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: firstname.lastname@example.org. Whistler]
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.
publications, popes, cardinals, bishops, theologians, historians, professors,
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 ). This is a powerful statement. Immediately following this verse, we read: “Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.” (This is repeated in Luke 6:5.) Any who wish to superimpose the idea that Christ did not keep and endorse the Sabbath must face this enormous first obstacle. This plain passage cannot be dismissed. We will see there is a reason it follows verse 27 as it does. But what did Christ mean when He said, “The Sabbath was made for man”? Haven’t you always been taught, “The Sabbath was made for the Jews”? If so, why did Christ say, in the New Testament, “for man”? We must go to the creation account to find the answer.***
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 being an enormous obstacle, it is wishful thinking. The context is about how they were administering the sabbath command, as already explained. The subject was not about whether mankind was or is required to keep the sabbath. For “man” here to apply to all mankind is both eisogetical and intellectually dishonest.
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
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
***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
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
***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 ). Remember, the Bible states that He is “the same yesterday, and today, and forever” (Heb. 13:8), and does not change (Mal. 3:6). Christ will still keep the Sabbath in you!***
Christ was born under the law. Regardless, Luke doesn’t prove He kept the sabbath. What it proves is that Jesus went into a synagogue and read scripture out loud. If he left the synagogue and went about plying his craft as a carpenter, he would be breaking the sabbath. Just attending a synagogue does not demonstrate sabbath observance. This is not to say he didn’t keep the sabbath; this merely shows that the claim is not supported by this evidence.
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
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. ). Since Psalm 119:172 explains, “All your commandments are righteousness,” Abel kept the Sabbath. Since Enoch “walked with God” (Gen. 5:24), as a preacher of righteousness (Jude 14-15), he obviously kept the Sabbath. Noah, also a “preacher of righteousness” (II Pet. 2:5), would certainly have kept the Sabbath.***
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.
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?
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.
Bible records there were 600,000 men, age 20 and above, who left
The author continues to work
from assumptions. The children of
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
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
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
***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 Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me?
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.
Ten Commandments were already in force long before they were officially given
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. , 14). They are just as active as the physical laws of gravity and inertia. Just as breaking physical laws results in physical consequences, breaking spiritual laws results in spiritual consequences.***
Romans Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.
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 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
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.
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 But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.
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.
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. ), then the Bible must tell us what it is so that we can avoid such a terrible punishment. Do not settle for half-answers or the opinions of men. Do not concern yourself with what "religious people" and this world’s ministers say, but with what the Bible says.***
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 ). Here is His definition—the true definition—of sin: "Whosoever commits SIN transgresses also the law: for SIN IS THE TRANSGRESSION OF THE LAW" (I John 3:4). GOD decides what sin is. And He states that it is transgressing— breaking— His laws. Since sin is the transgression of the law, and the opposite would be obedience to the law, then exactly what law must we obey?***
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.
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
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.
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 ). Remember, "all [God’s] commandments are righteousness" (Psa. 119:172). So then, unrighteousness is sin—breaking God’s Commandments.***
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.
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 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
***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]" (-11).***
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
there really is no problem. Whether separate or together, it is still a matter
of it being a covenant agreement between God and
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."***
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 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
Galatians But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
Hebrews Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.
And what of Matthew ? Jesus is really talking about the prophesies found in the law and the prophets, for there is no law to be fulfilled in the prophets. Proper exegesis proves this out.1
***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.
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
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!***
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.
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
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
***God’s Law is living. Speaking of this Law, Acts states, "This is he [Moses], that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spoke to him in the mount Sinai, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give UNTO US." That’s right. God’s Law is a living— "lively"—Law, and was intended to be carried down "TO US."***
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.
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 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers: Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it.
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.
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.
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?
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
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).***
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,
6:9 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, They shall thoroughly glean the remnant of
11 talks about God’s fury being poured out on the children abroad. These are
the children of
then calls upon all nations and the earth as witness to what God performs on
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. , 14).***
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. ). The Bible defines love as "the fulfilling of the law." Obeying the Commandments fulfills the Law—and this "WORKS NO ILL TO HIS NEIGHBOR."***
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 ). Christians obey God’s spiritual Law. Jesus never taught that we should just "believe on Him" to be saved. 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. ).***
Acts And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.
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 -16 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
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 Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting.
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. ), practically all church-goers find a way to relegate the Sabbath to "something that the Jews do," or "something lost in antiquity." Or they claim, "It doesn’t matter what day you keep, as long as you keep a day." Others say, "Sunday has replaced the Sabbath." Most simply believe it has been "done away." They concoct endless arguments as to why the Sabbath command no longer applies. But God’s Word reveals that the Sabbath was made for all people, for all time.***
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. ). No one can be guilty of sin, or be under the death penalty, if there is no law— if it was nailed to the cross.***
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 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
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?
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. ). Yes, even men’s contracts
are binding as is, once agreed upon. Exodus 24:4-8 describes the confirmation
of the Old Covenant, of obedience between God and
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.
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
Ezekiel Moreover also I gave them my sabbaths, to be a sign between me and them, that they might know that I am the LORD that sanctify them.
Ezekiel And hallow my sabbaths; and they shall be a sign between me and you, that ye may know that I am the LORD your God.
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!
***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 "You are bought with a price: therefore glorify God" (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 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.
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.
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 , and , Christ refers to Satan as "the prince of this world." All these verses state that the "prince of this world" will one day be judged.***
John Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out. When was "now" then?
John Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me.
Does this state the prince of this world will one day be judged?
John Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged.
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 And he said unto him, Go in peace.
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.
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. ). It carried rewards that greatly exceed physical blessings or even being "above all people."***
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.
once a covenant is finalized, sealed or signed, nothing can be added to it
(Gal. ). Ancient
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
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 states that the gospel is the power of God "unto salvation to everyone that believes; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek." None doubt that salvation is open to both Jew (including all the other tribes) and Gentile. Paul actually stated that salvation is open to the "Jew first."
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!
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
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
In those places where the
apostles preach the gospel to others, notably in the book of Acts, many times
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?
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.
Church was to continue to exist, doing His Work through the ages as a
"little flock" (Luke ), until the end of the age,
when it would reach all nations with the good news of the
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.
wonder why God started with the particular nation,
God did not
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
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.
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.
have seen that the Church is spiritual
Nowhere in scripture is the
church called or described as being spiritual
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.
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.
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 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
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 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
Romans For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
2 Corinthians For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
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.
***All men—Jew and Gentile—will be judged by the same Law!***
Romans For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without
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.
***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!
The Two Babylons and Webster’s "Rest Days" explain how this
"lord of the sun" was specifically worshipped on the day we now call
do we know that
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
is not inconsistent with the rest of scripture in
regards to her sabbaths being the Saturday sabbath, when you consider Jesus
referred to the law as the Jew’s law. Regardless, "her new moons"
would imply the pagan nations around
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 And I will visit upon her 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 forgat me, saith the LORD.
The context shows these "days" to be a period of time, not unlike saying "the days of my youth."
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?
The author offers no
historical evidence to support his claim. But what is odd is that he claims
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?
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
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.
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. , 14). When people break God’s Law—any part of it—the penalty is death (Rom. ). God says, "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy." Men say, "Ignore this command and keep Sunday holy instead." This is a COLOSSAL SIN, carrying terrible consequences!***
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"
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 If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation.
***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
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.
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
used the prophet Ezekiel to warn today’s modern descendants of
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
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 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
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).
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 But this cometh to pass, that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause.
John It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true.
John Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
Ezekiel 20:21, God plainly said, "They polluted MY Sabbaths!" Of
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!
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 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
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?
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.
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
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 -45 And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God. But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy, and spake against those things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming.
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.
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.
we examine ACTS 16:12-15, an account of Paul and Silas observing the Sabbath in
Acts -13 And from thence to
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 -21 And from
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 ." Since God counts days from sunset to sunset (Lev. ; Gen. 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31), this was what we would call Saturday night. It had nothing to do with a Sunday morning worship service. Paul was a visiting apostle. Such an event was special, and people wanted to hear him preach as long as possible. And it was a farewell sermon.***
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?
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.
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.
it was done at one specific time—when Paul passed through ("I will come by
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!
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 For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision:
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.
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
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.
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 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.
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 speaks to any who might try to have a "just you and me, God" attitude. (See I Cor. 12:12-20.)***
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
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 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
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 , 24). It is impossible to worship the true God of creation on the wrong day.***
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 ). Now notice what Paul wrote: "For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: BUT HE IS A JEW, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God" (Rom. 2:28-29).***
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?
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 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.
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 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law. 25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.
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. ). Let no one tell you otherwise!***
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. ). Just a few verses later, God gives insight—and powerful instruction—through Paul, regarding how He views those who waver, cease to hold fast and pull back from faithfulness: "But if any man draw back, My soul shall have no pleasure in him. But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul" (vs. 38-39). Do you believe God’s instruction throughout this book?***
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. ). Yes, ministers are necessary so that people can be properly led within the truth. Yet members also have responsibilities toward the Church.***
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.
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 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
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.’
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.’
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
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.