and Eve, and we see where Abel and Cain practiced sacrifices. We have the
statement in scripture that Christ was slain from the foundation of the world
(Revelation 13:8). But let’s humor the author a bit. It is laws that are in the category of
ritualistic and sacrificial that are done away with; ritualistic being “works”
of the law. Jesus Christ equates the
sabbath in the light of being a ritualistic law, and a sacrificial law.
If the author continues to
follow the pattern of HWA’s booklet, he will soon equate the ten commandments
with “moral law” and again, by what authority does he designate all of the ten
commandments as moral law? He is his own witness here; his own authority.
In the narrative where
Christ stated he was lord of the sabbath, which the author has been hammering
on, after claiming there were plenty of N.T. passages related to the keeping of
the sabbath for Christians, Christ had this to say:
Matthew 12:7-8 But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will
have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless. For
the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.
How would we define a
“sacrificial law?” Something of value that is surrendered to God? Does a
Sabbatarian sacrifice time; give up that time for God?
What is a moral law?
Wouldn’t it be defined as a law where there is never a justification for
breaking it? For example, it would never
be justified to murder. Does the sabbath
command fit this definition? No, there are a number of examples in scripture
where the sabbath is set aside, and this was even the argument used by Christ
to excuse the disciples from picking and eating grain on a sabbath.
***The
Ten Commandments were already in force long before they were officially given
to
More repetition regarding
the ten commandments existing prior to Sinai. Never mind that we find no
example of them listed and kept by anyone prior to Sinai.
Jesus said the law was given
by Moses. Jesus did not make any distinctions with the law. Nowhere do we find
anywhere in either the old or new testaments where the ten commandments are
“God’s law” and the rest of the law is “Moses’ law.”
Matthew 22:36-40 Master, which is the great commandment in the
law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart,
and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
This is the first and great commandment.
And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as
thyself. On these two commandments hang
all the law and the prophets.
Are we to believe that when
the man asked Jesus this question, the man was asking which is the great
commandment in the law of Moses, to the exclusion of the ten commandments, and
that Jesus’ answer regarding all the law and prophets hanging on these two
excludes the ten commandments? If the ten were separate from the law of Moses,
wouldn’t Jesus have asked
him whether he meant the law
of Moses or the law of God?
Matthew 19:16-19 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good
Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said
unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God:
but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. He saith unto him,
Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery,
Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour thy father and
thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
According to the author, we
would conclude that it is the “law of God” commandments that are being
discussed, right? But what’s the twist here?
This last commandment is not a part of the ten, but rather found in the
“law of Moses” isn’t it? So does Christ make the distinction the author makes,
or has the author redefined the law in order to suit his own purposes? And one of the mistakes HWA made in his book
would have one realize tithing would be done away, so this author insists it is
just the “ritualistic” laws that are
done away, thereby leaving the tithing point of law intact for him.
***The
Ten Commandments are God’s spiritual laws (Rom.
Romans
If you were prone to taking
verses out of context, you might well conclude that, seeing as the law is holy,
just, and good, this would mean we are supposed to keep it. However Paul in II
Corinthians chapter 3 also refers to the law has being glorious, but its glory
was fading, and when compared to the new covenant, its glory was nothing in
comparison.
Paul was constantly battling
Judaizers and others who thought Paul was antinomian – as though the new
covenant was lawlessness. He would use the O.T. law as a contrast when writing
about the new covenant and the law of the Spirit, as he does here in Romans 7
and 8.
Verse 14: For we know that the law is spiritual: but I
am carnal, sold under sin.
This too is taken out of
context. Was Paul “carnal, sold under sin?” No. In chapter 6, he stated:
Romans 6:2 God forbid. How
shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
Romans 6:7 For he that is
dead is freed from sin. Romans
In chapter 7, Paul continues
and contrasts the law with the law of the Spirit. Which one is really
spiritual?
Romans 7:21-8:4 I find then a law, that, when I would do
good, evil is present with me. For I delight in the law of God after the inward
man: But I see another law in my
members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to
the law of sin which is in my members. O
wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So
then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of
sin. There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus,
who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ
Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not do, in that it was
weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful
flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not
after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
There is the law of God,
then there is the law of sin and death; the law that deals with commandments is
what slays:
Romans 7:10-12 And the commandment, which was ordained to
life, I found to be unto death. For sin,
taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me. Wherefore the law is holy, and the
commandment holy, and just, and good.
The law is holy, just and
good, because it rightly condemns the one who sins. The law does exactly what
it was designed to do. It exposes the individual for what he is and that in his
flesh dwells no good thing.
***Understand!
Yep. The children of
Exodus 1:15-18 And the king of
Chapter 3 - Law of God, Not Moses
***Think
for a moment. Almost everything God says to do, men do not do. Almost
everything God says not to do, men do. In the Sermon on the Mount, Christ says,
"Swear not at all." Yet people routinely swear, over Bibles in
courtrooms and about nearly everything else one can think of. He says,
"Love your enemies," so men hate them and kill them in war. Also in
the Sermon on the Mount, He says, "Think not that I am come to destroy the
law," yet preachers declare, "You can’t keep the law. Christ did away
with it because He kept it for us." Why do men seemingly examine the Bible
for everything God says in His Word, only to find a reason to do or believe the
exact opposite?***
More
accusations. Also the author again redefines the "debate" as it were.
Some preachers may well declare "You can’t keep the law. Christ did away
with it because he kept it for us." and some may point out that the old
covenant with its requirements ended with the death of the party of the first
part, Jesus Christ, even as any covenant / contract ends or terminates upon the
death of either party.
The
author also phrases the quote from Matthew 5 in such a way as to redefine and
imply Christ was declaring the law remains in effect for all mankind, as
contrasted to mankind declaring otherwise. Yet Matthew 5:17-19 is not a case of
Christ making such a declaration. This passage is misinterpreted by all
Sabbatarian legalists in order to bolster their belief in keeping the sabbath
when in fact the rest of the law they claim remains in effect down to jots and
tittles they either do not keep, or have actually gone and altered way beyond
jots and tittles. Tithing is a good example. They have altered the law to
include tithing on wages; something that was not required in the law.
As
far as the last sentence here of the author’s, he fulfills his own accusation.
God’s word for Christians is to have faith in the Son only for our salvation.
Adding the law was seen as subverting the souls of Christians.
Acts
15:23-24 And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and
elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles
in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia: Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain
which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls,
saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such
commandment:
There
is no salvation in keeping the law; only condemnation when transgressed, and
all who lived by it transgressed it. The Christian dies to the law in order to
be bound (married) to Christ. The author would have you be bound to the law and
only "espoused" to Christ. It is still spiritual adultery AND
idolatry. (Romans 7) You can only be bound to one. Being bound to the law
results in death and condemnation; being bound to Christ leads to life.
***God
does command human beings to work six days. He wants man to provide for himself
(and his family) and manage his life and finances in accordance with His laws.
Many verses, such as John 5:17, 36, show that both God the Father and Christ
work—so should we.***
John
This
work of the Father and Christ was in relation to the sabbath. Jesus and the
Father worked on sabbaths.
The
author insists the command is for people to work the other six days of the
week. What if one did not work one of those six days? Is he sinning by not working?
What if one were sick? What if one were aged? But here’s a real good
question... What are some of these Sabbatarian ministers doing the other six
days?
And
do you want to know why the author wants you working the other six days?
Because you are going to find yourself burdened in paying tithes and offerings,
etc. that will be imposed on you. You will not only be working the other six
days, but you may well have to take on part time work in order to make ends
meet in order to be in accordance with "His laws." And if you were
working less than six days a week, that’s less income for you, and less tithes
for him.
***An
important side note is in order here. Though Genesis 2:2-3 does not use the
term "the Sabbath day," Exodus 20 does. This is critical because
Exodus 20 directly references the Genesis 2 creation account. While both use
the term "the seventh day," Exodus merely adds that this is "the
Sabbath," therefore making it one and the same as the Sabbath from
creation. The Sabbath did not, technically, first appear at
The
author draws a conclusion from the premise that is not supported by the facts
concerning the sabbath rest command existing from creation. He insists the two
terms are synonymous in being a commanded day of rest. But both terms can also
mean nothing more than the seventh day of the week. Then comes another
accusation, warning you against those who would cleverly twist the terms to
prove the sabbath rest command was not from the beginning. I have already shown
the reader how this was done the other way around.
At
this point in the book, the author begins to use the sin angle to try and prove
Christians should be keeping the sabbath. He touched on the idea before, and
now he will blow it up even bigger. It is one of the best hooks in the
Sabbatarian tackle box, designed to snag unwary Christians whose only wish is
to serve God and do His will. It sounds all so convincing and reasonable, and
if one isn’t really well versed in scripture, he or she will have no choice but
to believe the author’s conclusions based upon his convincing but flawed
rationale.
Before
continuing, I would like to point out that there are methods of proper Bible
study and exegesis. One of these methods is to look at those scriptures that
appear to contradict a conclusion and explain how they do not. The author, so
far, has neglected this method of scholarship. When it comes to this section
where the law is used to define sin, it is just as true as elsewhere in his
booklet. Scriptures that disprove or contradict his conclusions are never
addressed. Instead, he makes veiled accusations against those who believe
otherwise without examining the scriptural evidence and explaining where any
supposed flaws are extant.
***Nearly
everyone has a different idea about what constitutes sin. Do you know? If sin
brings the death penalty
(Rom.
What
does the Bible say about sin in relation to Christians? It says, Christians are
dead to sin (Romans 6:2, 11). It also says Christians are dead to the law
(Romans 7:4, 6; Galatians
Christians
avoid "such a terrible punishment" by no longer being accountable to
that which previously defined sin and brought about the resultant death
penalty.
Romans
8:1-2 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus,
who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit
of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
Christians
are freed from that law that defined sin and brought about a death sentence. It
can be a hard concept for many to accept, seeing as there has been so much
indoctrination in churches regarding sin and its avoidance. The Christian’s
focus is supposed to be on Christ and living by that Spirit, and not focusing
on sin and its avoidance, having a spirit of fear as a result.
***God’s
Word reveals truth (John
As
mentioned earlier, only one English translation states the above, simply
because it goes beyond translation into interpretation. And in any event, the
very next verse gives more understanding regarding sin.
1
John 3:5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him
is no sin.
If
Christ came and took away our sins, and there is no more condemnation for those
who are in Christ, then how is this accomplished if the law which defines these
sins is still in force? If this law is still extant; which I will remind the
reader again Christians were never a party to this covenant-law; then
Christians could still commit sin and bring themselves under condemnation all
over again. Can you crucify Christ daily? No.
The
author insisted that the ten commandments are not the law of Moses, or are
rather not a part of the law of Moses. The covenant aspect of all this has so
far been ignored. So let’s try to look at something in this regard before we
proceed further with this line of reasoning concerning sin and the law and
keeping the law in order to not sin.
The
ten commandments are equated directly with the old covenant made with
Exodus
34:28 And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did
neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of
the covenant, the ten commandments.
Deuteronomy
4:13 And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform,
even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone.
Now
let’s look at Galatians 4:21 - 5:1
Tell
me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? For it is
written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a
freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he
of
the freewoman was by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are the
two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which
is Agar. For this Agar is mount Sinai in
Stand
fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not
entangled again with the yoke of bondage.
First
notice that Paul is addressing those that desired to be under the law; those
who also believed Christians had to keep the law, and also notice Paul equates
"the law" with the old covenant– the ten commandments, unlike the
author who insists the ten commandments are not a part of "the law"
of Moses.
Those
of the old covenant are equated with Hagar and being under bondage. Their
bondage IS the old covenant, which as we have just seen is the ten commandments
where we find the sabbath command.
The
Christian is not bound to the old covenant in any way, shape, form, or what
have you. You cannot make Christians bound to or held to that law; that
covenant; they were not a party to it, and Christians do not undergo
circumcision according to that covenant / law; the only option allowed by that
covenant for outsiders (non-Israelites) to enter that covenant.
Paul
then informs the Christians he is writing to, to cast out the bondwoman AND HER
SON– the one’s who are under the old covenant; the ones that adhere to the old
covenant and the ones that teach Christians they have to keep that law! He
concludes with a warning to the Christians who are not under the old covenant,
but rather are under the new wherein there is a law of liberty; a law of the
Spirit and not the letter (
The
author is trying to bring Christians back under bondage; back under
condemnation. What other being do we read about that desires to see Christians
under condemnation? The devil. Just as the devil deceived Eve to partake of
that tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thereby bringing her and Adam
under condemnation and a death sentence, so too the author wishes to bring
Christians under the law; in this case the ten commandments, which will result
in the same condition. That tree represents the law– that which gives a
knowledge of good and evil.
Paul
warns us against these ones who desire to be: "teachers of the law
understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm (1 Timothy 1:7).
To
put this in modern language, those who desire to be teachers of the law don’t
know what they are talking about.
***The
answer is the Ten Commandments! Let’s prove it with some review. John also
wrote, "All unrighteousness is sin" (I John
There
are other definitions of sin in the New Testament. It seems odd that the author
does not cite the rest of them. Allow me:
To
show partiality in love is sin (James 2)
To
know to do good and not do it is sin. (James 4:17)
Whatever
is not of faith is sin. (Romans 14:23)
Now,
try this on for size: The law is not of faith. (Galatians 3:12) If the law is
not of faith, and whatever is not of faith is sin, then what of those who
insist on keeping the law?
Again,
the author goes from a premise to a conclusion that is faulty. The commandments
are indeed righteous. Breaking them led to condemnation and death, and rightly
so. It is as even Paul said, the law is holy, just and good. But it still
brought death to those who transgressed. In this light then, here is what Paul
had to say about people who God sees as righteous and unrighteous:
1
Timothy 1:9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for
the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and
profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, ...
Are
Christians referred to as righteous before God?
Romans
3:21-24 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being
witnessed by the law and the prophets; Even the righteousness of God which is
by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is
no difference: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being
justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
All
have sinned. All have come up short. Mankind is not like God, nor can man
measure up to God. The author insists we continue to try. The outcome is always
the same when this "experiment" is performed. One definition of
insanity is where one repeats an act over and over again, believing that
someday the result will be different.
Romans
9:30-1 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after
righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is
of faith. But
What
did the author say above concerning the righteousness in the law; the ten
commandments? There is a righteousness there alright, and no man can attain to
it.
Romans
***The
apostle James added, "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet
offend [sin] in one point, he is guilty of all. For He that said, Do not commit
ADULTERY, said also, Do not KILL. Now if you commit no adultery, yet if you
kill, you are become a transgressor of the law [a lawbreaker]" (
Notice
first that "the whole law" and "the law" are equated here
with points of law found in the ten commandments. The author earlier tried to
make the case that "the law" (of Moses) and the ten commandments were
not the same thing. The author could claim an out though by simply interpreting
"the law" wherever he comes across it to suit his own needs. But what
are we to make of James usage of the phrase "the whole law?" What
this really demonstrates is that his insistence on the ten commandments being
separate from the law of Moses is not supported in scripture. If he wants to
claim the ten are
separate,
there really is no problem. Whether separate or together, it is still a matter
of it being a covenant agreement between God and
I
would also point out here that the author has quoted this out of context in
that the context has James using the old covenant law as a means of showing how
the law of
***Before
continuing, let’s examine the greatest single reason why mankind has sought to
get around God’s laws, particularly His Sabbath. Paul, in his letter to the
Romans, makes an amazing statement: "Because the carnal [physical] mind is
enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can
be" (8:7). Other translations use the phrase "is the ENEMY of
God" in place of "is enmity against God."***
This
would be true if the ten commandments were indeed "God’s law." And
when it comes to the sabbath command, it is one of the easiest of commands to
keep, for you don’t have to do anything to comply with it other than quit
working at that time. But this is not the law of God. This is the law that came
from God that was given to the children of
The
law of God is the Spirit of God. It is also the "heart of flesh" that
replaces the "hard-heart" we are all born with. It is this law of
faith, expressed through love, that is God’s law. The carnal mind is enmity to
faith and love. HWA called love a "protestanty" way to ignore the
law. To the carnal man who is attempting to achieve his own righteousness
through the law, love does not fulfill the law.
Romans
13:9-10 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou
shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and
if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying,
namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his
neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
Love
fulfills the ten commandment law, whether you want to claim it is a part of the
law of Moses or not. And where do we find the statement, Thou shalt love thy
neighbour as thyself? In the ten commandments that the author claims is
"God’s law?" No. You find it in the law of Moses. That which fulfills
the law, including the ten commandments; that which Christ said was one of the
two greatest commandments in the law the author ignores as though they didn’t
exist. Why is this? Could it be because these two great commandments are enmity
to the author? That God’s true law has no place in his heart? The author keeps
focusing on the ten commandments, just as the Pharisees and other religious
leaders did during Christ’s sojourn on the earth in the flesh. The law has
become an end in itself. It blinds its adherents to all else.
Keeping
the law does not fulfill the law. Keeping the law only complies with the law.
Love is what fulfills the law, as explained by Paul above, and not keeping the
law. Loving others means that you will never do any of those things contrary to
the law, and more. You can refrain from murdering one you hate, but hatred;
that heart of stone, would remain.
It
is faith expressed through and working through love that is the true law of God;
the law that is rejected by carnal man because the carnal man holds to his
heart of stone. No wonder those like the author insist Christians keep the ten
commandments at the expense of the Spirit of the law; the true law of God,
which they show being hostile to. The author does not have this love of God in
him. He wants to bring people under the law and hold them captive to the law
for his own ends. People will serve him when they think they are serving God.
He will take their tithes of their wages, contrary to
the
law, and place heavy burdens on them that he would not deign to lift with his
small finger.
So
the author has more reason to reject the law of God and convince his followers
the law of God is the ten commandments. He must also convince them that to love
God is to obey these commandments. It is the author, and those like him, who
truly hate God’s true law, for with the knowledge of the true law of faith, his
power and control over others is finished. The flow of easy money is over,
along with the prestige and power. He is discovered to be nothing more than a
wolf in sheep’s clothing; in this case a wool suit.
***Instead
of allowing the Bible to tell them God’s will—how they should live and
believe—most read into Scripture whatever meaning they assume is correct. They
ignore what Christ said in Matthew 5: "Think not that I am come to destroy
the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill" (vs.
17). This includes the Sabbath. This is the same Christ who prophesied in
Isaiah 42:21, "The LORD is well pleased for His righteousness’ sake; He
will magnify the law, and make it honorable." This must include the
Sabbath.***
God’s
will for man is found in John chapter 6:
John
6:39-40 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he
hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last
day. And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the
Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at
the last day.
And
how should people live and believe?
Romans
Galatians
Hebrews
And
what of Matthew
***This
is the same Christ who prophesied in Isaiah 42:21, "The LORD is well
pleased for His righteousness’ sake; He will magnify the law, and make it
honorable." This must include the Sabbath.***
Think
about this carefully. Christ will magnify the law, and make it honorable, and
that this must include the sabbath.
This
is what the author insists is God’s law; the one that includes the sabbath command.
Christ is going to magnify His law that is perfect and has existed from
creation? He is going to make it honorable? Does that not imply it was less
honorable, or had no honor at all?
What
does come out from the teachings of Christ concerning the law, and expounded by
the apostles later? The Spirit of the law! A law of faith and the Spirit that
leads to life and not death! And according to Hebrews 3 and 4, the ability to
now enter into God’s rest – God’s "sabbatismos" (not sabbaton; the weekly
sabbath) that is in Christ! We have the real sabbath in Christ and no longer
have need to participate in the shadow seventh day sabbath; the letter of the
law concerning the sabbath. We enter into this true sabbath through faith and
not through a day.
But
what did those who withstood Christ do in regards to the law? They rejected the
magnification of the law; the spirit of the law; the doing good even on a
sabbath day, and opted for the letter of the law, even as the author insists we
do likewise.
***You
must come to have a healthy respect for your mind’s ability to deceive you
about the laws and principles of God, which it naturally rebels against!***
Whoa
Nelly! What is the author declaring here? You can’t trust your own mind. You
can’t trust your own cognitive skills. You can’t trust the mind God gave you,
and God made the truth too hard for you to work out for yourself. There is no
simplicity in Christ. But what does scripture say? Did not Jesus Himself warn
against false prophets who would deceive? The author parries any thought that
he might be deceiving the reader by convincing the reader he deceives himself.
The reader needs to be warned about one of the common traits of a deceiver and
false prophet / teacher; the leader is never
wrong,
and the inductee is never right. In this example then, he isn’t a deceiver; you
deceive yourself.
***Verse
3 describes Moses departing from the camp, answering God’s call to go up the
mountain. God was about to enter into what we call the "Old
Covenant," with ancient
The
old covenant was indeed an agreement.
Also,
the author gives the pattern for what he believes to be the perfect
governmental structure. If God is perceived as being the one who chooses a
human leader, to rebel against him is to rebel against God; how convenient.
***Picture
it. The entire event must have been a stunning, goose-bump raising,
ear-splitting, blinding experience! It was in this setting that God chose to
give His holy, righteous, perfect, spiritual LAW!***
So
perfect, so spiritual, that Jesus came to magnify it and make it honorable? And
with boring regularity, the author uses every opportunity to state it is this
law that is the spiritual law; that it is God’s law. If so, why do we find no
example of Jesus ever referring to it as such? Jesus calls it "their"
law or "your" law when talking to the Jewish people and religious
leaders. Jesus even claims Moses gave the law to
The
author uses every opportunity to equate the law as God’s law, whereas Jesus
distances Himself from it.
***It
is at this point that many go terribly wrong. Most have been taught that Moses
gave—or brought—the Ten Commandments. This has been a means of diminishing
God’s Law as merely the "law of Moses."***
Could
it be what we are witnessing is the author trying to magnify this law and these
commandments at the expense of the real, spiritual law of God based in the
Spirit? It’s a common practice for people to accuse others of what they
themselves are guilty of.
***Yes,
Moses stood in front of the people as a kind of buffer to their fear of what
God was saying. But Moses did not give the Law—GOD gave it directly to
This
verse clearly shows that God spoke "unto all your assembly." Let’s
say it plainly. The Ten Commandments were given to
Moses
was a buffer? What did he buffer from the people? Moses states that he stood
there with them. What is of note is the author’s insistence Moses was not the
mediator of the ten commandments, seeing as God "added no more." God
added no more because He did not speak any more to the people. They were scared
near to death and didn’t want to hear God any further.
The
author concludes then that God did this to emphasize the ten commandments as
being his law, and therefore not a part of what follows in scripture, the rest
being the law of Moses sans the ten commandments. But what does the very word
of God say in relation to this event?
Exodus
19:9 And the LORD said unto Moses, Lo, I come unto thee in a thick cloud, that
the people may hear when I speak with thee, and believe thee for ever.
This
was done so dramatically in order to insure the people would believe and listen
to Moses. He was the mediator of this COVENANT. And this covenant is based in
the ten commandments, as well as what follows the ten commandments. It is all
called the law of Moses as well as the Mosaic covenant. If there were two
covenants, we would see them referred to as two
covenants.
***God’s
Law is living. Speaking of this Law, Acts
This
is really blatant here. We are not informed who is speaking, and to whom he is
speaking. The author knows that people after awhile in a booklet like this will
not check up on every reference if it looks legitimate. But this is the
situation where the martyr Steven is speaking before the council; the
Sanhedrin. The "to us" in the context were the Jews present
whose
fathers received the law.
Acts
7:38-39 This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel
which spake to him in the mount Sinai, and with our fathers: who received the
lively oracles to give unto us: To whom our fathers would not obey, but thrust
him from them, and in their hearts turned back again into
These
were the religious leaders there at that time. They were big on the law. What
did Steven have to say to them concerning the law?
Acts
Who
received the law? They did, and not "us."
They
made a big show of keeping the law, and insisting others keep the law according
to their dictates. But the problem was their hearts; it was always their
hearts; their hearts of stone.
They
resisted the Holy Spirit. What is the Holy Spirit as revealed in the New
Testament? The Holy Spirit is God’s law that is put in the Christian. The Holy
Spirit is the heart of flesh that replaces this heart of stone. So what is the
author really doing? He too is opting for the law and resisting the Holy Spirit
also. He claims the old covenant law is the spirit that replaces the heart. But
if this were true, then wouldn’t these religious leaders and the rest of
Those
then who had the letter of the law persecuted Christ and His followers, using
the law as a means to condemn them. Paul says it is those of the old covenant
that persecute those of the new covenant in Galatians 4. The author has
attacked others who claim to be Christian who do not keep the law as being
false Christians. The faith of these people is counted as nothing if they do
not keep the law.
The
New Testament parallel here is where the people now refused Christ and the new
covenant and the law of the Spirit in favor of the Old Covenant, described by
Paul as being bondage, not unlike the bondage
And
let’s not forget that this "lively" law results in death. That is the
fruit it produces.
***God’s
Law, including the Fourth Commandment, is binding on His Church today. It has
not been done away. It was sent "unto us."***
When
were Christians bound to that law; that covenant? When did this happen? How
could it happen? Christians were not present, nor their forefathers (speaking
of Gentile Christians) were either a party to that covenant when it was
codified and put into force.
***Have
you ever read this next passage from the New Testament? The foundation—His
Law—of God’s Old Covenant agreement with Israel is the same as His New Covenant
agreement with the Church: "For this is the covenant that I will make with
the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord; I will put MY LAWS into
their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and
they shall be to Me a people" (Heb.
The
author here claims the old covenant is the same as the new covenant.
Have
you ever read the verses leading up to verse 10?
Hebrews
8:6-10 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he
is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better
promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place
have been sought for the second. For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold,
the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house
of
The
author claims both covenants are the same – Hebrews 8:9 states they are not the
same covenant. The new covenant is not like the one made with
But
the author insists the ten commandments are the law of God, so he must redefine
the new covenant as being the old covenant.
If
it were the old covenant law; the ten commandments that are written on the
heart, you end up with religious people like the ones who killed the prophets
and Christ. That law and those commandments never changed one heart. The more
one tries to comply and keep it, the harder the heart becomes. And the poor
person never even realizes it until such time Christ
touches
them with the gospel; the true gospel. Does the author ever bother to mention
what the gospel is? I would bet my last dollar he teaches a false gospel also.
Hebrews
8:11-13 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his
brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the
greatest. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and
their iniquities will I remember no more. In that he saith, A new covenant, he
hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to
vanish away.
In
the new covenant, people’s sins and iniquities are remembered no more. But they
are remembered in the old covenant. Sin is the focus, and its avoidance. Sin is
not an issue in the new covenant like it was in the old. But let’s look
carefully at the last verse here... The old is decaying and growing old, and
ready to vanish away. Once the temple was destroyed, it was no longer possible
for the Jews to keep, seeing as the temple was gone. It was necessary for much
of the covenant. With it went the last vestige of the old covenant. Es ist
kaput!
I
should mention that when someone finally realizes that this passage of
scripture claims the new is not like the old, there is a pat answer that is
lame, but accepted only because those who are indoctrinated into these cults
tend to lose their critical thinking skills. They made a choice they believed
to be right, and no one likes to admit they were wrong.
The
rationale? They claim the difference is where the law is written, and not the
law itself that is different. The old was written in stone; the new written on
the heart. If you have been in the author’s group or a similar one for any time,
you accept this explanation. If you are not in his group or another similar
one, you can’t believe your eyes, and you can’t believe people would fall for
it. But they do; such is the power and control of cults and cultmeisters.
***Many
have tried to say that God’s Law is harsh, unfair and unjust, and therefore
cannot be obeyed. This is untrue, but it is predictable that human nature would
find such an excuse to disobey God’s Law.***
Another
subtle accusation. No one wants to come across as having this human nature that
claims "God’s law" is harsh, unfair, unjust, etc. It is a
psychological ploy to coerce people to drop their critical thinking skills, as
critical thinking is "human nature."
But
critical thinking would have us ask, does the author and his followers obey
that law, perfectly as required? No? But didn’t he just say it was untrue that
it could not be kept? That means he is declaring it can be kept! So who among
them is keeping it, perfectly, as required?
***Broadly
speaking, there are two different ways of life. One is the "GIVE"
way—the way of love and outgoing concern—God’s Way. The other is the
"GET" way—the way of selfishness and self-concern—the way of this
world. Love is patient, kind and considerate. It shares, cooperates, serves and
helps. Christ taught, "It is more blessed to GIVE than to receive"
(Acts
This
is right out of the Armstrong play book. There are two ways of life, and these
are not them. There is the way of life based in faith, expressed through love.
The other way of life rejects faith and love and lives according to the self
and selfish motives. It tries to be self-sufficient, and when it comes to
religion, it tries to produce self-righteousness.
What
is the righteousness found in the law?
Philippians
3:9 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the
law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is
of God by faith:
The
righteousness found in keeping the law is self righteousness.
***This
world is based on getting rather than giving! People constantly strive to get
more—to accumulate—for themselves throughout their lives.
This
violates the Tenth Commandment, which forbids coveting. Notice what God says
about His people, and about all nations, in a prophecy directed to those alive
at the end of the age: "For from the least of them even unto the greatest
of them every one is given to covetousness; and from the prophet even unto the
priest every one deals falsely" (Jer. 6:13).***
Much
of what the author has written I am skipping over, attempting to hit the more
important points. This passage would have been one of them if it were not for
another flagrant deception. God is not talking about His people and all
nations, but just His people,
Jeremiah
6:9 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, They shall thoroughly glean the remnant of
Verse
11 talks about God’s fury being poured out on the children abroad. These are
the children of
God
then calls upon all nations and the earth as witness to what God performs on
And
this is not a prophesy for the end of the world, but a prophesy for what was
soon to come about for
Read
also Jeremiah 8 in relation to what the author states in the next paragraph.
The
author also equates wanting nice things in this life as coveting. The Biblical
example was coveting that which belongs to another, such as a neighbor. This
sort of coveting leads to taking what was coveted, and perhaps causing harm to
said neighbor. But by redefining coveting to be the desire to have things one
could acquire legally through work and purchase,
the
author sets up in their minds the requirement to live a Spartan life. What
would be the result here? The individual would end up having more to
"give" to the wolf.
***Paul
wrote, "…because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy
Spirit which is given unto us" (Rom. 5:5). Now what is the Bible
definition of love? Men’s opinions do not count!
John
wrote, "FOR THIS IS THE LOVE OF GOD, THAT WE KEEP HIS COMMANDMENTS: and
His commandments are not grievous" (I John 5:3). Many who claim to have
love believe that the Commandments are grievous. God says they are not, and
calls
His
Law "holy, just, good and spiritual" (Rom.
Deception
is where words, concepts, etc. are redefined. God’s commandments for Christians
are not the same commandments required of Israelites.
The
author has already redefined "God’s law." Now he redefined
"God’s commandments" for Christians. It is a simple matter to examine
the New Testament and read for oneself what is commanded of Christians.
Speaking
of grievous, if the old covenant, being basically the ten commandments, and
Paul calls it bondage; then what is this bondage if it is not the old covenant?
***Paul
explains that the Commandments and the Law are the same: "Love works no
ill to his neighbor: therefore LOVE IS THE FULFILLING OF THE LAW" (Rom.
Earlier,
the author kept insisting the commandments and the law were not the same; the
law being the "law of Moses" and the commandments "God’s
law." As you can see, it gets played both ways, depending on need.
The
author now equates obeying (keeping) the commandments with fulfilling the law.
This equation really says this: To obey is to love, or obedience = love. It is
a false equation. As already explained, if one refrains from murdering another,
it does not demonstrate love for the other person. The spirit of murder
remains; hatred.
The
Pharisees and others who condemned Christ did so because of their hatred, and
they used the letter of the law to accomplish destroying Him. He worked on the
sabbath. He even admitted he worked on the sabbath. Their blindness and
dedication to the law; their hatred for Christ, blinded them to the fact that
the only one who could have performed the miracle of healing a man born blind
was God.
They
adhered to the letter of the law, ruthlessly. Did this obedience to the law demonstrate
their love? Absolutely not.
***The
Bible speaks of "the Holy Spirit, [which] God has given to them that OBEY
Him" (Acts
Acts
Obey
him in what regard? Jesus called on men to repent; to turn (back) to God, and
to believe the gospel. And what is the basis of the gospel?
***Jesus
never taught that we should just "believe on Him" to be saved.***
The
author is trying to prove a point through a negative, which is impossible.
Regardless, there is evidence to the contrary to his claim:
Mark
Of
course, the author redefines this belief as believing the gospel, and that the
gospel is not about the person of Christ. But there is further evidence from
the apostles:
John
20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ,
the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
1
Timothy
1
John 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the
Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe
on the name of the Son of God.
***Christians
obey God’s spiritual Law.***
Christians
live God’s spiritual law.
***When
asked what one must "do" to have "eternal life"—be
saved—Christ did not say, "Just believe on Me." He said, "If you
will enter into life, KEEP THE COMMANDMENTS" (Matt.
This
is taken out of context. An examination of Matthew 19 shows that, even though
the man had kept the commandments, even from his youth, he was not destined for
eternal life after all. And we should also remember this man was under the old
covenant and not the new.
It
should also be noted that another man asked Jesus the same question, and
another answer entirely was given:
Luke
10:25-28 And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying,
Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He said unto him, What is
written in the law? how readest thou? And he answering said, Thou shalt love
the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy
strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. And he said unto
him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.
The
author focuses on the ten commandments, with an emphasis on the sabbath, and
claims salvation is tied to them by quoting Mt. 19:17 out of context, and
ignores this passage where the spirit of the law is brought out in the two
great commandments. Was Christ lying here? Is the author’s focus misdirected?
***The
Sabbath is a matter of obedience, and, as the Fourth Commandment, is directly
tied to receiving eternal life.***
The
gospel is salvation knowledge. Paul warns against those who would teach a false
gospel, placing a curse on them, and warns Christians not to buy into a false
gospel. A false gospel is where other things are claimed as being necessary for
the sake of salvation that are in fact not required.
Did
any of the apostles, when preaching the gospel, declare Christians or converts
had to keep the law? No. Is there anything in the New Testament that indicates
otherwise? Acts 15:24-27 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went
out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye
must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment: It
seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto
you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, Men that have hazarded their lives for
the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who
shall also tell you the same things by mouth.
This
was important enough to send a letter out to the churches, followed by them
going out and preaching the same thing. It was a subversion to teach the law.
Oh, sorry! The author claims the ten commandments are not part of the law of
Moses... they couldn’t possibly mean the ten commandments! If you believe the
ten commandments and the sabbath must be observed, you will find a way to
rationalize and explain away every and any passage of scripture that declares
otherwise, even if it means taking scriptures out of context and using them
eisogetically.
***Understand.
It is possible to obey God, but the world is ignorant of this because its
ministers and theologians tell them it cannot be done or that Christ did it for
them.***
The
law required perfect obedience, even as the author pointed out in quoting James
2. So the logical question then: Does the author keep the law as required,
perfectly? Sure he does....
1 I have a paper that demonstrates the proper
exegesis of Matthew 5:17-19 which I will make available.
Chapter 4 - The Perpetual Sabbath Covenant
***When
it comes to God’s command to "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it
holy" (Ex. 20:8; Lev. 23:3; Deut.
What we see in this booklet
are endless arguments attempting to show the sabbath command remains, and is
required of all mankind, even though all mankind was never a party to that
covenant. The sabbath command was to be a sign between
Exodus 31:16-17 Wherefore
the children of
***Be
willing to open your Bible and honestly accept what it says about the Sabbath.
Many have supposed that Christ "nailed it to the cross" along with
most everything else in the Old Testament. Yet, no one can be guilty of sin—of
any kind—where there is no law: "Because the law works wrath: for where no
law is, there is no transgression" (Rom.
The law works wrath. If you
are under the law, the law will work its wrath on you. If the law has been done
away with – nailed to the cross as it were, then it can no longer bring wrath
upon you. Can a Christian therefore sin, even if this law is gone? Yes, because
there is another law – the law of the Spirit; the law of love; the law of
faith.
Ultimately, it is not
"sin" that results in one’s final condemnation:
John
Adam and Eve’s sin was not
transgressing the law Moses wrote down in the book of the law, given at Sinai.
Their sin was an act of faithlessness– they violated the law of faith and love.
As far as being under the
death penalty, is that what you want? You want to be under a death penalty? You
want to be under this law that only brings about wrath?
***Recall
that after giving the Ten Commandments, God "added no more." His Law
was complete and anything that came later could not be considered part of it.
Even agreements (covenants) between men cannot be amended or changed in any way
by either party alone: "Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though
it be but a man’s covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannuls, or adds
thereto" (Gal.
The author separates the ten
commandments from the rest of the law. No matter. Whether you split the two up
or not, it is still a matter of being a contractual agreement between the two
parties, God and
***The
Sabbath originated before the Old Covenant was established.***
No, it didn’t. But in order
to make a justification for keeping the sabbath, the author must resort to
anything he can draw on. If he can’t make the case for the sabbath pre-existing
this covenant, he is sunk. So he repeats this mantra over and over again in the
hope it will be accepted through its repetition.
***After
God had completed His covenant with
Even if this were a separate
covenant, which it is not, God is speaking to the children of
Verse 18 disproves this is
talking about a separate covenant. It is after this discourse, God gives the
two tablets of the law, that includes the sabbath, to Moses.
***Make
no mistake. All Sabbaths belong to God—He calls them "MY sabbaths."
This connotes ownership—they are His. They belong to no man, including the Jews.***
And all Sabbaths were to be
kept by
Ezekiel
Ezekiel
***In
Exodus 31:12-17, God made a special covenant with
Recall
that this last phrase proves that the Sabbath was established from the creation
week, over 2,500 years prior to Exodus 31.***
Recall? This phrase proves
the sabbath was established from creation? How does this statement prove this
conclusion? Because this covenant is described as "perpetual" and to
be "forever" we are to conclude it existed before it was put in
force?
Let’s humor the author and
examine something else that is described as perpetual.
Genesis 9:12-15 And God
said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and
every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations: I do set my
bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the
earth. And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the
bow shall be seen in the cloud: And I will remember my covenant, which is
between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall
no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.
The author’s logic would
have us believe this rainbow covenant existed from creation. But that would
mean God couldn’t have flooded the world in the first place.
Genesis 17:10-14 This is my
covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee;
Every man child among you shall be circumcised. And ye shall circumcise the
flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and
you. And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man
child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money
of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. He that is born in thy house, and he
that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall
be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. And the uncircumcised man child
whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from
his people; he hath broken my covenant.
Let’s use more of the
author’s logic. This is God’s covenant, and not man’s covenant. It belongs to
God. God commands (a commandment from God) that every male be circumcised. This
is to be an everlasting (perpetual) covenant. One who is not circumcised is to
be cut off from the people, having broken "God’s covenant."
This command is codified in
the law of Moses, but we have solid evidence, not based on assumptions like the
sabbath command, that this commandment existed before Sinai. Using the author’s
own logic and reasoning, we would be forced to conclude that circumcision is
very important to God, seeing as it was to be an everlasting covenant.
Everlasting means just what it says; it is to never end. It is required for
ever. How dare the New Testament apostle Paul abrogate this covenant of God’s!
There is only one logical conclusion– Paul was a false prophet; a false
minister! And he was able to mislead even the very ones trained personally by
Jesus Christ!! What shock!
What horrors!
***God
explains that His purpose is that the Sabbath "sanctifies" those who
keep it. They are set apart as belonging to—being owned by—God. Christians are
told, "You are bought with a price; be not you the servants of men"
(I Cor.
And where does God explain
His purpose is that the sabbath sanctify Christians? This is quite a claim. It
is God that sanctifies, and not a day. But what is really happening here? The
law, especially the sabbath, is being raised to the level of a god. This is
what the Pharisees had done. The author has already declared the sabbath is
necessary for salvation, as though the sabbath, or any of the law, could save
anyone. There is but one God, and He is a jealous God, and will not, repeat,
will NOT have any other gods "besides" Him.
Christ owns the Christian
all right. The price of the Christian’s purchase was His own blood. The sabbath
had nothing to do with it. None of the law had anything to do with it. The law
served to bring people under sin and show them their need for a saviour. God’s
"purpose" for the law was that– to show people they could never
measure up to God. Man can no more be like or on par with God than a gorilla
can measure up to being human.
***The
Sabbath does! It is a sign that people are of God, since no human would ever
think or choose to keep this law without it having been divinely revealed by
God.***
The sign of a Christian,
according to scripture, is that Christians would have love for one another.
John
Let’s once more humor the
author. Let’s say the sabbath was the sign of the people of God. Could a false
Christian keep the sabbath? Could a "tare" keep the sabbath? Sure–
why not? So how then could it be the sign of a true Christian if a false
Christian could also keep it? But can a false Christian have love for not only
fellow Christians, but his enemies as well? No.
Eventually he will show
forth his real fruits.
***If
all peoples and nations kept the Sabbath, as Israel was commanded to do, no one
would have ever fallen into idolatry and the worship of other gods—which has
happened to all nations who have not kept it!***
Here is a claim of the author
that there is no way he can prove it. Conversely, there is no way the reader
can disprove it. This is a claim that fails what is called the
"falsifiability" test. For any claim to be considered as true, it
must be of such a nature that evidence to the contrary is conceivable. There is
no way to falsify the claim. The claim is useless in determining truth. Who
would attempt to use such claims and tactics except one whose goal was to
deceive?
***The
Sabbath identifies God for who—which God—He is!***
When Paul was in
***Now
we must ask: Which commandment would Satan choose to overthrow? Which one would
he hate most—and why? Which commandment signifies that those who obey it do not
belong to him? The only commandment signifying (is a sign) that one belongs to
God—and the only commandment that directly points to the true God of creation,
thus displacing Satan, is the SABBATH!***
Wouldn’t Satan’s desire be
to have man separated from God and under condemnation? The law serves this
purpose perfectly; this law that provides a knowledge of good and evil. And
whether a man observes Sunday or the sabbath, the result is the same when it
comes to trying to be justified through any effort on your part. Either way,
living by faith is abandoned.
***Satan
blinds the world to the real gospel for a personal reason. It describes the
Nowhere, in the preaching of
the gospel in scripture is the
***The
devil also recognizes that the arrival of God’s kingdom means he will be
banished from his current position ( Rev.
20:2-3) of great influence as the god this world unwittingly worships.***
The shift of emphasis in
regards to the gospel can be very subtle. It is the arrival of Christ that
signals the banishment of the devil.
***In
John
John
John
Does this state the prince
of this world will one day be judged?
John
Is does not mean will be,
future tense.
***Also,
most people know that the First and Second Commandments require that only the
true God be worshipped. Again, though most do not do this properly, people
acknowledge that it is the correct thing to do, and claim that they practice
it. Why then do they not read the last statement attached to these
Commandments?: "You shall not bow down yourself to them, nor serve them:
for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers
upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Me;
And showing mercy unto thousands of them that love Me, AND KEEP MY
COMMANDMENTS" (Ex. 20:5-6).***
What is interesting in this
regard is the story about Naaman the Syrian. He is healed of leprosy by the
prophet Elisha. Jesus relates the event as an example of faith and faithless
So Naaman is healed of
leprosy, and declares to the prophet that he now knows there is only one God:
2 Kings 5:15 And he returned
to the man of God, he and all his company, and came, and stood before him: and
he said, Behold, now I know that there is no God in all the earth, but in
Israel:
He now knew what
2 Kings 5:18 In this thing
the LORD pardon thy servant, that when my master goeth into the house of Rimmon
to worship there, and he leaneth on my hand, and I bow myself in the house of
Rimmon: when I bow down myself in the house of Rimmon, the LORD pardon thy
servant in this thing.
Naaman let it be known he
was going to be entering into the house of Rimmon; a false god, and there, bow
himself down before Rimmon when in the company of his king. He was going to
violate a commandment of God! Poof! His leprosy returned! Not hardly. And what
was the prophet of God’s response to him? "You can’t do that – God
commands that people not bow down before false gods." Not quite:
2 Kings
This flies in the face of
everything the author has been claiming in this booklet. Does the reader begin
yet to perceive that maybe, just maybe, it’s not all about the ten commandments
and keeping them in the letter?
***Remember,
God inspired Paul to summarize what obedience—to any god or authority— means:
"Know you not, that to whom you yield yourselves servants to obey, his
servants you are to whom you obey; whether of sin unto death [Rom. 6:23], or of
obedience unto righteousness [Psa. 119:172]?" (Rom.
And from the Christian
perspective, if you yield yourself to the law, to obey the law, then you are
the servant of the law, and the law condemns to death its servants. Obedience
for a Christian is in relation to the Spirit and faith and love.
***The
world serves a different god. Soon, it will understand that more is at stake
regarding Sabbath observance than anyone could now dream. The Bible speaks of a
coming "mark" of the beast—the resurrected supposed "Holy"
Roman Empire—that involves "buying or selling"—holding a job and
earning a living. Our very extensive booklet about the beast reveals the
Sabbath/Sunday connection to this future "mark."***
The Seventh Day Adventists
teach exactly the same thing. Can it be proved that keeping Sunday is in
relation to the mark of the beast? No, but it does serve to stir up fear in
those who are not sure. But if there is some legitimacy to this line of
reasoning, maybe the SDA church is the true one, seeing as they too keep the
sabbath.
***Notice
that Christ understood that those who claim to follow Him must do what He says:
"Not every one that says unto Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom
of heaven; but he that does the will of My Father which is in heaven"
(Matt. 7:21).***
We already covered what
God’s will is– that we believe on the one whom He sent; Jesus Christ. But the
author already discounted belief in Christ on page 44 in relation to salvation.
***While
the Old Covenant was entirely physical in nature—
It
is "…a better covenant…established upon better promises" (Heb. 8:6).
The New Testament carries "the promise of eternal inheritance" (Heb.
What the author is doing
here though is taking the old covenant and claiming it is the new, and
assigning better promises to it. But the scripture says the new covenant is a
better covenant; not the same covenant.
***Remember,
once a covenant is finalized, sealed or signed, nothing can be added to it
(Gal.
Nothing can be added to a
covenant after it has been put in force, so why does the author add Christians
to it? And what happens 7 chapters later in scripture is irrelevant to the
covenant in regards to its placement in scripture. What was sealed in blood? What
was sprinkled with this blood according to the author of Hebrews? The book of
the covenant, and not the tablets containing the ten commandments, and not some
document or tablets of just the sabbath command.
***How
do we know that the Sabbath is an enduring covenant, binding today on any who
are God’s people? Exodus 31:16 states, "Wherefore the children of
The author again attempts to
blur "God’s people" with Israelites. But scripture here addresses the
children of
The sabbath was the sign of
that covenant, and circumcision was the entry sign of that covenant. Without
circumcision, one could not enter into that covenant.
***How
serious is God about Sabbath observance? In
2 Corinthians 3:7-8 But if
the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so
that the children of
Does this really talk about
the administration of a civil death penalty? That which was engraven in stones
was this ministration of death – the old covenant, based in the ten
commandments. In contrast, the ministration of the spirit; the law of the
spirit as Paul brings out in Romans 7, is what leads to life.
***It
would be terribly inconsistent of God to require the death penalty for those
who ignored the Sabbath in ancient Israel, and to say that "all
flesh" will keep the Sabbath during the millennium (Isa. 66:23)—yet
declare that He does not care whether His people—spiritual
Isaiah 66:23 And it shall
come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to
another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD.
This is another example of
treating a passage of scripture eisogetically. The phrase "from one new
moon to another, and from one sabbath to another" is how the concept of,
from month to month and from week to week was related.
Even if God during the
millennium instituted sabbath keeping, would that validate sabbath keeping now?
No.
***There
is another reason God is serious about His Sabbath. Most have no idea that the
Sabbath is also a type of God’s coming millennial rest (Heb. 4:1-9), when Satan
will be bound (Rev. 20:2-3) and all mankind rests from practicing sin.***
I was a bit surprised that
the author attempts to use this passage as a proof of sabbath keeping now,
seeing as the passage in times past has been used to prove sabbath keeping now,
but based on another rationalization that fell to simple analysis. Here, the
author claims this is talking about a coming millennial rest, and by
implication not a rest mankind can enter into now. But this twist also falls to
simple analysis. The sabbath was also a reminder of the rest found in the
garden of Eden.
This passage of scripture
talks about how
The author apparently doesn’t
want people to dwell on this, as he brings up the binding of Satan in this
context during the millennium, and then claims mankind rests from practicing
sin. Christians are those who no longer "practice" sin now, and they
enter into God’s rest now. That seventh day of creation where God rested shows
having no end in Genesis. That day of rest is still extant while it is still
called "Today."
***This
is another reason why Isaiah 66:23 states that all nations will keep the
Sabbath test commandment of obedience during Christ’s 1,000-year reign on
earth. Observing the Sabbath is a weekly reminder, pointing directly to this
wonderful future time (Rev. 20:4-6)!***
We have already seen how
this is eisogetical in regards to Isaiah 66:23. But now the author claims the
sabbath points to the millennium. In the commandments as related in Exodus 20
and Deuteronomy 5, the sabbath pointed to the God of creation and the God who
freed
And, dear reader, read Rev.
20:4-6 that the author cites above and try to glean its relevancy to the
sabbath. You could only do so if the author’s claim regarding Sunday worship
and the mark of the beast had any validity.
Those with the mark of the
beast have God’s wrath poured out on them. They are those who are influenced by
the beast, even as Adam and Eve were influenced by the devil and had God’s
wrath brought upon them. So in relation to Rev. 20:4-6, let’s imagine if those
who believed in sabbath keeping were the dominant force in the world. Would
they behead those who did not keep the sabbath, thus complying with the sabbath
command to put to death those who broke it? It brings up an interesting thought
in this regard. In Galatians chapter four, Paul claims it is those who are of
the old covenant as the ones who persecute those of the new covenant.
***Almost
everyone who is unfamiliar with the Bible almost eagerly asserts that God only
bound the Sabbath on
Notice the subtle slap in
the face here regarding those who understand that the old covenant applied only
to Israelites – they are "unfamiliar" with scripture.
***Recall
that they were only one of the twelve tribes of
No, not all would so agree.
There are three things that abrogate a covenant, and all three occurred to the
old covenant.
1.
2. The death of either party
to a covenant ends a covenant. You cannot be held to a covenant where you or
the other party die. Paul explains this using the marriage covenant as an
example in Romans chapter seven. God died on the cross; the same God that even
the author admits was the God of the old covenant with
3. Israelites, including
Jews who become Christian, die to the law; the old covenant through baptism for
the express purpose of now being able to be bound to Christ who is the new
covenant, as also brought out in Romans chapters six and seven.
Romans 7:4-5 Wherefore, my
brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye
should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we
should bring forth fruit unto God. For when we were in the flesh, the motions
of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit
unto death.
Romans 6:4 Therefore we are
buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from
the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of
life.
Colossians
I guess the author is
"unfamiliar" with the Bible.
***Those
who acknowledge that the Sabbath is binding on the Jews put themselves directly
into a box canyon. Here is why. Romans
Remember,
the Jews must keep the Sabbath, so it must be admitted that becoming Christian
does not eliminate this responsibility for them.***
Which would be true if they
had not died through baptism to the old covenant, thereby freeing them from it.
So who’s in a box canyon now?
***But
are the Jews required to keep the Sabbath while other Christians are free to
ignore it, keeping Sunday instead? Are there two standards for Christianity—two
kinds of Christians?***
There are Jewish Christians,
and Gentile Christians. But in Christ, there is neither Jew or Gentile when it
comes to standards. All are justified by faith.
***We
have introduced the fact that Christianity involves more than physical
Israelites, that Gentiles are included and must meet on the same day as the
Jews or Israelites—and that Christ has a New Testament Church!***
A strange conclusion, based
upon faulty premises, which I just demonstrated were not true. In Christ, there
is neither Jew nor Gentile, ....
Chapter 5 - The Church CHRIST Heads!
***Mark
1:1 begins with "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ."
Christ’s gospel concerned His world-ruling supernatural government— the
Let’s make sure we
understand what the author is saying here.
1. The gospel is a message
about a world-ruling government, and
2. The gospel is not a
message about His Person; it is not a message about Christ Himself.
3. People must believe this
gospel about the world ruling government.
4. People must repent.
Notice, if you will, that
the opening of the book of Mark makes no mention of a world-ruling supernatural
government.
A gospel that is primarily
about "the
Jesus preached the gospel
couched in the terminology of the
And he said, Unto you it is
given to know the mysteries of the
By preaching the gospel in
parables, couched in the terminology of the kingdom, it would be fairly easy
for someone to reinterpret the
What should be done therefore
is to examine how the apostles preached the gospel and how they defined the
kingdom or government of God.
In all the examples where
the
In those places where the
apostles preach the gospel to others, notably in the book of Acts, many times
the
The answer is simple enough.
The gospel is not primarily about the kingdom or government of God – it is
primarily about Jesus Christ as savior and salvation being through Him and by
faith in Him. But the author claims the gospel is not about the Person of
Christ! Could it be the author rejects the true gospel and preaches a false
one? Did not Christ Himself warn that religious leaders would come on the scene
doing exactly this? Could it be all this rhetoric about the sabbath and the ten
commandments is indeed a false gospel? Didn’t Christ say that, if it were
possible, even the elect would be deceived in that the false gospels would be
that convincing?
Romans 1:1-6 Paul, a servant
of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,
(Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,)
Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David
according to the flesh; And declared to be the Son of God with power, according
to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead: By whom we have
received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations,
for his name: Among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ:
The author claimed the
gospel is not a message about Jesus the person. The apostle Paul declares the
gospel is a message about the person Jesus. Who are you going to believe?
***In
verse 21, Christ gathered His disciples and "they went into
Notice it says He entered
into the synagogue, and not they. It does not say the disciples went with him
into the synagogue. Also, it relates that Jesus did this as a matter of custom,
and not as a matter of command. There is nothing in scripture that commanded
Israelites to go to synagogues on sabbaths. This practice didn’t even begin
until the post-exilic era. The sabbath command required the people to remain in
their dwellings on the sabbath; the sabbath was to be a total and complete
rest.
***Later,
in Matthew 16:18, Christ made one of the most fundamental statements in the
entire Bible: "I will build My church." No matter how men interpret
it, this verse speaks of a single organized Church! Christ continued, "and
the gates of hell [the grave] shall not prevail against it." He promised
that His Church could never be destroyed. After His Resurrection, in A.D. 31,
Christ kept His promise to build His Church.
That
Church is alive on earth today!***
Christ’s church is not a
single organized church corporate. Christ’s church is the body of Christ; the
spiritual organism made up of those who have God’s Spirit within them,
regardless of where they are or what group of people they choose to associate
with in corporate worship. For the gates of hell to prevail against it, every
Christian would have to die out, leaving none alive on the earth.
***God’s
Church was to continue to exist, doing His Work through the ages as a
"little flock" (Luke
In Luke chapter 12, Jesus is
speaking to His disciples, and He refers to them as a little flock. There is
nothing here to imply the flock of Christ would remain small until the end of
the age. But if you want to give the illusion that the church over time was
always small; an elite little group of sabbath keepers, you may well pull such
a stunt as this, trying to convince people that they can be a part of this
elite group of called out sabbath keepers.
***The
Greek word for Church is ekklesia, meaning "the congregation of called out
people."***
Ekklesia does not imply ones
who are called out. It is simply a congregation.
***It
is not a reference to a physical building, but rather to the begotten sons and
daughters of God—God’s temple—who will one day be born into the kingdom of God
(Rom. 8:29-30; I Cor. 15:50-54; I Thes. 4:13-18). These are those who have been
led of God’s Spirit and been made partaker of God’s "divine nature"
(II Pet. 1:4).***
Romans 8:29-30 For whom he
did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son,
that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did
predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified:
and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
Does this declare Christians
are not born now, but later?
1 Corinthians 15:50-54 Now
this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the
A Christian is more than
just flesh and blood. A Christian has God’s Spirit in them. The change from
corruptible to incorruptible is a change of form, and not a birth.
1 Thessalonians 4:13-14 But
I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are
asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope. For if we
believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus
will God bring with him.
Waking from sleep is not a
birth either.
1 John 5:1 Whosoever
believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God:
1 Peter 1:22-23 Seeing ye
have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned
love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently:
Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of
God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
1 John 4:7 Beloved, let us
love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God,
and knoweth God.
1 John 5:4 For whatsoever is
born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the
world, even our faith.
Why would the author want
the reader to believe Christians are not born until this change from
corruptible to incorruptible? Why believe Christians are merely begotten and
not actually born? It is in order to maintain the belief that one’s salvation
is in question – up in the air until this time and this change. By constantly
being unsure of one’s salvation, it is easier to get them to do things; perform
things they believe necessary in order to maintain one’s salvation status, such
as keeping the sabbath.
***Some
wonder why God started with the particular nation,
God did not
"start" with
What I find interesting is
the parenthetical statement of the author here "(yet having exceptional
potential). In HWA’s Sabbath booklet, he wrote that they were of superior
heritage; that they were the product of superior genetics. This is seen as a
bit over the top in today’s world, so this author substitutes the statement of
HWA with this less innocuous, having exceptional potential. The author can
offer no proof they had any exceptional potential (another claim that cannot be
falsified) above or beyond any other "nation." I would conclude the
author is doing little more than following the outline of HWA’s book without
giving it much original thought.
Now, if God were truly
working with
***But
God understood that the nations around
This passage is not God
speaking, but Moses. From this, it is not possible to glean that this was
indeed God’s purpose.
***Being
His example was God’s plainly intended purpose for this nation. God performed
one mighty miracle after another for
Earlier, the author claimed
that if all the other peoples of the world had been keeping the sabbath,
everything would be peachy-keen – despite human nature?
And because of this human
nature, God decided that in the new covenant, God would be putting His nature
in man. Some of these of mankind would be those of
Romans 2:23-24 Thou that
makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God?
For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is
written.
Galatians 6:12-13 As many as
desire to make a fair shew in the flesh, they constrain you to be circumcised;
only lest they should suffer persecution for the cross of Christ. For neither
they themselves who are circumcised keep the law; but desire to have you
circumcised, that they may glory in your flesh.
***We
have seen that the Church is spiritual
Nowhere in scripture is the
church called or described as being spiritual
***Since
most modern descendants of
This is but another line of
reasoning used to try and bring Christians under the bondage of the old
covenant. The author has even quoted the passage of scripture that declares
there is neither Jew or Gentile, male or female, bond or free in Christ, then
turns around and declares all Christians are spiritual Israelites. This line of
reasoning makes just as much sense as saying there is neither male or female,
so all Christians are spiritual males.
***Can
you see how God’s truth seems upside down to the world (Acts 17:6)?***
Including the world of the
Jews, who often instigated these mass protests when Paul preached in some
cities; these same Jews who had the law and were big on keeping the law.
***The
Ephesians were Gentiles who had become spiritual Israelites. They went from
being "strangers" from God and His promise, and without hope, to
being included in God’s Plan: "But now in Christ Jesus you who sometimes
were far off are made near by the blood of Christ…" and "Now
therefore you are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with
the saints, and of the household of God" (Eph. 2:13, 19).***
The Gentiles were included
into God’s family. Claiming they were not included in God’s plan connotes a
concept not supported in scripture. Gentiles were not preached a gospel about
any plan of God’s but that they could attain eternal life through faith in
Christ. But the plan concept connotes the government idea and all the
falsehoods that go with it.
In this section of the
booklet, the author speaks of the promises given to Abraham and his
descendants, coupling them to the covenant of law. But these promises were not
related to the covenant of law; the promises were just that– promises. They
were unconditional, and not based in law regarding Abraham and his descendants
being inheritors of the world.
***The
prophet Hosea brought a remarkable prophecy that applies to the Ten Tribes of
the modern House of Israel. This prophecy describes them in a pathetic
condition, having lost all knowledge of the true God. In the Old Testament
period, the Israelites were God’s only people. In Hosea 1:9, God describes
There is no scriptural
evidence to support the author’s claim Jeroboam had changed the sabbath day
rest to the first day of the week. More wishful thinking. HWA made the same
claim, but when later he wrote his "Mystery of the Ages" and covered
this material concerning Jeroboam changing the month the feast of Tabernacles, HWA
did not repeat his blatant error like he did in his sabbath booklet.
***During
her migration from
You would think the author
would explain how he determined
***Numerous
prophecies, including Christ’s in Matthew 24:7, foretell of famines that now
lie just ahead for our peoples. I said that God hates these holidays, and
Sunday, which men have substituted for HIS Holy Days and Sabbath. Notice:
"I will also cause all her mirth to cease, HER feast days, HER new moons,
and HER sabbaths, and all HER solemn feasts…" (vs. 11).***
Matthew 24:7-8 For nation
shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be
famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places. All these are the
beginning of sorrows.
Famines, etc. were the
beginning of sorrows. In the booklet of HWA’s, he made the same claim, stating
that there was a great famine just beginning at the time he wrote that booklet
in 1962. No such worldwide great famine occurred, and the population of the
world is much greater now than it was then, with more people being well fed
than ever before in all human history. HWA claimed to be an apostle, and
claimed personal revelations from God; an end time Elijah or prophet. Yet his
prophesies failed, such as this one concerning a great famine starting in 1962.
Before his death, in his
last book, he claimed the return of Christ and the setting up of the government
of God would occur before the end of the 20th century. So we have a false
prophet today quoting from a false prophet from yesterday.
The quote from the author
above states that God will cause her mirth, feast days, new moons, sabbaths,
and solemn feasts to cease, with an emphasis on "her’s" as if to
imply her sabbaths were not Saturday sabbaths. But there is no evidence
historically or Biblically that they ever changed the day. What they did do was
ignore and forget the sabbath. If this were about "her" sabbaths,
etc. then what about "her" new moons? Was there a second moon in the
sky?
***Isaiah
removes all doubt about this. Let’s begin in chapter 56: "Thus says the
LORD, Keep you judgment, and do justice: for MY [Christ’s] SALVATION is near to
come, and My [Christ’s] righteousness to be revealed" (vs. 1). This verse
sets the stage. It also begins with a "Thus says the LORD." This
establishes God’s AUTHORITY to say all that will follow in the next sequence of
verses.
Let’s
be absolutely sure of the time-setting—of exactly WHEN Christ’s righteousness
will be revealed to the world. We will put several verses together: "And
as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: So Christ
was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for Him
SHALL HE APPEAR THE SECOND TIME without sin UNTO SALVATION" (Heb.
9:27-28).
Do
you see this? Carefully follow the point. Christ’s righteousness will be
revealed when He appears—at His Second Coming.***
What the author is claiming
is that Christ’s righteousness and salvation did not come at His first coming,
using this passage of scripture as evidence. Is there any scriptural evidence
to refute this conclusion?
Romans
Romans 3:21-22, 25-26 But
now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by
the law and the prophets; Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of
Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no
difference:
Whom God hath set forth to
be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for
the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To
declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the
justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
Romans
Romans
2 Corinthians
Philippians 3:9 And be found
in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which
is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:
2 Peter 1:1 Simon Peter, a
servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like
precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus
Christ:
At Christ’s second coming
there is the culmination and fullness of the Christian’s salvation, when the
transformation from the physical body to the spiritual body occurs.
***Do
you see this? Carefully follow the point. Christ’s righteousness will be
revealed when He appears—at His Second Coming. Here is the timing of salvation
revealed plainly: "Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of
our God, and the power of His Christ" (Rev. 12:10). This obviously refers
to Christ’s Second Coming. And further, "And, behold, I come quickly; and
My reward is with Me, to give every man according as his work shall be"
(Rev. 22:12).***
And if Christ declares that
salvation comes at His return also, does that make Paul and Peter and other
apostles liars? No. All these things come in their fullness then. Christians
are the firstfruits now; the early harvest.
1 John 5:13 These things
have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may
know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son
of God.
1 John 5:13 These things
have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may
know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son
of God.
The Christian is assured now
eternal life. At Christ’s return, He makes good on His promise with the change
of form.
***Once
again, I have taken the time to link these verses because they show the
critical element of the timing of Isaiah’s prophecy. Now let’s continue with
CHRIST’S prophecy in Isaiah: "Blessed is the man that does this, and the
son of man that lays hold on it; that KEEPS THE SABBATH from polluting it, and
keeps his hand from doing any evil. Neither let the son of the stranger, that
has joined himself to the LORD, speak, saying, The LORD has utterly separated
me from His people" (56:2-3).***
The author has gone to some
lengths to set the stage for this passage of scripture in order to make the
case for Christians keeping the sabbath now, claiming Christ’s salvation and
righteousness are yet to come and be revealed. Yet a few verses later, this
whole notion crashes and burns:
Isaiah 56:6-7 Also the sons
of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love
the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath
from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant; Even them will I bring to my
holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt
offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house
shall be called an house of prayer for all people.
The covenant being discussed
is the old covenant and the setting is
This then is not a prophesy
for the future from that time but for that time.
***Let’s
grasp this vitally important verse. It speaks to all Gentiles who wish to
become converted, joined to Christ and receive salvation. Christ plainly states
that no "stranger" should declare himself "separated" from
Christ. Verses 6-7 expand on this prophecy and should excite all Gentiles who
read it. Carefully read: "Also the sons of the stranger [Gentiles], that
join themselves to the LORD, to serve Him, and to love the name of the LORD, to
be His servants, every one that KEEPS THE SABBATH from polluting it, and takes
hold of My covenant [Ex. 31:12-17]; Even them [Gentiles] will I bring to My
holy mountain, and make them [Gentiles] joyful in My house of prayer…for Mine
house shall be called an house of prayer for all people."***
Note that the author cites
verses 6-7 claiming they should excite all Gentiles who read it, but then the
author omits that part of scripture that speaks of them performing sacrifices –
which there are none of in the Christian era.
***HOW
PLAIN!***
How deceptive!
***All
men—Jew and Gentile—will be judged by the same Law!***
Romans
law: and as many as have
sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
So there is judgment for
people who did not have the law.
Regardless, the Christian,
whether Jew or Gentile, has passed from judgment:
Romans 8:1-2 There is
therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not
after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in
Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
If the Christian has been
freed from the law of sin and death (the old covenant) then the Christian
cannot be judged by it.
Chapter 6
***First,
recognize that sin is sin—whether committed by Israelites or Gentiles (I John
3:4). When people break God’s great spiritual Law, the penalty is always the
same. They are robbed of peace, happiness, abundance and prosperity. Because
God loves all people, He punishes all for disobedience.***
God punishes all for
disobedience... like the time the woman caught in the act of adultery was
punished, right?
***Everyone
must learn that sin cannot be taken lightly. All sin is serious! When people
break God’s Sabbath, or any other point in His Law, a loving God must
spank—PUNISH—them. Otherwise, what would be the point of keeping a law?***
So Christ made a mistake in
not concurring with the religious leaders when they brought the woman caught in
the act of adultery before him, asking him if they should carry out the
punishment prescribed by the law. No doubt this action emboldened others to
sin.
What we really see here is
the author treating Christians as though they were still children, under the
care of the law, described by Paul as a paidagogos; one who accompanies a
child, even administering punishment, until such time the parent decides he is
mature enough to no longer require the paidagogos. But the author prefers
Christians be spanked for transgressing the law which Paul puts in the light of
being for the unlearned and immature.
What’s more, the author has
quit trying to prove the sabbath is binding on Christians by using the sin
angle now, and that to break the sabbath, like other points of law, is a sin,
therefore this reverse logic is given as though it were valid.
***God
hates sin. He understands that it steals happiness from the lives of all those
who commit it. Therefore, He must punish for disobedience. His Law does that
automatically—just as it brings automatic blessings for obedience!***
But when those within the
author’s group, and other similar groups, do not receive these blessings for
obedience, whose fault is it? Not the author’s!
***Hislop’s
The Two Babylons and Webster’s "Rest Days" explain how this
"lord of the sun" was specifically worshipped on the day we now call
SUNDAY.
How
do we know that
Recall
that, in Hosea, God warned
The idea that
Furthermore, if Sunday was a
day for worshiping the sun, then was Saturday a day for worshiping Saturn?
Using the author’s logic once again, would we conclude
And here’s another
interesting thought... What did God do on the first day of creation week? He
created light. Do we see any interesting analogies between light and the coming
of Christ?
And what is related in Hosea
Leviticus 26:34-35 Then
shall the land enjoy her sabbaths, as long as it lieth desolate, and ye be in
your enemies' land; even then shall the land rest, and enjoy her sabbaths. As
long as it lieth desolate it shall rest; because it did not rest in your
sabbaths, when ye dwelt upon it.
Are the land’s sabbaths some
other sabbaths than the land sabbaths commanded in scripture because it says
"her" sabbaths?
***The
true originator of Sunday observance is Baal, and God will punish those who
participate in it: "And I will visit upon [punish] her [for keeping] the
days of BAALIM, wherein she burned incense to them, and she decked herself with
her earrings and her jewels, and she went after her lovers, and forgot Me, says
the LORD" (vs. 13).***
Here’s a good example where
a passage of scripture doesn’t necessarily fit one’s premise, so you make a
little addition to scripture in brackets in order to get it to comply with your
beliefs.
Hosea
The context shows these
"days" to be a period of time, not unlike saying "the days of my
youth."
***Jeroboam
caused
Both
What if they changed Gods
but not the day? Wouldn’t the result be the same? And wouldn’t it be reasonable
that if the narrative of scripture informs us that if they shifted the feast
one month, the narrative would have informed us they had shifted the sabbath day
also?
***Not
long after
The author offers no
historical evidence to support his claim. But what is odd is that he claims
***The
answer is basic, and more crucial to your understanding than you can imagine:
Jeremiah 3:8 And I saw, when
for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her
away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared
not, but went and played the harlot also.
***In
Leviticus 26, during Moses’ time, God carefully outlined what He expected of
His people. This chapter promises NATIONAL BLESSINGS for obedience and NATIONAL
CURSINGS for disobedience. Take time to read it all. God cited two particular
sins—two Commandments—upon which everything hinged.
Here
were His terms: "You shall MAKE YOU NO IDOLS nor graven image, neither
rear you up a standing image, neither shall you set up any image of stone in
your land, to bow down unto it: for I am the LORD your God. YOU SHALL KEEP MY
SABBATHS, and reverence My sanctuary: I am the LORD" (vs. 1-2).***
I must say I like this
author, not because he is clever and knowledgeable; rather just the opposite.
He makes mistakes HWA was careful not to make, even though HWA did– they were
just more subtle.
God indeed cited two
commandments upon which all else hinged, and these two are not the two the author
cites.
Matthew 22:35-40 Then one of
them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,
Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou
shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with
all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like
unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments
hang all the law and the prophets.
Of course, the author
insists the ten commandments are not a part of the "law and the
prophets" yet he has also played it the other way. His mentor claimed that
we showed this love for God by keeping the first 4 commandments, and the last 6
show loving our neighbor. So which is it? Where do these two great commandments
fit into the schema of keeping the ten commandments?
Now for a math problem. The
author cites the above passage of scripture, and says there are two
commandments here that everything hinges on. I will cite the passage again:
Leviticus 26:1-2 Ye shall
make you no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image,
neither shall ye set up any image of stone in your land, to bow down unto it:
for I am the LORD your God. Ye shall keep my sabbaths, and reverence my
sanctuary: I am the LORD.
The first command has to do
with idols and that they are not to worship them, make them, bow to them. We
will call this number 1 command.
The second is to keep God’s
sabbaths.
Then we find a third! This
is a command to reverence God’s sanctuary. The author ignores it.
So tell me... how do
Christians reverence God’s sanctuary?
And how do Christians
partake of "national" blessings when Christians are not a nation?
***God
specifically warned against Sabbath-breaking and idolatry. These Commandments
were so critical, so vital, to God’s Plan that—"IF you walk in My statues
[sic], and keep My commandments and do them"— He would pour out blessings
upon
All one need do is read the
narrative and see the references to the covenant and statutes, etc. to see that
this claim is not so.
***God
explained that, for 2,520 years,
You would think the author
would be good enough to cite the reference as to where he came up with this
2,520 figure.
***Disobedience
to God’s commands is a serious matter. Let’s review: Sin is the transgression
of God’s holy, righteous, and perfect spiritual Law (I John 3:4; Rom.
More repetition in the hope
people will buy into deceit.
The ten commandments, called
here "God’s holy, righteous, and perfect spiritual Law" is the old
covenant – the core of the old covenant. The author of Hebrews declares it was
flawed. Can that which is perfect be flawed? Can that which is perfect be made
more perfect? Which law was prophesied to be made honorable and magnified? Just
because the author repeats incessantly this law is holy, spiritual, etc. etc.
ad nauseam does not make it so. It is a covenant to be replaced with a better
covenant with better promises. It you are intent on keeping this covenant, you
can forget being a recipient of the better promises.
And are all those opposed to
the sabbath insisting it is for the purpose of making Sunday holy instead? No.
***Here
is how God inspired Jeremiah to warn the House of Judah on His behalf:
"Thus says the LORD; TAKE HEED to yourselves, and bear no burden on THE
SABBATH DAY, nor bring it in by the gates of Jerusalem; Neither carry forth a
burden out of your houses on THE SABBATH DAY, neither do you any work, but
hallow you THE SABBATH DAY, as I commanded your fathers… But if you will not
hearken unto Me to hallow THE SABBATH DAY, and not to bear a burden, even
entering in at the gates of Jerusalem on THE SABBATH DAY…"—and if Judah
disobeyed, "…THEN WILL I KINDLE A FIRE IN THE GATES THEREOF, AND IT SHALL
DEVOUR THE PALACES OF JERUSALEM, AND IT SHALL NOT BE QUENCHED"
(17:21-22,
27).***
Does "any" here
mean "any" when it comes to "any work" on the sabbath day?
Jesus came along and did works of healing on the sabbath, and justified Himself
by claiming these were good works. Yet here we have God saying no one was to do
"any" work on the sabbath, whether it be good, bad or indifferent.
And what was the fear of the Pharisees and others?
John
***The
modern world knows who the Jews are. Have you thought to ask why? Why does the
world believe that the Jews are God’s chosen people? This must be understood.
The
answer: The Jews have retained the Sabbath. They do not keep it holy, nor as
God instructed, but they have not switched to Sunday, or Friday, as have
professing Christians and Muslims. They have generally retained the Sabbath.***
The Jews retained the
sabbath, but not right away. One must ask what would have happened if God had
done for
That, and
***The
Jews, therefore, have not become lost! They know who they are. As one historian
put it, "More than the Jews having kept the Sabbath, the Sabbath has kept
the Jews!" How true! The other Ten Tribes became lost to history because
they rejected what
We just read where they
continued to break the sabbath when they returned to the land! They had not
really learned their lesson by this time. The sabbath had not kept the Jews;
God kept the Jews.
***God’s
Sabbath day is binding—and even more so on the modern nations of
The implication here is that
this "I change not" must mean God does not change laws or covenants.
What you never see is the rest of the verse quoted, or the context surrounding
it. Here’s the meaning of the passage:
This concept is redefined to
mean God does not change regarding the law. He gave the law, therefore He isn’t
about to "change" and repeal it. As proof, they cite the following:
For I am the LORD, I change
not;—Malachi 3:6
What you never see is the
end of the verse:
For I am the LORD, I change
not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.
Why were the sons of Jacob
not consumed, according to the law? Strange, don’t you think, that the very
scripture that explains why those under the old covenant were not consumed
according to the covenant, is used to try and prove the law remains inviolate
and unchanged?
The LORD shall open unto
thee his good treasure, the heaven to give the rain unto thy land in his
season, and to bless all the work of thine hand: and thou shalt lend unto many
nations, and thou shalt not borrow. And the LORD shall make thee the head, and
not the tail; and thou shalt be above only, and thou shalt not be beneath; if
that thou hearken unto the commandments of the LORD thy God, which I command
thee this day, to observe and to do them: And thou shalt not go aside from any
of the words which I command thee this day, to the right hand, or to the left,
to go after other gods to serve them.
But it shall come to pass,
if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe to do
all his commandments and his statutes which I command thee this day; that all
these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee: Cursed shalt thou be in
the city, and cursed shalt thou be in the field. Cursed shall be thy basket and
thy store. Cursed shall be the fruit of thy body, and the fruit of thy land,
the increase of thy kine, and the flocks of thy sheep. Cursed shalt thou be
when thou comest in, and cursed shalt thou be when thou goest out. The LORD
shall send upon thee cursing, vexation, and rebuke, in all that thou settest
thine hand unto for to do, until thou be destroyed, and until thou perish
quickly; because of the wickedness of thy doings, whereby thou hast forsaken
me. The LORD shall make the pestilence cleave unto thee, until he have consumed
thee from off the land, whither thou goest to possess it. The LORD shall smite
thee with a consumption, and with a fever, and with an inflammation, and with
an extreme burning, and with the sword, and with blasting, and with mildew; and
they shall pursue thee until thou perish. — Deuteronomy 28:12-22
This was all in relation to
the law and
***God
used the prophet Ezekiel to warn today’s modern descendants of
Ezekiel
was sent with a special warning from God to the House of Israel, not Judah.
Here is what God told him: "Go speak unto the House of Israel" (3:1).
This is vital to understand, because Ezekiel lived over 100 years after
Let
me say this plainly. Ezekiel could not personally deliver the message to the
lost tribes of
I must thank the author
again for relying more heavily on Herbert Armstrong than scripture. Truly he is
a good example of a particular scripture:
2 Timothy
The author may well just be
deceived. Perhaps he will take to heart what I have written here and repent.
But I won’t hold my breath. It is rare for a wolf to abandon being a wolf.
Getting back to the passage
here where Ezekiel couldn’t have delivered this message to
Ezekiel 3:10-15 Moreover he
said unto me, Son of man, all my words that I shall speak unto thee receive in
thine heart, and hear with thine ears. And go, get thee to them of the
captivity, unto the children of thy people, and speak unto them, and tell them,
Thus saith the Lord GOD; whether they will hear, or whether they will forbear.
Then the spirit took me up, and I heard behind me a voice of a great rushing,
saying, Blessed be the glory of the LORD from his place. I heard also the noise
of the wings of the living creatures that touched one another, and the noise of
the wheels over against them, and a noise of a great rushing. So the spirit
lifted me up, and took me away, and I went in bitterness, in the heat of my
spirit; but the hand of the LORD was strong upon me. Then I came to them of the
captivity at Telabib, that dwelt by the
I must ask the reader here
to consider something important. Could it be that God has caused a blindness of
scripture to fall upon these deceiving ministers so that people could see them
for what they are when they so blatantly misrepresent scripture? Could God be
trying to make it obvious who the false ones are? This is one of the most
blatant misrepresentations quoted by both the author and HWA. They said one
thing, and the very passages of scripture they quote from say the exact
opposite without any ambiguity whatsoever. Would a servant of God; one claiming
to be a shepherd of God, be so incredibly careless or ignorant, or would a
false shepherd be apt to misquote a passage like this, knowing full well most
people would not check it carefully?
***It
is the responsibility of this Work of God to bring this warning to you NOW!
What you are reading here is the fulfillment of an astonishing prophecy, which
started with the ministry of Herbert W. Armstrong in 1934.
Time
is running out. I pray you will heed this WARNING!***
We are being warned that we
will be punished much as
Ezekiel 5:9 And I will do in
thee that which I have not done, and whereunto I will not do any more the like,
because of all thine abominations.
But here is God declaring in
the book of Ezekiel what the punishment was for Israel then, and that God would
not do it again in that fashion in the future.
***Notice
God’s repeated use of the pronoun "MY." This is important. Next, God
pleads with the following generation of Israel: "But I said unto their
children in the wilderness, Walk you not in the statutes of your fathers,
neither observe THEIR judgments, nor defile yourselves with THEIR idols: I am
the LORD your God; walk in MY statutes, and keep MY judgments, and do them; and
hallow MY SABBATHS; and they shall be a SIGN between Me and you, that you may
know that I am the LORD your God" (vs. 18-20).
It
is important to make a crucial distinction at this point. Some get confused
about God’s use of the words "MY" and "THEIR." Grasp this.
God is not condemning His own Sabbaths in the same breath He is condemning
(Recall
Mark 7:7-9, and how so many worship Christ in vain as they hold to the
"traditions and commandments of men.")***
This is talking also about
God’s statutes, judgments, etc. And where are these things mentioned or listed?
In the book of the law, called by the author the law of Moses. Yet here God
calls them "My" like the author points out. So what is interesting
here that the author overlooks? When we go to the New Testament and the gospel
accounts, Christ refers to these things as "their" laws and not
"My" laws, even though He was the God Israel dealt with as even the
author concurs.
John
John
John
***In
Ezekiel 20:21, God plainly said, "They polluted MY Sabbaths!" Of
course,
God
never leaves any doubt as to exactly why His purpose is carried out as it is.
It is important to Him that people keep His Sabbath—it makes a difference to
Him!
Verse
33 speaks of God’s "FURY poured out": "As I live, says the Lord
GOD, surely with a mighty hand, and with a stretched out arm, and with fury
poured out, will I rule over you." Now compare Revelation 16:1: "And
I heard a great voice out of the temple saying to the seven angels, Go your
ways, and pour out the vials of the WRATH OF GOD upon the earth." God’s
FURY always refers to the SEVEN LAST PLAGUES! This proves Ezekiel 20 is a
prophecy for our day, involving the MODERN NATIONS OF
If the fury poured out by
God in Revelation is akin to the fury poured out back then because the people
of Israel violated God’s statutes, judgments, and sabbaths, then wouldn’t it
stand to reason that the same reasons would be given for the pouring out of
God’s wrath in Revelation?
Ephesians 5:5-6 For this ye
know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an
idolater, hath any inheritance in the
Colossians 3:5-6 Mortify
therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness,
inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry:
For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience:
John
Revelation 21:8 But the
fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers,
and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake
which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
There is no mention about
God’s coming wrath being tied to the sabbath. These last two verses should give
an indication as to the foundation for God’s wrath coming upon all mankind.
Oh... the author cites
Revelation 16 as a proof of wrath befalling modern
***The
voice of Herbert W. Armstrong, like Noah, Elijah and John the Baptist, spoke
out alone to a world that largely ignored him.***
Noah may well have spoken to
"the world" seeing as mankind had not apparently spread to the whole
world, but this does not hold true for Elijah and John the Baptist.
***Will
you hear my voice, or will the pull of the rebellious majority of mankind
around you be too strong, causing you to receive what is foretold to come upon
them?***
What about another option?
How about we recognize you as a false prophet and ignore you for that reason,
and not because we are accused of being rebellious by you?
***YOU
can be spared from all that is prophesied to happen soon to the nations of
The sabbath is never
mentioned as the sign of a Christian, but something else is.
Chapter 7 - Sabbath or Sunday in the New Testament
The chapter title belies the
attempt to load the whole debate, as though there was some debate in the early
N.T. church over whether to observe the sabbath or to switch to Sunday for the same
purpose. The issue that did arise was whether Gentile Christians had to keep
the law or not, and this law, despite the efforts of the author to claim the
law of Moses did not contain the sabbath command or the ten commandments, does
contain the ten commandments. Your Bible contains part of the book of the law,
and that part which relates the book of the law has the ten commandments listed
and codified in it.
***ACTS
13:14-15, 42-44 contains an account of Paul and Barnabas teaching Jews on the
Sabbath: "But when they departed from Perga, they came to
The implication is that,
seeing as Paul and Barnabas went into a synagogue on a sabbath, they must have
been observing the sabbath. I suppose just putting your foot through the front
door constitutes keeping the sabbath then.
And what did they teach? Why
does the author not relate to us what they taught the Jews and Gentiles that
were present? And why did Paul go to synagogues in the first place – to keep
the sabbath, or something else, such as preach the gospel to those present?
And also notice the author
does not cite or reference what was said in the intervening verses. Read very
carefully what the author wrote above:
"Acts 13:14-15, 42-44
contains an account of Paul and Barnabas teaching Jews on the sabbath:"
No, the account is in the
verses in between all this. The author intentionally is redirecting his readers
away from the actual account. Paul preached the gospel to them. Why would the
author attempt to skip around this? Simply because Paul is teaching the gospel
that does not agree with the author’s gospel. The author’s gospel is about the
***The
account picks up in verse 42: "And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue,
the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them THE NEXT
SABBATH." Why would he not tell them to just show up the next
day—Sunday—instead of requiring them to wait an entire week, until the next
Sabbath, for further instruction?***
Here is a very good example
where people’s critical thinking skills have been suppressed through the
indoctrination process of Sabbatarianism. It does not occur to those who have
bought into the sabbath argument how this statement above is flawed. It sounds
perfectly logical and sound to them. But let me ask the logical, critical
thinking questions:
Do you suppose these people,
both Gentile and Jew alike, had to work the next day, or do you suppose they
could drop what they were doing and come back the next day?
To whom would Paul have
spoken to the next day, or any other day besides the sabbath, seeing as the
sabbath was the day they had free to attend the synagogue, and the day the Jews
believed they were keeping by going to the synagogue?
Paul was not out to convince
fellow Jews to quit keeping the sabbath, but he took exception to other Jews
who claimed the Gentile converts had to keep the law by first requiring them to
be circumcised; the entry sign into that covenant that contains the sabbath command.
And let’s not forget that
during much of Paul’s ministry, he too had to work the rest of the week to
support himself.
If you who are reading this
are one who keeps the sabbath; who believes you are required to keep the
sabbath, did any of this ever occur to you? Did any of this ever come up in a
Bible study, or in a sermonette or sermon? Did it ever come up in topics in a
speech club or class?
***The
account says nothing of Paul telling the Gentiles that they no longer had an
obligation to keep the Sabbath—that it had been done away.***
The author again tries to
prove a point through a negative. Imagine though if he had, before they fully
understood the gospel and its implications? However some of the Jews understood
the implication; salvation without their precious law being relevant, including
the sabbath.
***While
one might suppose that the Jews still carried this obligation, why did Paul not
at least explain to the Gentiles, in a message about the "grace of
God," that the Law had been nailed to the cross? He could have easily
explained that the Sabbath was no longer binding in the New Testament
era.***
As though the author was
there and knew what all was going on. And who is to say Paul did not cover
these things the next sabbath, or would have if he could have done so? The next
sabbath turned into a circus.
Regardless, the Gentiles who attended Synagogues already knew they were not required to be circumcised and keep the sabbath. Jews in the Synagogues knew Gentiles were not required to keep the sabbath unless they wanted to enter into the old covenant through circumcision. This is why they are often referred to as "devout Gentiles" and not converts to Judaism.
Acts
I would be very interested
to hear what the author believes Paul could have said on the next sabbath that
the Jews took exception to, and contradicted. They didn’t argue or contradict
what Paul said about the Christ the previous sabbath. And what were they
envious of?
***"And
THE NEXT SABBATH DAY came almost the whole city together to hear the word of
God" (vs. 44). "Continuing in the grace of God" meant learning
to observe the Sabbath!***
Faulty premise, faulty
conclusion, but not surprising. The Sabbatarian reads the sabbath and the law
into everything.
***The
next passage, ACTS 15:1-2, 14-21, yields important understanding.
Examine
it closely.***
Examine everything closely
without skipping over verses 3-13.
***Certain
Jews had come to
Here is the main reason the
author and others such as Seventh Day Adventists insist the law of Moses does
not contain the ten commandments; that the ten commandments are a separate
covenant. If you can show where they are, then the whole argument is over.
What happened to one who was
circumcised? They entered into the covenant with
***Think
a moment. Would any suggest that, because James did not mention the Ten
Commandments, he was tacitly approving cursing, killing, adultery, stealing,
lying, etc.? Ridiculous!***
Is the author stating a
proof or trying to prove his point through an argument that is based in an
accusation? This is no proof of anything. It is another attempt to prove
something through rationalization. Again, hardly the way one wants to base
their beliefs. Do you really want to base your beliefs on rationalizations and
assumptions? Yet the author has given us a plethora of them so far. Lacking in
all this is a plain declaration in N.T. scripture that Gentile Christians have
to keep the sabbath, let alone any of the law.
And the author’s declaration
here shows a total disregard for the spirit of the law. Does one kill those he
loves? Does one commit adultery, steal, and lie against those he loves? Ridiculous!
***How
far some will go to get away from the Fourth Commandment!***
How far some will go to
enjoin on Christians what neither God nor the apostles enjoined on Christians.
***James
did mention four points in Moses’ law that should still be kept.***
If the letter they sent out
to the Gentile Christians declared that is was a subversion of their souls to
insist they keep the law, then why would James turn around and insist they keep
any of it? These four points were required of them, not because they were in
the law, but because if they practiced them, it would be offensive to their
Jewish brethren in the faith. And the one item concerning fornication was in
response to some Gentile converts who believed their freedom in Christ meant
they could indulge the flesh. If Paul were teaching the Gentiles they had to
keep the law, the ten commandments, this wouldn’t have been an issue!
***Now
notice verse 21: "For Moses of old time has in every city them that preach
him, being read in the synagogues EVERY SABBATH DAY." This verse is
crucial. It reveals that Gentile converts were attending services and hearing
the first five books of the Law "every Sabbath day." The New
Testament records this important clue for those seeking to know which day God’s
people were keeping after Christ’s Church began— "every" week.***
We are led to believe
Gentile Christians now continued to attend synagogues after they became
Christians. But the vast majority of the Gentiles who became Christians were
those who were attending synagogues when Paul came to them.
In the synagogues, they
learned about the Jewish culture and how it related to the law. A Gentile could
attend a synagogue without having to undergo circumcision or keep the law. But
now they were going to have a much closer association with Jewish Christians,
and so the need for these few prohibitions and a reminder concerning sexual
sins which are counter to the spirit of the law.
One of the prohibitions was
in relation to pollution of idols. This was meat that came from pagan
sacrifices. Paul later explains that meat sacrificed to an idol was nothing,
unless it offended a brother, and this is what these are all about; not causing
offence to the Jewish Christians.
***Why
did the apostle’s letter not tell the Gentiles to stop meeting "every
Sabbath"? Think of it. This is a giant omission—an enormous missed
opportunity to correct what many believe is the greatest burden of
all—Sabbath-keeping! It is evident that Gentile converts were routinely
instructed to begin meeting on the Sabbath day. This is the message of verse 21!***
By insisting the law does
not contain the ten commandments, this smug declaration becomes possible. But
Peter did mention that this "law" had been a burden to them that some
of them were wanting to place on the Gentile Christians. And if this burden did
not include the ten commandments, then don’t you find it strange that the
Pharisee Christians were demanding Gentiles keep the law, sans the ten
commandments, in order to be saved? But again, the author insists Paul taught
the Gentiles to keep the ten commandments, even though we find no example of
this.
But back to the burden
issue. Paul shows quite plainly in Galatians that it is the old covenant that
is a burden; a yoke of bondage, and we have already seen where the ten
commandments IS the old covenant.
***Next
we examine ACTS 16:12-15, an account of Paul and Silas observing the Sabbath in
Acts
How did they know this is
where prayer was "wont to be made" ? Was there a synagogue in
***The
next account, ACTS 18:1-11, is remarkable. It reveals that Paul worked during
the week and kept the Sabbath—"every" Sabbath: "After these
things Paul departed from Athens, and came to Corinth; and found a certain Jew
named Aquila…with his wife Priscilla…and came unto them. And because he was of
the same craft, he abode with them, and wrought: for by their occupation they
were tentmakers. And he reasoned in the synagogue EVERY SABBATH, and persuaded
the Jews and the Greeks [Gentiles]…and he continued there a year and six
months, teaching the word of God among them" (vs. 1-4, 11).Eighteen months
is equivalent to 78 weekly Sabbaths on which Paul taught God’s Word!***
The author gives the
impression that Paul reasoned with Jew and Gentile together in the synagogue
for a year and a half, keeping the sabbath in the process. But is this what
really happened?
Acts 18:4-11 And he reasoned
in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks. And when
Silas and Timotheus were come from
Where did Paul continue
teaching the word of God for 18 months? In the synagogue? NO! He lived in a
private home, and did not enter again into the synagogue, even though it was
next door, and spoke to Gentiles only after this break with those in the
synagogue.
And lest we overlook it,
what did Paul preach? The
***Verse
6 shows that the Jews became angry and, blaspheming, departed from Paul.***
A little bit of revisionist
history, don’t you think? Did the Jews depart from Paul, or did Paul depart
from the Jews? Why would the author claim the opposite? Again, he knows people
are not going to check the reference carefully. And in actuality, he doesn’t
want people that will check the scriptures carefully. They would only cause him
trouble later. He wants the ones who accept what he says and who only give
scripture a light going-over.
***This
left him teaching Gentiles only—and yet he continued teaching them on the
Sabbath! The argument that he met on the Sabbath to satisfy the Jews holds no
water.***
Paul may well have continued
preaching on the sabbath, but that is not what the scripture tells us. This
last line then is nothing more than the product of assumption.
Acts
Paul taught the people
publicly, and from house to house, and not exclusively on sabbaths and in
synagogues.
***Paul
taught both Jews and Gentiles each Sabbath. And he worked the other six days in
accord with "Six days shall you labor, and do all your work." If Paul
was also observing Sunday, he would have been routinely violating the other
aspect of the Sabbath command, having but five days to work.***
Acts 17:16-17 Now while Paul
waited for them at
The author would have you
believe that an apostle had to work six days a week in accord with the fourth
commandment; that there was no provision for the ministry to be supported by
and through the preaching of the gospel. You would think the author never read
I Corinthians chapter 9, especially verse 14.
I would also be interested
to know what job the author performs the other six days of the week.
***Finally,
notice that Acts 17:2 states that Paul, when in Thessalonica, "…as his
manner was, went in unto them, and THREE SABBATH DAYS reasoned with them out of
the Scriptures." This was also a Gentile city.***
This was a Gentile city that
had a synagogue, but verse 2 doesn’t inform us of that; the author is trying to
paint the picture Paul was going to strictly Gentiles on these three sabbaths.
Acts 17:1-3 Now when they
had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where
was a synagogue of the Jews: And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them,
and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, Opening and
alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead;
and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.
Note also what Paul
preached, again.
***The
pattern is clear. Paul kept the Sabbath, meeting with and teaching brethren
everywhere he went. Now consider what he instructed the Gentile Corinthians:
"Be you followers of me, even as I also am of Christ" (I Cor.
11:1).***
The clear pattern is one of
the author misrepresenting scripture after scripture in order to try and prove
the sabbath is binding on all mankind, and that Paul taught sabbath keeping to
the Gentiles.
The apostle Paul was trained
as a Pharisee; a doctor of the law. He understood covenants. He understood
Gentiles could not be required to keep the law, including the ten commandments.
He is the one who wrote (Jewish) Christians die to the law through baptism and
in Christ in order to be raised a new creature, no longer bound to the old
covenant so that they could be bound to the new: Jesus Christ. Requiring
Christians to keep the ten commandments when they have God within them is
absurd. You don’t need to tell God in a man to have no other God’s besides Him.
You don’t need to tell one who has the Spirit of God that is a Spirit of love
that now resides in a Christian to keep the law when that Spirit within the man
fulfills the law. You don’t need to subvert the soul of a Christian by
requiring legalism of him; a list of do’s and don’ts designed for those who
were devoid of God’s Spirit– the children of
***What
we have just seen should settle the question of which day New Testament
converts—Jews and Gentiles—observed. The matter should be settled. But human
nature still looks for evidence to prove Sunday is the New Testament day of
worship.
Does
the New Testament mention Sunday? No, but it does mention the "first day
of the week" in eight places. They are not difficult to examine. Before we
begin, recognize that at least one of these passages must clearly authorize
Sunday observance. In light of all the Old and New Testament evidence we have seen,
such a passage, to even be considered, must carry absolute authority supporting
Sunday!***
I would hope by now that the
reader recognizes this whole exercise for what it is – a red herring. It is a
fools quest, like looking for a sky hook or a unicorn. If no day is required of
Christians along the pattern of the old covenant sabbath, then this construct;
this straw-man Sunday argument is designed only to make it appear that if one
can disprove Sunday, Saturday wins by default, as though the possibility no day
is required does not even exist. HWA used the same ploy and tactics and it paid
off big time for him, monetarily.
I would also like to remind
the reader what the author claimed in the beginning about New Testament proof
for the sabbath. So far, all we have are assumptions and drawn conclusions
taken eisogetically. Is this the way to base your beliefs?
***"Now
upon THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK, very early in the morning, they came unto the
sepulcher, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with
them."
Comparing
this account with the parallel account in Matthew and Mark reveals that these
women had waited until the Sabbath was over to do certain work. One verse
earlier, in Luke 23:56, it states that these women had "rested the sabbath
day ACCORDING TO THE COMMANDMENT." This would be strange if the women had
been taught, throughout Christ’s 3½-year ministry, that He intended to
"nail the Sabbath to the cross." Of course, they knew that the
Sabbath was ordained forever and that Christ did not abolish it. How could
these women "rest…according to the commandment" if the Fourth
Commandment had been done away?***
Luke’s audience was Gentile.
Remember the salutation at the beginning of the book? So is it any surprise
Luke would include details that help explain the flow of events?
The author also insists that
Jesus had instructed his followers about every aspect of what was going to
happen afterwards, when they didn’t even really understand he was going to die
and be resurrected? Incredulity ranks supreme with this line of reasoning by
the author. They had no clue what was going to happen next. Only
retrospectively did they begin to understand, and when they didn’t put all the
pieces together, Jesus intervened like he did with the vision given to Peter,
and Paul’s blinding experience on the way to
And one more little thing...
the debate in scripture was never whether Jews should keep the law or not, but
rather Gentiles who were not Jews. These women who rested on the sabbath...
what were they again? And just like much of the early predominantly Jewish
church, they made assumptions about the old covenant also when it came to those
who were Gentiles, just as the author now does.
***An
important inset is helpful at this point. We previously mentioned that the
world commonly believes that Christ’s Resurrection was Sunday morning. Does the
Bible say this, or have millions made an assumption? And if it was not on
Sunday, then when was it?
Matthew
28:1, John 20:1, Mark 16:2 and Luke 24:1 have set the stage. Very early Sunday
morning (it was still dark), the tomb was open. Do these verses supply the
supposed proof for the Sunday resurrection tradition? Do they support
"Easter sunrise services"? Do they open the door to validating Sunday
as the "Lord’s day"? A problem already presents itself. Christ was
gone from the tomb before sunrise! Now notice Luke 24:6. Mary Magdalene, and
the others with her, are described as finding two angels standing before them.
These angels stated plainly to these women, "He is not here, but is
risen." Also see Mark 16:6 and Matthew 28:5-6. Christ was gone—He was
already risen! Notice the past tense of the two angels’ statement.***
Could it be that what we
learn here is that the primary reason for the Catholic and some Protestant
churches for justifying Sunday observance like the old covenant sabbath rest is
just as invalid as the author’s insistence for the sabbath? In other words, the
deceptive teaching of much of "mainstream" Christianity is also
exposed as false? The devil can’t deceive the world on more than one front and
in more than one way? If legalism that includes sabbath keeping is called a
subversion of one’s soul, then wouldn’t the same thing based on Sunday yield
the same result?
***"And
upon THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK, when the disciples came together to break
bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued
his speech until midnight. And there were many lights in the upper chamber,
where they were gathered together."
This
account does, in fact, speak of a religious meeting on the first day of the
week. But the last phrase demonstrates that it had grown dark— "there were
many lights." This was because Paul had continued his Sabbath preaching
"until
The author tries desperately
to make the passage say what it doesn’t say. They all came together on the
first day of the week "to break bread" and not a matter of the
sabbath ending. The narrative does not say they came together on the sabbath
and Paul spoke through sunset into the first day of the week. He tries to use
the rationale concerning the beginning and ending of days according to the O.T.
scriptures, and does not consider or even mention that Luke is a Gentile
Christian, who is writing to a Gentile audience. How then did Luke reckon when
a day began or ended? So this could very easily be where they came together on
a Sunday, and Paul spoke late into the night; Sunday night, which according to
Jewish reckoning would be the beginning of Monday.
Luke’s comment regarding
"breaking bread" has the potential to mean either they came together
primarily for a communal meal and to hear Paul speak, or it could mean a
communion, as the "breaking bread" had come to be known for that
also. The most likely scenario is that they gathered in the evening on a
Sunday, after work, hence the meal reference, and Paul spoke late into the
night.
Regardless how one chooses
to interpret this, one fact is clear. Paul preached on a Sunday. If this
passage had declared Paul spoke on the sabbath to this gathering of Christians,
the author would have jumped on it like a flea on a dog, claiming it as proof
the Christians were keeping the sabbath. Yet in all the examples the author has
used to prove Christians kept the sabbath, not one of those events shows Paul
preaching to Christians, but rather those who were Jews and devout Gentiles who
were attending synagogues. Would it make sense that the day before; the
sabbath, Paul may well have done as his custom was, and had gone into the local
synagogue for the purpose of preaching to Jews and Gentiles there?
***This
is an interesting account for other reasons. Paul was visiting the
Paul’s
plan was to walk an arduous journey of 19½ miles across a peninsula to meet his
companions. These men had to sail 60 miles around the peninsula to their
rendezvous point with Paul. Both Paul and his companions were going to be doing
very hard work, all day, on the first day of the week. They had enjoyed the
Sabbath together and Paul was "ready to depart on the morrow" (vs.
6), or Sunday morning. Verse 6 also shows that this occasion had occurred
"after the days of unleavened bread"—one of God’s annual Feasts.***
The author continues to work
from the premise that if Sunday were observed, it would have to be after the
old covenant pattern as a day of forced rest. And he is also still working from
the premise Paul spoke on what we would call Saturday night, and that it was
the daylight portion of Sunday that Paul made this journey. Whether it was or
not, and it probably was not, it is immaterial.
I would also remind the
reader that the days of unleavened bread here is used as a time reference, and
that the Jewish Christians continued observing much of the law, including Paul.
This now is in reference to
I Corinthians 16.
***Before
examination, let’s read the first three verses of this chapter to put verse 2
in context: "Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given
order to the churches of
Intermediate text not cited.
***There
is no reference to money here. There is also nothing about giving a collection
to the minister or a church hierarchy.
Second,
it was done at one specific time—when Paul passed through ("I will come by
you into
Third,
it was given at one specific place ("let everyone of you lay by him in
store"). This is because Paul would come later (vs. 3 – "when I
come") to gather what brethren had been saving at home ("lay by him
in store"). This was not an offering kept at the church, or given every—or
any—Sunday.
Fourth,
this command is specific to the Corinthians (vs. 1). There is no command for
Sunday collections here, but merely instruction to local brethren to store an
important offering for poor brethren!
Fifth,
this letter was received in
Point three is in error.
Several churches were asked to make donations to those in
The fourth point is invalid
for the same reason as point three.
Point 5 cannot be proved,
and his insistence "weeks" is plural is not supported by the text.
Although it can be either singular or plural, there is no example in any of
these passages where it is translated in the plural. It is very meager evidence
to claim this letter was delivered to the Corinthians before a specified time.
And I wonder if the author
is aware that the word translated "week" is sabbaton, and that it is
in context it becomes "week".
Regardless, no New Testament
writer uses the phrase "feast of weeks" to signify that festival, but
rather the Greek word Pentecost.
***Here
is what happened next. At the Council of Laodicea, in A.D. 363, the following
formal decree was passed: "Christians must not Judaize by resting on the
Sabbath, but must work on that day, resting rather on Sunday. But, if any be
found to be Judaizing, let them be declared anathema from Christ."***
I have already cited this in
its entirety. Notice please that the author has no problem omitting part of the
quote to serve his own purpose. How intellectually honest is this, to
intentionally alter what it says?
***Understand
what this decree meant. When one was branded "anathema" (accursed or
heretic) by the church, he was arrested by the state and tortured, which,
unless he recanted, continued until death. This was enforced so strictly that
people were required to rest on Sunday, and work on Saturday, in order to
engage in business or hold a job.***
This is not what it says
regarding the sabbath and Sunday. It says those who are found Judaizing by
resting on the sabbath. To Judaize was to preach legalism; keeping the law,
including the sabbath command. Even Paul talks about Judaizers in the church
who were many, and caused a great deal of trouble.
Titus
The early church used Sunday
for gathering and communal worship in order to not be confused with the
Judaizers who insisted on keeping the sabbath law. They were not in turn making
Sunday a forced day of rest, but rather a voluntary day of rest, "if they
were able" according to the actual decree. Only much later did Sunday take
on its legalistic nature along the lines of the sabbath command, thereby
bringing Christians under bondage to Sunday instead of the bondage the
Judaizers determined to bring on Christians in the early church.
***I
urge you to read our booklet Who or What is the BEAST of Revelation? It
carefully explains the prophet Daniel’s reference to both the beast and a
"little horn" in Daniel 7. Verse 25 there sheds important light on
what happened in the
The author concludes that
these changes in times (plural) and law must be "God’s law."
Deceivers alter and change God’s law all right, when you realize God’s law is
the law of the Spirit, and that some are altering it to be the letter of the
law required of Israel in the past, or the same form of alteration extant today
where the law of the Spirit is also abandoned in favor of legalistic laws of
"do this" and "don’t do that." The freedom found in Christ
becomes Orwellian on both sides of this debate of the author’s.
***How
plain has been the work of this church in its efforts to "wear out the
saints"!—and to speak against "the most High"! Eventually, God
will pour out His wrath without mercy on any who would dare to do these things
to Him and to His people! This time is coming soon.***
What is truly wearisome is
the Judaizers constant harangue against those who have their freedom in Christ;
who constantly and ceaselessly insist we are to keep the letter of the law,
which effectively abrogates the Spirit and faith. This booklet of the author’s
is a good example. There are nearly 100 pages here trying to prove the sabbath
is binding on Christians and all of humanity, using constant repetition and
accusation of those who resist this line of reasoning.
Might I point out that one
of the honest methods of proper Biblical scholarship is to look at all the
evidence to the contrary; or all evidence that appears to contradict a belief,
and honestly address those passages? But so far, those who oppose the author’s
view have been labeled rebellious. Once you disparage the person, you can
justify in your own mind ignoring the person. Was this the methodology of
Christ and His followers, or Christ’s detractors?
Chapter 8 - Sabbath Assembly and Fellowship
***As
part of Sabbath observance, assembling is a clear Bible command. This
instruction also carries a prophesied end-time warning. Does it matter with
whom you assemble? Is any "
The original command in
relation to the sabbath was that the Israelites remain in their tents on the
sabbath. So, here we see a change in "law"?
And didn’t the author inform
us that the sabbath was the sign of true Christians? So why would the group
matter? This, and the author is still working from a reverse stance, backing
into the sabbath instead of proving the sabbath is required first and foremost.
***Acts
2:1 records an historic scene: The disciples are together and the
Peter did not explain
repentance. The people knew what it meant, for it was the same declaration made
by the prophets of old, as well as Christ: Return to God– turn back to God.
In the narrative of the
conversion of Cornelius, Peter does not include the command to repent when
speaking to him. In their eyes, a Gentile could not return or turn back to God,
seeing as they were never connected to God like they were in the first place.
So when the Holy Spirit came upon Cornelius and the other Gentiles, and news of
it spread to other Jewish Christians, what did they conclude?
Acts
A Gentile could not turn to
God, but God could make it possible for a Gentile to turn to God.
Ephesians 2:11-13 Wherefore
remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called
Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by
hands; That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the
commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no
hope, and without God in the world: But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes
were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
***God’s
purpose—His intent—for His faithful servants is that they remain together,
believe the full truth, submit to His government, and actively continue His
Work (Matt. 24:14, 44-45; 28:19-20; Ezek. 33:7- 9; Isa. 62:6).***
Do any of these passages declare
Christians submit to His "government" ? No. It has to be inferred;
assumed.
***We
have seen many places where God has made the Sabbath holy. Literally, God is
PRESENT in this day. Those who are meeting together are meeting in God’s
PRESENCE. All that is done occurs in His PRESENCE.***
Is God present in a
Christian? If so, then why the need to be present in a day? Is the spiritual
now dependent upon the physical – a physical space of time? Not hardly.
***True
fellowship is with God and flows through Christ. He taught, "I am the
Vine, you are the branches" (John 15:5). Christians "abide in
Him" (vs. 4). Like grapes cut from a vine, without spiritual contact with
Christ, Christian growth is impossible. Christ explained, "For without Me
you can do nothing" (vs. 5).
Understand.
You cannot go it alone. If any limb of a body is severed (arm, leg, hand,
finger), it will live for a little while—but only for a little while. It will
die, unless it is successfully grafted back onto the body: John
Notice how subtly the author
shifted the concept of Christ being the vine, to a Christian being a part of
the "body" which he interprets as the Christian collective. The
Christian is bound to Christ, and not Christ via the organization. The author
is shuffling analogies.
The Ethiopian servant of
Candace who returned to
***Vast
millions meet every Sunday, having no idea that God is not present in this day.
They suppose that they can force Him to be involved by claiming that He is. God
has never been present on Sunday.
Regardless
of what men say, it will always be a normal workday to God.***
This line of reasoning is
easily dispelled when you realize who it was that restored the man to life who
fell from some height while Paul was at
***Christ
established His presence on the Sabbath by resting on that day. We have read
that He does not change. By meeting on this day, those who have God’s Spirit (
Matthew
Did Christ give some time
restraint for this statement of His to be true? Or is it the author who is
wrong?
***He
tells you: "You worship you know not what: We know what we worship: For
salvation is of the Jews… God is a Spirit: And they that worship Him must
worship Him IN SPIRIT AND IN TRUTH" (John
Jesus says that they that
worship Him must do so in Spirit and in truth, so how does worshiping on a
physical day qualify as worshiping in Spirit? Spirit here implies without
physical restraints, such as having to worship in
***Jesus
was a Jew. We have seen that Jews at least tacitly accept the Sabbath. But many
people denigrate God’s day with the contemptuous, derisive cliché of "that
Jewish Sabbath." They seem to almost spit out these words. I have heard
the bigotry and scorn in their voices. Romans 8:7 explains why so many
deceivers today speak with such contempt and scorn for God’s wonderful Sabbath.***
This is slightly changed up
from HWA’s sabbath booklet, where HWA just used the term "the Jewish
Sabbath" in this light. Why the slight alteration? Because there are
examples in scripture where the apostles used similar language. Were they being
derisive to their own ethnicity? No. But this is here to make it look like
people (Christians) hate Jews and hate the sabbath. It is but another veiled
accusation.
Romans 8:7 Because the
carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God,
neither indeed can be.
And once again, this law of
God is a spiritual law; rejected by those who hold to the letter of the law;
the old covenant– those described by Paul as being the children of Hagar who is
in bondage with her children and who persecute the children of promise. It is
these ones who hold to the letter of the law, such as the sabbath, who cannot
be subject to the law of God, because they have chosen the shadows over the
reality; the letter in place of the Spirit. And so, God puts a veil before
their eyes as brought out in II Cor. 3.
***We
just read that "salvation is of the Jews" (John
Circumcision is not outward,
in the flesh; the physical, letter of the law circumcision, but is of the heart
– spiritual. But this concept and form doesn’t get applied to the sabbath.
Suddenly, the rules change and the letter of the law IS still required when it
comes to the sabbath.
***Yes,
a true Christian is a Jew.***
No, a true Christian is a
Spiritual Jew, and not an outward Jew. A "Jew" in the sense here is
one who has undergone physical circumcision. Are Gentile Christians required to
be circumcised?
***Christ
led a perfect, sin-free—Commandment-keeping—life. His role as our Savior
depends on this. This means He kept the Fourth Commandment perfectly for an
entire lifetime. Could any think He did this for 33½ years just so He could say
it is now done away? He had already been Lord of the Sabbath for 4,000 years.
HE STILL IS! To all of you who may be Gentile-born, read Romans 11:17-18, 23-
26. And recall Ephesians 2:11-12. The promises made to
And these promises were not
based in any law or commandments. They are "promises" made by God,
and God cannot lie, and now make them dependent upon compliance with a law; a
covenant Gentile Christians were never a party to.
Romans 4:13-16 For the
promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his
seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. For if they
which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none
effect: Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no
transgression. Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end
the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the
law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us
all,
Does the reader comprehend
here? Both those who are of the law (Israelites) and those who are not of the
law (Gentiles) inherit the promises, and not just those who are keeping the
law. Christian Gentiles are counted as Abraham’s seed, through faith and not
law.
***Make
note of this point. The very word Gentile means "unbeliever." This is
all that the word means! Once one has repented, accepted Christ, been forgiven,
baptized and received the Holy Spirit, he is no longer an unbeliever! He is now
a BELIEVER. Quite literally, HE IS NO LONGER A GENTILE. He is a spiritual Jew—a
Christian!***
The author now makes what is
called an entomological error. Words and their meanings change over time.
Gentile is defined based on its usage. A Gentile is one who is not a Jew. The
word may have its origination from the association regarding unbelievers, but
believing Christians who were Gentile were still referred to as Gentiles to
differentiate them from the Jewish Christians.
Acts
Here we have Christian
Gentiles described as believers, yet still called Gentiles. So I ask you, dear
reader, are you going to believe the author of this sabbath booklet, or the
declaration of scripture?
And as an aside, what was it
these Gentile believers were not to observe? What was a subversion of their
souls?
Acts
The Gentiles were not
required to keep the law, as also mentioned in Acts 15. All they were required
to do was keep themselves from these four things. You would think that if
Gentiles were required to keep the sabbath also, there would be five things.
But the author insisted the ten commandments were a separate law; a separate
covenant. Again, if we look at this from the author’s stance, what would we
conclude regarding clean and unclean meats and tithing? Where is tithing in the
law? Outside the ten commandments? Then wouldn’t tithing be a part of the law
Gentile Christians were not required to observe?
***The
Spirit of God in you will help you obey the Sabbath—and all of God’s other
spiritual laws.***
And what if you break a
point of law – is it the fault of the Spirit of God then? How does the Spirit
of God help in this regard then? Does the Spirit of God help you a little or
help you a lot? If you still sin, then the Spirit isn’t much help. Also, where
in Scripture does it say God’s Spirit enables you to keep the law? Is this
truly the function of the Spirit?
***The
Sabbath is a spiritual command and God’s Holy Spirit will help you keep it. God
explains that His love is "shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy
Spirit" (Rom. 5:5). This means you will have the spiritual love, for God
and man, to be capable of fulfilling His Law (I John 5:3; Rom.
How is it the sabbath is a
spiritual command, but circumcision isn’t? And notice again the author blurs
the distinction between keeping this law and fulfilling it. Does the author see
them as being one and the same?
***We
started this chapter by explaining that Christians are commanded to assemble
every Sabbath. By what authority do I say this? God instructed Moses to write,
"…the feasts of the LORD, which you shall proclaim to be HOLY CONVOCATIONS,
even these are My feasts. Six days shall work be done: but the seventh day is
the sabbath of rest, an HOLY CONVOCATION; you shall do no work therein: it is
the sabbath of the LORD in all your dwellings" (Lev. 23:2-3).***
By what authority does the
author assign what was commanded of Israelites to be reassigned to Christians?
The author has usurped authority he is not entitled to. But if he is trying to
convince people he is some specially called "prophet" or spiritual
leader, then we could understand this attempt to make himself greater in the
eyes of his followers than he is, as Herbert Armstrong did.
***The
Hebrew word for "holy convocation" is miqra, meaning "something
called out, an assembly, a reading." This is a commanded assembly. It is
inseparable from the overall keeping of the Sabbath— and is as important as
"resting" and "[doing] no work therein." If Sabbath
assembly is optional, then what is the point of Hebrews 10:23-26? WHY do we
need to assemble? What are the PURPOSES for this command?***
Hebrews 10:23-29 Let us hold
fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that
promised;) And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good
works:
Not forsaking the assembling
of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and
so much the more, as ye see the day approaching. For if we sin willfully after
that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more
sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery
indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
He that despised Moses' law
died without mercy under two or three witnesses: Of how much sorer punishment,
suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of
God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified,
an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
Some had a habit of not
assembling together. Were they condemned? The author would like us to think so,
and his interpretation is that this is the sin willfully committed, yet the
context does not support this, if you read further.
We actually see a contrast
here between those who were under the law who died by the witness of two or
three, and the punishment for those who despise and reject Christ, counting the
blood of the covenant; Christ’s blood and Christ Himself, as an unholy thing
and despising the Spirit of grace. How can one despise these things? By
returning to the law wherein is no grace, and wherein is no salvation? This was
part of what was being addressed in Hebrews. The superiority of Christ and the
New Covenant contrasted to the Old Covenant which was inferior. Some were
abandoning Christ and the New Covenant, and going back to the Old. If they are,
as the author asserts, one and the same thing, then this contrasting of the two
would make no sense.
Everyone has sinned "willfully."
I never yet met anyone who sinned accidentally against the ten commandments /
law of Moses. But these transgressions are not sins held against a Christian.
Christians are dead to the law. One can only sin against the Spirit if they
have the Spirit, and spiritual sin is not the same thing as physical sins.
Spiritual sins are violating faith and love. The unpardonable sin is where one
has received the Holy Spirit, and experienced the greater life found in Christ,
then abandons faith in God; willfully turns his back on God and that Spirit in
him. But God’s Spirit heals the mind, and no "sane" Christian would
ever be tempted to do so. Satan did, and his followers. What did Satan want? To
be like God. Satan removed his faith and trust and love for God and placed it
on himself.
***We
have already seen throughout this book how God views observing the Sabbath, and
keeping His time holy. This passage ties ignoring the need to assemble and
fellowship to the unpardonable sin—"sinning willfully."***
Talk about fear and phobia
induction. If you refuse to submit yourself to the sabbath and the
"oversight" of these "ministers" you are committing the
unpardonable sin, and are destined to eternal damnation. Proving the sabbath is
binding on Christians has been altered so as to induce fear and phobia in those
who are not sure about the sabbath. Yet the author still has not proven the
sabbath is binding on Christians. Everything as been done through assumption
and inference, and this is no way to base your beliefs.
The unpardonable sin is
against the Holy Spirit, and not a case of refusing to keep the sabbath by
assembling with others. This though is just the sort of behavior you would
expect a false minister to do in order to garner a following to himself. The
unpardonable sin is equated with verse 29, and not the neglecting of fellowship
with others.
***Christ’s
sacrifice does not license us to override acting on true knowledge. This is
unforgivable. Notice that in Hebrews 4:9, Paul reminded God’s people that
"There remains therefore A REST [Greek: Sabbatismos—most margins say
"a keeping of the Sabbath"] to the people of God." This is
another New Testament passage emphasizing God’s Sabbath command is still
binding. Study it!***
Yes, study it carefully in
context. This is the rest (sabbatismos) that
***You
must never "forsake the assembling of yourselves together" when
within reasonable distance (Heb.
I wonder who determines this
reasonable distance. If you were wrong in your determination of reasonable,
"poof" you’ve committed the unpardonable sin!
Those who "draw
back" – what do they draw back to? The law, thereby abandoning faith? Did
not Paul declare, the law is not of faith?
***Notice
this: "How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And
how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they
hear without a preacher?" (Rom.
To answer the last question
here, the answer today is with a Bible and the Word of God. And in the Bible we
also find the means to judge whether a minister is true or not. This particular
minister has demonstrated a blatant disregard for scripture, and a blatant
misuse of scripture, over and over again, even teaching a false gospel. Back
when Paul wrote Romans, there was a different dynamic at play, but now we don’t
have to rely on listening to others read the scriptures. Everyone is able to
have a copy of their own.
***To
those who are unsure about which
Titus 3:9 But avoid foolish
questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for
they are unprofitable and vain.
And what are these strivings
about the law? Teaching the law. It was unprofitable to insist genealogies were
important, and it is unprofitable to insist the law is important.
Romans
In Galatians chapter 4, Paul
exhorts the church to cast out those who insist on living by the old covenant,
which again is the ten commandments.
***At
the end of his booklet Which DAY is the Christian Sabbath?, Herbert W.
Armstrong wrote:
"Many,
having read this far, will say—‘But I can’t keep the Sabbath. I’d lose my JOB.’
"Let
me tell you something! I have known of hundreds of such cases! It takes living
FAITH to OBEY GOD! Can you TRUST HIM, even with your job? Unless you can, I
wouldn’t give you a counterfeit penny for your chances of escaping the
More fear and phobia
indoctrination. It takes faith to believe God. This faith is not about being
obedient to the commandments required of
Acts 6:7 And the word of God
increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied in
Obedient to the faith, and
not the law.
And does the reader
comprehend the implication of this whole line of reasoning? Does this sound
like a reflection of a loving, compassionate, understanding and forgiving God?
Not to me. It sounds more like a God waiting to pounce on you the moment you
make a mistake; a merciless God.
Does HWA and the author have
the "authority" to assign you to the lake of fire for not attending
and being a part of their particular church? And the most important question of
all: Would a false prophet– a deceiver – a wolf in sheep’s clothing hesitate to
stoop to such tactics? Could it be this is all just about money and feeding
their own bellies? If you are one who is seriously considering joining this
group, you need to know what lies ahead for you in regard to what you will be
expected to "give" the organization. If they use these extreme
coercive methods to convince you that you need to fellowship with them, wait
till you see how they coerce you out of a chunk of your income.
A member of these groups is
so fully indoctrinated that they do not perceive the cognitive dissonance in
their teachings that is quite prevalent. For instance, they teach that Matthew
5:17-19 is about the law, and that the law remains inviolate down to the
strokes of a letter of the law. But then they claim the Law of Moses; i.e.
everything after the ten commandments, is no longer binding, but the ten
commandments are. Then, they insist tithing is still required, which is not in
the ten commandments, but in the law of Moses.
They will then teach the
members that they must tithe according to the law, and that they are to be in
receipt of these tithes. How do they define your tithe (your "first"
tithe)? It is 10% of your income. Then there is a second tithe for the
festivals, and a third tithe every three years for widows and orphans, which
you don’t give to widows and orphans, you give it to the ministry and trust
them to use it for widows and orphans. In other words, you get to pay Social
Security twice! Once to the civil government, and again to the church.
But that’s not all. Remember
Mt. 5:17-19, where the law isn’t supposed to change even down to the stroke of
a letter? Pack and other groups that splintered off of HWA’s church have
changed the tithing law way beyond jots and tittles, and when you point this
out to a member, they back the organizations changing of the law! How can this
be? Simple. They are so deceived; so misled that they accept just about any
explanation that is given to them due to the process of indoctrination and mind
control methods. They have lost their critical thinking skills in favor of the
group mentality and "group-think."
The law only assessed tithes
on the increase of produce and livestock, and never wages! But they never
mention this "little" discrepancy. When one confronts them over this,
they claim things are different today; that we no longer are under an
agricultural economy, or they cite how Abraham tithed on things other than
agricultural products. But Abraham never tithed on agricultural products or
livestock. And the tithe that Abraham gave to Melchizedek was from the spoils
of war which were not Abraham’s to begin with!
When HWA was having his tent
meetings back in the 1930's, he was speaking to farmers in
And so they pay and do
without, believing their sacrifice will further the preaching of the gospel,
and all the while the ministers that receive their tithes live well and eat
well, and they don’t go without. You don’t see them sacrificing for "the
cause." They may feign to be doing so, but one need only look at the homes
they live in and the cars they drive and the clothes they wear. They place
heavy burdens on the members that they will not lift with their smallest
finger. And the members fear to leave and fear to question the inconsistencies,
for to do so is to demonstrate an attitude of rebellion, for to question the
minister is to question God.
***"Nine
in ten have NOT lost their jobs, as they probably expected they would. And the
one in ten who did? Nearly always, the few who did lose their jobs SOON FOUND
BETTER ONES.
"YOU
CAN TRUST GOD!
"This
is where you have to mix living FAITH with obedience!***
The author is still quoting
HWA. This has to do with telling an employer you can’t work Saturdays any more.
Some do indeed lose their jobs, and some indeed do find better jobs. But HWA
(and the author) don’t tell you about those who could not find a job, and could
no longer support their families. Where did God go when it came to these
people? The pat answer you will get is that they were lacking in faith! How
convenient, don’t you think? It was the fault of the individual who believes he
is being obedient, and God turns a deaf ear and a blind eye to them. Either God
is testing their faith, or their faith was flawed.
It is never, ever, the
result of a false teaching by a false minister, and the faith angle is an easy
cop-out for them. All this guilt gets dumped on the poor member who now is seen
by the rest of the group as having some sin unrepented of, or a lack of faith,
or a combination of these and perhaps other things. But if you have a good job,
and make lots of money, you will be seen as being blessed by God, and you will
be the one who will move up in the organization, for the fruits of your being a
good minion are evident by the thickness of your wallet.
***"You
must make your own choice. Rebellion means eternal PUNISHMENT of everlasting
DEATH. God will save no person He does not RULE.
"You
must choose between GOD’S ways, and MAN’S ways he falsely calls ‘Christian.’
"My
responsibility ends with TELLING you. I have cried aloud. I have lifted my
voice. I have TOLD YOU YOUR SIN in this regard. God calls you to repentance.
But He will not force you. You must make your own decision, and what you sow
you shall reap.***
And if you were not well
founded in scripture, you may well succumb to this coercive reasoning. Refuse
to keep the sabbath and enter his organization – and why do you suppose the
author is citing HWA now except to have people conclude he is the heir-apparent
to HWA – and you are labeled unrepentant and destined to eternal damnation if
you do not respond to this calling.
***"You
shall be saved by GRACE, but God does lay down conditions. You can comply, and
receive glorious GRACE—or you can rebel, and pay the DEATH PENALTY—for
eternity!***
Grace is unconditional. But
here HWA claims grace IS conditional. He also says "you shall be" –
future tense – saved. The implication is that a Christian is not now saved.
Your salvation is always up in the air. This only serves to keep the person
compliant, believing they could jeopardize their salvation should they mess up,
like questioning the authorities he now believes were called of God and given
their positions by God, seeing as the church is seen as the government of God
here and now on the earth.
***"Often,
when people learn about the Sabbath, they seek some religious group to assemble
with. But it is not enough to meet with just any religious body because it may
accept the ‘Sabbath argument.’
This
does not necessarily mean it is the
"God
commands us to seek the body—the Work—which is empowered by God.
"There
is only ONE such Church!***
Every false, cultic group
makes this same declaration: there is only one true church, and it is theirs.
Please remember that the
church is not a physical organization, but a spiritual one; the body of Christ
made up of those who have God’s Spirit.
Secondly, the author and HWA
are declaring that the sabbath is the sign of a true Christian, but if the true
Christian does not attend with their group, they are still destined to
damnation, seeing as they are rebelling, etc. against the duly appointed church
and ministry. So the sabbath being the sign of a true Christian is counted as
nothing if you are not with the right organization. So which is it? Is a true
Christian one who keeps the sabbath AND attends the right church? What other
provisos are there then?
***"It
is doing THE WORK OF GOD. It is, as Jesus said it would be, ‘a little flock,’
persecuted, despised by the world. But it does have dedicated, consecrated,
converted, fully instructed and trained, ordained MINISTERS…But none of them
will EVER call on you, unless YOU of your own free will request it.***
It’s work is to preach a
gospel surrounded in fear in order to bring in more members and more money.
And nowhere does Jesus
declare that the church would remain a small flock, or that the church was a
small flock. He was speaking to his disciples.
Also, a person who has read
through this tome who is not well versed in scripture will have enough doubts
placed in his mind, and enough fear, that they will call for a minister in
short order, for who wants to risk salvation? Getting tossed into a lake of
fire doesn’t sound very appealing.
They baited the hook and
cast it in. People will bite the hook and reel themselves in, and it will be
made to look like the person received a calling from God and responded to it
without being coerced by a minister calling on them, and they will be made to
feel like they proved their teachings true and proved it is the one true church
that God is dealing with, never realizing they were led by the nose through the
whole process. It is truly amazing and frightening. People who believe they
can’t be misled or deceived are easily misled and deceived.
***"But
if you have questions about the Sabbath, Christian fellowship, doctrines or
practices—or ANY questions about the
Church or the Bible, or the Christian LIFE, write… "Weigh carefully the
FACTS, according to your own BIBLE. Then make your decision and take what steps
GOD shows you."***
There is wisdom and safety
in a multitude of counselors. But the authors here did an excellent job of
discrediting all ministries besides their own, making it highly unlikely the
person will go to any of them over these issues.
There is a simple exercise
that I have come up with that reveals the veil before one’s eyes who has bought
into the sabbath as being required, and that is how one determines when the
sabbath begins for them, if they live in America, based upon which way they
travel or calculate the sabbath from Israel. We can all agree when the sabbath
begins in
For every 1000 miles you
travel west from
But if you travel east, for
every 1000 miles you go, the sabbath begins an hour earlier, seeing as the sun
sets an hour earlier. Continue to
I mentioned this can
demonstrate the veil before the eyes. The reason is because the one who
believes they have to keep the sabbath finds it impossible to comprehend what I
just explained, whereas someone who does not keep the sabbath has no problem at
all understanding this.
Tell a person who keeps the
old covenant ten commandments that Paul says there is a veil before their eyes
as explained in II Corinthians chapter 3, and they will tell you, you are
wrong, regardless of what it says there. Such is the power of their
"strong delusion."
If you then wish to contact
the author over questions concerning "the church" and the Bible, then
go right ahead. If you wish to avail yourself of the safety and wisdom found in
a multitude of counselors, there are plenty of resources on the internet.
One last observation: There
is a double standard practiced by sabbatarians. When confronted with a critique
such as this, they look for one flaw, real or imaginary, made by the one questioning
their beliefs and teachings, and once that one flaw is located, it is used as a
justification to dismiss the entirety of what a critic of their beliefs brings
forth. When it comes to those with a differing belief, every argument and
explanation they put forth must be addressed. And if all their arguments are
answered, they reserve the right to come up with even more arguments in their
favor, no matter how absurd and far fetched. There is no end to this cycle. In
other words, they only need to find one flaw in your arguments, but you must
demonstrate the flaw in each and every one of their arguments.
So if the reader of this
critique still believes they must keep the sabbath, for whatever reason, fine.
There is no need for you to justify yourself by telling me I am wrong, and
offer up another explanation not covered in this critique. If however you
decide to do so, then kindly also provide me with what it is you require as
evidence in order for you to conclude you don’t have to keep the sabbath. Inform
me what you accept as proof and evidence of this, or any other belief in
regards to determining a belief as being true or false.
When it comes to any belief
derived from Scripture, there really should be no ambiguity or need to resort
to assumption and rationalization as proof. There should be a "thus saith
the Lord" for our beliefs. Anything else, and the likelihood of accepting
a falsehood as truth is greatly increased.
Bill
Hohmann