From the book "The Sabbath Under Crossfire"
by Dr. Samuele Bacciocchi Ph.D.
Chapter 6
PAUL AND THE SABBATH
The most popular weapons used to attack the Sabbath are the
following three Pauline texts: Colossians 2:14-17, Galatians
4:8-11, and Romans 10:4-5. Of these references, greater
importance has been attached to Colossians 2:14-17, inasmuch as
the passage explicitly speaks of Christ's nailing something to
the Cross (Col 2:14) and warns against paying heed to regulations
regarding several things, including "a sabbath" (Col 2:16).
Based on these texts, the predominant historical consensus has
been that Paul regarded the Sabbath as part of the Old Covenant
that was nailed to the Cross.1
Paul K. Jewett exemplifies the historical interpreta tion
when he writes: "Paul's statement (Col 2:16) comes as near to a
demonstration as anything could, that he taught his converts they
had no obligation to observe the seventh-day Sabbath of the Old
Testament." 2
This popular view has been adopted and defended recently by
former Sabbatarians. For example, commenting on Colossians
2:16-17, the Worldwide Church of God affirms: "Under the laws of
Moses, the Sabbathwas a law by which people were judged. But
Jesus' crucifixion has changed that. Now the Sabbath is no longer
a basis for judgment." 3
The implication is that Christians are no longer held
accountable for transgressing the Sabbath commandment because it
was a ""shadow' of things to come."4
In "Sabbath in Crisis," Dale Ratzlaff categorically affirms:
"In every instance in the epistles [of Paul] where there is
teaching about the Sabbath, that teaching suggests that the
Sabbath either undermines the Christian's standing in Christ, or
is nonessential ... The Sabbath is said to be enslaving.
Observance of the Sabbath, and the related old covenant
convocations, made Paul `fear' that he had labored in vain." 5
Ratzlaff goes so far as to say that, according to Paul, "the
observance of the Sabbath by Christians seriously undermines the
finished work of Christ." 6
Did Paul take such a strong stand against the Sabbath,
warning his converts against the detrimental effects of its
observance in their Christian life? Did the Apostle really find
Sabbathkeeping so dangerous? In what way could the act of
stopping our work on the Sabbath to allow our Savior to work in
our lives more fully and freely "seriously undermine the finished
work of Christ"?
Objectives of This Chapter.
This chapter seeks to answer these questions by examining
Paul's attitude toward the Sabbath as reflected primarily in
Colossians 2:14-17 and secondarily in Galatians 4:8-11 and Romans
14:5-6. We endeavor to establish whether Paul advocated the
abrogation or the permanence of the principle and practice of
Sabbathkeeping.
PART 1
COLOSSIANS 2:14-17: APPROBATION OR CONDEMNATION OF THE SABBATH?
(1) The Colossian Heresy
Paul's reference to the observance of "Sabbaths" in
Colossians 2:16 is only one aspect of the "Colossian heresy"
refuted by Paul. It is necessary, therefore, to ascertain first
of all the overall nature of the false teachings that threatened
to "disqualify" (Col 2:18) the Colossian believers. Were these
teachings Mosaic ordinances and can they be identified with the
"written document-cheirographon" which God through Christ `wiped
out ... removed, nailed to the cross" (Col 2:14)?
Most commentators define the Colossian heresy as
syncretistic teachings which incorporated both Hellenistic and
Jewish elements. Such a false teaching had both a theological and
practical aspect.
Theological Aspect.
Theologically, the Colossian "philosophy" (Col 2:8) was
competing with Christ for believer's allegiance. Its source of
authority was human "tradition" (Col 2:8), and its object was to
impart true "wisdom" (Co1 2:3,23), "knowledge" (Col 2:2-3; 3:10)
and the assurance access to and participation in the divine
"fullness" (Col 2:9-10; 1:19).
To attain divine fullness, Christians were urged to do
homage to cosmic principalities (Col 2:10,15), to "the elements
of the universe" (Col 2:8, 20), and to angelic powers (2:15,18),
following ritualistic ascetic practices (Col 2:11-14,16,17,
21-22).
To gain protection from these cosmic powers and
principalities, the Colossian "philosophers" urged Christians to
offer cultic adoration to angelic powers (Col 2:15,18,19,23) and
to follow ritualistic and ascetic practices (Col 2:11,14,16,
17,21,22). By that process, one was assured of access to and
participation in the divine "fullness pleroma" (Col 2:9,10, cf.
1:19). Essentially, then, the theological error consisted in
interposing inferior mediators in place of the Head Himself,
Jesus Christ (Col 2:9-10,18-19).
Practical Aspect.
The practical outcome of the theological speculations of the
Colossian heretics was their insistence on strict ascetism and
ritualism. These consisted in "putting off the body of flesh"
(Col 2:11 - apparently meaning withdrawal from the world);
rigorous treatment of the body (Col 2:23); prohibition to either
taste or touch certain kinds of foods and beverages (Col
2:16,21), and careful observance of sacred days and
seasons-festival, new moon, Sabbath (Col 2:16).
Christians presumably were led to believe that by submitting
to these ascetic practices, they were not surrendering their
faith in Christ but rather, they were receiving added protection
and were assured of full access to the divine fullness. This may
be inferred both from Paul's distinction between living
"according to the elements of the universe" and "according to
Christ" (Col 2:8) and from the Apostle's insistence on the
supremacy of the incarnate Christ. "In him the whole fullness of
deity dwells bodily" (Col 2:9); therefore Christians attain "the
fullnesspleroma" of life not by worshipping the elements of the
universe, but through Christ, "who is the head of all rule and
authority" (2:10; cf. 1:15-20; 3:3).
This bare outline suffices to show that the Sabbath is not
mentioned in the passage in the context of a direct discussion of
the Old Covenant law, as Ratzlaff claims,' but rather in the
context of syncretistic beliefs and practices, which included
elements from the Old Testament. Presumably the latter provided a
justification for the ascetic principles advocated by the
Colossian "philosophers." We are not informed what type of
Sabbath observance these teachers promoted; nevertheless, on the
basis of their emphasis on scrupulous adherence to "regulations,"
it is apparent that the day was to be observed in a most rigorous
and superstitious manner.
Circumcision and Baptism.
To combat the above false teachings, Paul chose to extol the
centrality and superiority of Christ who possesses "the fullness
of deity" (Col 2:9) and provides full redemption and forgiveness
of sin (Col 2:11-14). To emphasize the certainty and fullness of
Christ's forgiveness, Paul utilizes three metaphors:
circumcision, baptism, and "the written document" (Col 2:11-14).
Of the first two metaphors, Paul says: "In him also you were
circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting
off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; and you were
buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with
him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the
dead. And you, who were dead in trespasses and the uncircumcision
of the flesh, God has made alive together with him, having
forgiven us all our trespasses" (Col 2:11-13).
To support his contention that the Sabbath is part of the
Old Covenant nailed to the Cross, Ratzlaff interprets Paul's
reference to the circumcision and baptism in this passage as
indicating that the Old Covenant, of which circumcision was the
entrance sign, has been replaced by the New Covenant, of which
baptism is the entrance sign. "Circumcision not only served as
the entrance sign to the old covenant, Paul shows how it also
pointed forward to Christ, yet it does not continue as a sign in
the new covenant. In the new covenant baptism replaces
circumcision." 8
The problem with Ratzlaff's interpretation is his failure to
recognize that Paul is not comparing or contrasting the Old and
New Covenants, but affirming the benefits of Christ's death and
resurrection through the imageries of circumcision and baptism.
The imageries of circumcision and baptism are not used by Paul to
discuss the Old and New Covenants, but to affirm the fullness of
God's forgiveness, accomplished by Christ on the cross and
extended through baptism to the Christian. Indeed, the
proclamation of God's forgiveness constitutes Paul's basic answer
to those attempting perfection by submitting to worship of angels
(Col 2:18) and of the "elements of the world" (Col 2:8) by means
of ascetic practices.
(2) The Written Document Nailed to the Cross
To further emphasize the certainty and fullness of divine
forgiveness explicitly mentioned in verses 11-13, Paul utilizes a
legal metaphor in verse 14, namely that of God as a judge who
"wiped out.... removed [and] nailed to the cross ... the written
document-cheirographon."
Mosaic Law?
What is the "written document - - cheirographon" nailed to
the Cross? Traditionally, it has been interpreted to be the
Mosaic Law with all its ordinances, including the Sabbath, which
God allegedly set aside and nailed to the Cross. This
interpretation is defended by Ratzlaff who writes: "What was the
`certificate of debt' or 'decrees' which were nailed to the
cross? In context, Paul has been speaking of the old covenant.
Was the old covenant 'against us'? We should remember from our
study of the old covenant that one of its functions was to act as
a 'testimony' against Israel if they sinned ... (Deut 31:26). The
cursing associated with the broken law and the ability of the law
to condemn were both taken away when Christ was nailed to the
Cross. 'There is therefore no condemnation for those who are in
Christ Jesus' (Rom 8:1)." 9
This interpretation has several serious problems. First, the
wrong assumption is made that the Old Covenant was "against us."
If that were true, God would be guilty of establishing a covenant
that was against His people. Could a gracious, redeeming God do
such an unjust thing? What was against the people was not the
covenant, which is God's commitment to save, but their sins which
were exposed by the Law. The reason there is "no condemnation for
those who are in Christ Jesus" (Rom 8:1) is not because Christ
nailed to the Cross "the ability of the law to condemn," thus
leaving mankind without moral principles, but because God sent
"his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh ... in order that
the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who
walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit" (Rom
8:3-4).
Even more serious is Ratzlaff's misinterpretation of the
"written document" that was nailed to the Cross. He interprets
this document to be the Old Covenant including the Sabbath, which
God allegedly set aside and nailed to the Cross." 10
This popular and traditional interpretation has largely been
discredited by modern scholarship for at least two reasons.
First, as Eduard Lobse points out in his commentary on
Colossians, "in the whole of the epistle the word law is not used
at all. Not only that, but the whole significance of the law,
which appears unavoidable for Paul when he presents his gospel,
is completely absent." 11
Second, this interpretation detracts from the immediate
argument designed to prove the fullness of God's forgiveness. The
wiping out of the moral and/or ceremonial law would hardly
provide Christians with the divine assurance of forgiveness.
Guilt is not removed by destroying law codes. The latter would
only leave mankind without moral principles. The validity of
these comments is acknowledged even by Douglas R. De Lacey,
Professor of New Testament at Cambridge University and
contributor to the scholarly symposium From Sabbath to the Lord's
Day, which is largely a response to my dissertation From Sabbath
to Sunday. De Lacey writes: "Bacchiocchi lays great stress on the
fact that the term nomos [law] is entirely absent from
Colossians, and although his own interpretation at times fails to
convince, he is surely right in his conclusion that this passage
cannot be interpreted as stating that the Mosaic law itself was
'wiped out' in the death of Christ." 12
Record Book of Sin.
The meaning of "cheirographon," which occurs only once in
Scripture (Col 2:14), has been clarified by recent studies on the
usage of the term in apocalyptic and rabbinic literature. 13
The term is used to denote the "record book of sins" or a
"certificate of sinindebtedness" but not the moral or ceremonial
law. This view is supported also by the clause "and this he has
removed out of the middle" (Col 2:14). "The middle" was the
position occupied at the center of the court or assembly by the
accusing witness. In the context of Colossians, the accusing
witness is the "record book of sins" which God in Christ has
erased and removed out of the court.
By this daring metaphor, Paul affirms the completeness of
God's forgiveness. Through Christ, God has "cancelled," "set
aside," and "nailed to the cross" "the written record of our sins
which because of the regulations was against us." The legal basis
of the record of sins was "the binding statutes," or
"regulations" (tois dogmasin), but what God destroyed on the
Cross was not the legal ground (law) for our entanglement into
sin, but the written record of our sins.
By destroying the evidence of our sins, God also "disarmed
the principalities and powers" (Col 2:15) since it is no longer
possible for them to accuse those who have been forgiven. There
is no reason, therefore, for Christians to feel incomplete and to
seek the help of inferior mediators since Christ has provided
complete redemption and forgiveness.
We conclude, then, that the document nailed to the Cross is
not the Law, in general, or the Sabbath, in particular, but
rather the record of our sins. Any attempt to read into this text
a reference to the Law or the Sabbath lacks contextual and
linguistic support.
(3) Approbation or Condemnation of Sabbathkeeping?
Having refuted the theological speculations of the Colossian
false teachers by reaffirming the supremacy of Christ and the
fullness of His redemption (Col 2:8-15), Paul turns to some
practical aspects of their -religious practices, saying:
"Therefore, let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food
and drink or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a
sabbath. These are only a shadow of what is to come; but the
substance belongs to Christ" (Col 2:16-17).
Warning Against the Sabbath?
Historically, this passage has been interpreted, as stated
by Luther, that "here Paul abolished the Sabbath by name and
called it a bygone shadow because the body, which is Christ
himself, has come." 14
Ratzlaff interprets the passage along the same line, saying:
"The context makes it clear that Paul is against those who are
trying to force the Colossians to keep the Sabbath and other old
covenant convocations. They are to allow no one to make them feel
guilty for not observing them." 15
He interprets the statement "Therefore, let no one pass
judgment on you . . ." as a warning from Paul against the five
mentioned practices, which include the Sabbath. 16
This interpretation is wrong because in this passage Paul
warns the Colossians not against the observances of these
practices as such, but against "anyone" (tis) who passes judgment
on how to eat, to drink, and to observe sacred times. The judge
who passed judgment is not Paul but the Colossians false teachers
who imposed "regulations" (Col 2:20) on how to observe these
practices in order to achieve "rigor of devotion and
selfabasement and severity to the body" (Col 2:23).
Douglas De Lacey, a contributor to the scholarly symposium
From Sabbath to the Lord's Day cited earlier, rightly comments:
"The judge is likely to be a man of ascetic tendencies who
objects to the Colossians' eating and drinking. The most natural
way of taking the rest of the passage is not that he also imposes
a ritual of feast days, but rather that he objects to certain
elements of such observation." 17
Presumably the "judge" wanted the community to observe these
practices in a more ascetic way ("severity to the body"-Col 2:23,
21); to put it bluntly, he wanted the Colossian believers to do
less feasting and more fasting.
Approbation of the Sabbath.
By warning against the right of the false teachers to "pass
judgment" on how to observe festivals, Paul is challenging not
the validity of the festivals as such but the authority of the
false teachers to legislate the manner of their observance. The
obvious implication, then, is that Paul in this text is
expressing not a condemnation but an approbation of the mentioned
practices, which include Sabbathkeeping.
It is noteworthy that even De Lacey reaches this conclusion,
in spite of his view that Paul did not expect Gentile converts to
observe the Sabbath. He writes: "Here again (Col 2:16), then, it
seems that Paul could happily countenance Sabbathkeeping ....
However, we interpret the situation, Paul's statement `Let no one
pass judgement on you,' indicates that no stringent regulations
are to be laid down over the use of festivals." 18
Troy Martin, Professor at Saint Xavier University in
Chicago, comes to the same conclusion in a recent article
published in New Testament Studies. He writes: "This essay
provides evidence that the Pauline community at Colossae, not the
opponents, practices the temporal schemes outlined by Colossians
2:16.... This investigation into the function of the list in
Colossians 2:16 indicates that the Colossians Christians, not
their critics, participate in a religious calendar that includes
festivals, new moons, and Sabbaths." 19
It is encouraging to see scholars finally recognizing that,
contrary to the traditional and popular interpretation advocated
by people like Ratzlaff, Colossians 2:16 is not the death knell
of Sabbathkeeping in the New Testament but, instead, a proof of
its Pauline approbation. Why does Ratzlaff totally ignore the
conclusion of Prof. De Lacey (and others), though he uses the
symposium as the major resource for his own book? Most likely
because he does not want readers to learn about anything that
contradicts his anti-Sabbath interpretation of Colossians 2:16.
This methodology is hardly reflective of responsible scholarship
which requires the examination of opposing views before
presenting one's own conclusions.
(4) The Manner of Sabbathkeeping
What is the nature of the "regulations" promoted by the
Colossians false teachers regarding food and festivals, including
the weekly Sabbath? Regretfully, Paul gives us only few catch
phrases such as "self-abasement and worship of angels," "rigor of
devotion ... severity to the body" (Col 2:18, 23) and their
teachings-"Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch" (Co1 2:21).
These catch phrases indicate that the regulations did not derive
from the Levitical law since nowhere does the latter contemplate
such an ascetic program. Though the designation of the festivals
is Jewish, the motivation and manner of their observance stems
from pagan syncretistic ideologies.
Eduard Lohse perceptively notes that "In the context of
Colossians, the command to keep festival, new moon, and Sabbath
is not based on the Torah according to which Israel received the
Sabbath as a sign of her election from among the nations. Rather
the sacred days must be kept for the sake of 'the elements of the
universe' who direct the course of the stars and also prescribe
minutely the order of the calendar ... The 'philosophy' made use
of terms which stemmed from Jewish tradition, but which had been
transformed in the crucible of syncretism to be subject to the
service of `the elements of the universe." 20
In the ancient world there was widespread belief that
ascetism and fasting enabled a person to come closer to a deity
and to receive divine revelation. 21
In the case of the Colossian "philosophy," the dietary
taboos and the observance of sacred times were apparently
regarded as an expression of subjection to and worship of the
cosmic powers (elements) of the universe.
Paul's warning against the "regulations" of the false
teachers cannot be interpreted as a condemnation of Mosaic laws
regarding food and festivals, since what the Apostle condemns is
not the teachings of Moses but their perverted use by Colossian
false teachers. A precept is not nullified by the condemnation of
its perversion.
Shadow of the Reality.
Paul continues his argument in the following verse, saying:
"These are the shadow of what is to come; but the substance
belongs to Christ" (Col 2:17). To what does the relative pronoun
"these" (ha in Greek) refer? Does it refer to the five practices
mentioned in the previous verse or to the "regulations" (dogmata)
regarding these practices promoted by the false teachers?
In a previous study, I argued for the former, suggesting that
Paul places dietary practices and the observance of days "in
their proper perspective with Christ by means of the contrast
'shadow-body.'" 22
Additional reflection caused me to change my mind and to
agree with Eduard Lohse that the relative pronoun "these" refers
not to the five mentioned practices as such, but rather to the
"regulations" regarding such practices promoted by the false
teachers. 23
A Reference to "Regulations."
This conclusion is supported by two considerations. First,
in verse 16, Paul is not warning against the merits or demerits
of the Mosaic law regarding food and festivals, but against the
"regulations" regarding these practices advocated by the false
teachers. Thus, it is more plausible to take "the regulations"
rather than the actual practices as the antecedent of "these."
Second, in the verses that immediately follow, Paul
continues his warning against the deceptive teachings, saying,
for example, "Let no one disqualify you, insisting on
self-abasement..." (Col 2:18); "Why do you submit to regulations,
'Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch'?" (Col 2:20-21).
Since what precedes and what follows that relative pronoun
"these" deals with the "regulations" of the Colossian
"philosophy," it is most likely that Paul describes the latter as
"a shadow of what is to come" (Col 2:17).
The proponents of the Colossian "philosophy" presumably
maintained that their "regulations" represented a copy which
enabled the believer to have access to the reality ("fullness").
In such a case, Paul is turning their argument against them by
saying that their regulations "are only a shadow of what is to
come; but the substance belongs to Christ" (Col 2:17). By
emphasizing that Christ is the "body" and the "head" (Col 2:17,
19), Paul indicates that any "shadow" cast by the regulations has
no significant value.
In the light of the above indications, we conclude that what
Paul calls a "bygone shadow" is not the Sabbath but the deceptive
teachings of the Colossian "philosophy" which promoted dietary
practices and the observance of sacred times as auxiliary aids to
salvation.
(5) The Sabbath in Colossians 2:16
The "regulations" advocated by the Colossian "philosophy"
had to do not only with "food and drink" but also with sacred
times referred to as "a festival or a new moon or a sabbath" (Col
2:16). Commentators agree that these three words represent a
logical and progressive sequence (annual, monthly, and weekly),
as well as an exhaustive enumeration of sacred times. This
interpretation is validated by the occurrence of these terms in
similar or reverse sequence five times in the Septuagint and
several other times.in other literature. 24
Some view the "sabbaths---sabbaton" as a reference to annual
ceremonial Sabbaths rather than the weekly Sabbath (Lev 23:6-8,
21,24-25,27-28,37-38).25 Such a view, however, breaks the logical
and progressive sequence and ignores the fact that in the
Septuagint the annual ceremonial Sabbaths are never designated
simply as "sabbath" (sabbaton), but always with the compound
expression "Sabbath of Sabbaths" (sabbata sabbaton). Indications
such as these compellingly show that the word "sabbaton" used in
Colossians 2:16 cannot refer to any of the annual ceremonial
Sabbaths.
Weekdays.
The plural form "Sabbaths" (sabbaton) is used in Scripture
to designate not only the seventh-day Sabbath but also the week
as a whole (Greek Septuagint on Ps 23:1; 47:1; 93:1; Mark 16:2;
Luke 24:1; Acts 20:7). This fact suggests the possibility that
the term "Sabbath" may refer to weekdays as a whole. 26
The latter view harmonizes better with the sequence of the
enumeration which suggests yearly, monthly, and weekly
festivities.
A similar sequence, though in reverse order, is given by
Paul in Galatians 4:10 where he opposes a strikingly similar
teaching which included the observance of "days, and months, and
seasons, and years." The fact that the Galatian list begins with
"days" (hemeras, plural) suggests the possibility that the
"Sabbaths" in Colossians may also refer to weekdays, in general,
rather than to the seventh-day Sabbath, in particular.
Assuming for the sake of inquiry that the "sabbaths" in
Colossians do refer to or include the Sabbath day, the question
to be considered is this: What kind of Sabbath observance would
the false teachers advocate? The data provided by Colossians are
too meager to answer this question conclusively. Yet the nature
of the heresy allows us to conclude that the rigoristic emphasis
on observance of dietary rules would undoubtedly be carried over
to Sabbathkeeping as well. The veneration of "the elements of the
universe" would also affect the observance of the Sabbath and of
sacred times, since it was commonly believed that the astral
powers, which direct the stars, control both the calendar and
human lives. 27
We know that in the pagan world Saturday was regarded as an
unlucky day because of its association with the planet Saturn. 28
In view of the prevailing astral superstitions associated with
the days of the week, any Sabbath observance promoted by the
Colossians' ascetic teachersknown for their worship of the
elements of the world-could only have been of a rigorous,
superstitious type. A warning against such a superstitious type
of Sabbathkeeping by Paul would have been not only appropriate
but also desirable. In this case, Paul could be attacking not the
principle of Sabbathkeeping but its perverted function and
motivation which adulterated the ground of salvation. This
conclusion is confirmed by two other Pauline passages (Rom
14:4-5; Gal 4:10) to be considered now.
PART 2
THE SABBATH IN ROMANS AND GALATIANS
(1) The Sabbath in Romans
The Sabbath is not specifically mentioned in Paul's Epistle
to the Romans. However, in chapter 14, the Apostle distinguishes
between two types of believers: the "strong" who believed "he may
eat anything" and the "weak" who ate only "vegetables" and drank
no wine (Rom 14:2, 21). The difference extended also to the
observance of days, as indicated by Paul's statement: "One man
esteems one day as better than another, while another man esteems
all days alike. Let every one be fully convinced in his own mind"
(Rom 14:5).
Many Christians maintain that the weekly Sabbath comes
within the scope of this distinction respecting days. They
presume that the "weak" believers esteemed the Sabbath better
than other days while "the strong" treated the Sabbath like the
rest of the weekdays. For example, the Worldwide Church of God
uses Romans 14:5 to argue that "Paul did not teach Gentile
Christians to keep the Sabbath. He actually told them that the
Sabbath was not an area in which we should be judged." 29 "That
is because something had happened to change the basis of our
relationship with God ... the crucifixion and resurrection of
Jesus Christ. Because of that, the Old Covenant laws came to an
end. Days are no longer a matter for judging behavior." 30 In a
similar vein, Ratzlaff concludes that "The `days' mentioned in
this chapter [Rom 14:5] that some `regard' and `observe' over
other days, are probably Sabbath days, although the evidence is
not conclusive." 31
No Reference to Mosaic Law.
Can the Sabbath be legitimately read into this passage? The
answer is "No!" for at least three reasons. First, the conflict
between the "weak" and the "strong" over diet and days cannot be
traced back to the Mosaic law. The "weak man" who "eats only
vegetables" (Rom 14:2), drinks no wine (Rom 14:21), and "esteems
one day as better [apparently for fasting] than another" (Rom
14:5) can claim no support for such convictions from the Old
Testament. Nowhere does the Mosaic law prescribe strict
vegetarianism, total abstinence from fermented and unfermented
wine, 32 and a preference for fasting days.
Similarly, the "strong man" who "believes he may eat
anything" (Rom 14:2) and who "esteems all days alike" is not
asserting his freedom from the Mosaic law but from ascetic
beliefs apparently derived from sectarian movements. The whole
discussion then is not about freedom to observe the law versus
freedom from its observance, but concerns "unessential" scruples
of conscience dictated not by divine precepts but by human
conventions and superstitions. Since these differing convictions
and practices did not undermine the essence of the Gospel, Paul
advises mutual tolerance and respect in this matter.
That the Mosaic law is not at stake in Romans 14 is also
indicated by the term "koinos---common" which is used in verse 14
to designate "unclean" food. This term is radically different
from the word "akathartos impure" used in Leviticus 11
(Septuagint) to designate unlawful foods. This suggests that the
dispute was not over meat which was unlawful according to the
Mosaic Law, but about meat which per se was lawful to eat but
because of its association with idol worship (cf. 1 Cor 8:1-13)
was regarded by some as "koinos---common," that is, to be avoided
by Christians.
A second point to note is that Paul applies the basic
principle "observe it in honor of the Lord" (Rom 14:6) only to
the case of the person "who observes the day." He never says the
opposite, namely, "the man who esteems all days alike, esteems
them in honor of the Lord." In other words, with regard to diet,
Paul teaches that one can honor the Lord both by eating and by
abstaining (Rom 14:6); but with regard to days, he does not even
concede that the person who regards all the days alike does so to
the Lord. Thus, Paul hardly gives his endorsement to those who
esteemed all days alike.
Sabbathkeeping: For "Weak" Believers?
Finally, if as generally presumed, it was the "weak"
believer who observed the Sabbath, Paul would classify himself
with the "weak" since he observed the Sabbath and other Jewish
feasts (Acts 18:4,19; 17:1,10,17; 20:16). Paul, however, views
himself as "strong" ("we who are strong" - Rom 15:1); thus, he
could not have been thinking of Sabbathkeeping when he speaks of
the preference over days.
Support for this conclusion is also provided by Paul's
advice: "Let every one be fully convinced in his own mind" (Rom
14:5). It is difficult to see how Paul could reduce the
observance of holy days such as the Sabbath, Passover, and
Pentecost to a matter of personal conviction without ever
explaining the reason for it. This is especially surprising since
he labors at great length to explain why circumcision was not
binding upon the Gentiles.
If Paul taught his Gentile converts to regard Sabbathkeeping
as a personal matter, Jewish Christians readily would have
attacked his temerity in setting aside the Sabbath law, as they
did regarding circumcision (Acts 21:21). The fact that there is
no hint of any such controversy in the New Testament indicates
that Paul never discouraged Sabbathkeeping or encouraged
Sundaykeeping instead. 33
No Hint of Conflict.
The preference over days in Romans presumably had to do with
fast days rather than feast days, since the context deals with
abstinence from meat and wine (Rom 14:2,6,21). Support for this
view is provided by the Didache (ch. 8) which enjoins Christians
to fast on Wednesday and Friday rather than on Monday and
Thursday like the Jews.
Paul refuses to deliberate on private matters such as
fasting, because he recognizes that spiritual exercises can be
performed in different ways by different people. The important
thing for Paul is to "pursue what makes for peace and for mutual
upbuilding" (Rom 14:19).
If the conflict in the Roman Church had been over the
observance of holy days, the problem would have been even more
manifest than the one over diet. After all, eating habits are a
private matter, but Sabbath keeping is a public, religious
exercise of the whole community. Any disagreement on the latter
would have been not only noticeable but also inflammatory.
The fact that Paul devotes 21 verses to the discussion of food
and less than two verses (Rom 14:5-6) to that of days suggests
that the latter was a very limited problem for the Roman Church,
presumably because it had to do with private conviction on the
merit or demerit of doing certain spiritual exercises such as
fasting on some specific days.
In the Roman world there was a superstitious belief that
certain days were more favorable than others for undertaking some
specific projects. The Fathers frequently rebuked Christians for
adopting such a superstitious mentality. 34 Possibly, Paul
alludes to this kind of problem, which at his time was still too
small to deserve much attention. Since these practices did not
undermine the essence of the Gospel, Paul advises mutual
tolerance and respect on this matter. In the light of these
considerations, we conclude that it is hardly possible that
Sabbathkeeping is included in the "days" of Romans 14:5.
(2) The Sabbath in Galatians
In Galatians, as in Romans, there is no specific reference
to the Sabbath. Paul does mention, however, that some Galatian
Christians had themselves circumcised (Gal 6:12; 5:2) and had
begun to "observe days, and months, and seasons, and years" (Gal
4:10).
In many respects, the polemic in Galatians 4:8-11 is
strikingly similar to that of Colossians 2:8-23. In both places
the superstitious observance of sacred times is described as
slavery to the "elements." In Galatians, however, the
denunciation of the "false teachers" is stronger. They are
regarded as "accursed" (Gal 1:8, 9) because they were teaching a
"different gospel." Their teaching that the observance of days
and seasons was necessary to justification and salvation
perverted the very heart of the Gospel (Gal 5:4).
Pagan Days or Sabbath Day?
The question to be addressed is whether the "days"
(hemerai---Gal 4:10) observed by the Galatians were superstitious
pagan holidays or the biblical Sabbath day. Some scholars argue
on the basis of the parallel passage of Colossians 2:16, where
"sabbaths" are explicitly mentioned, that the "days" mentioned in
Galatians were the Biblical seventh-day Sabbaths. 35
Ratzlaff affirms categorically this view saying: "We have a
clear reference to the seventh-day Sabbath in this passage [Gal
4:10] for the following four reasons. (1) The context of the book
of Galatians, including chapter 4, is dealing with those 'who
want to be under the law.' (2) Paul's use of 'elemental things'
usually, if not always, refer to that which is contained in the
old covenant. (3) The Galatians were observing days, months,
seasons, and years, thus placing themselves back under the old
covenant law. (4) These convocations are listed in order." 36
Comparison of Colossians 2:16 and Galatians 4:10.
The fundamental problem with Ratzlaff' s four reasons is
that they are based on gratuitous assumptions rather than on a
careful analysis of the context. In the immediate context, Paul
reminds the Galatians that in their preChristian days they "were
slaves to the elemental spirits of the universe" (Gal 4:3). The
"elemental spirits - stoikeia tou kosmou" have nothing to do with
the Old Covenant since the Mosaic Law was unknown to the
Corinthians in their pagan days. Most scholars interpret the
"elements" as the basic elements of this world, such as the
earth, water, air, and fire, or pagan astral gods who were
credited with controlling human destiny. 37
The context clearly indicates that Paul rebukes the
Galatians for turning back to their pagan days by reverting to
their pagan calendar. Thus, the issue is not their adoption of
Jewish Holy Days but their return to observing pagan
superstitious days. Paul makes this point rather clearly:
"Formerly, when you did not know God, you were in bondage to
beings that by nature are no gods; but now that you have come to
know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back
again to the weak and beggarly elemental spirits, whose slaves
you want to be once more? You observe days, and months, and
seasons, and years! I am afraid that I have labored over you in
vain" (Gal 4:8-10).
Two, recent articles by Troy Martin, published in New
Testament Studies and the Journal of Biblical Literature, make a
significant contribution to the understanding of the passage
under consideration. Martin points out that the time-keeping
scheme found in Galatians 4:10 ("days, and months, and seasons,
and years") is clearly different from that found in Colossians
2:16 ("a festival or a new moon or Sabbaths"). He shows that
while the list in Colossians 2:16 is unquestionably Jewish,
because the temporal categories of festival, new moon, and
Sabbaths are characteristic of the Jewish religious calendar, the
list in Galatians 4:10 of "days, and months, and seasons, and
years" "describes a pagan calendar unacceptable to Paul and his
communities." 38
Martin reaches this conclusion by examining not only the
time structure of pagan calendars, 39 but especially the
immediate context where Paul condemns the Galatians' attempt to
return to their pagan practices (Gal 4:8-9) by reverting to the
use of their pagan calendar. "As the immediate context clearly
states, Paul is worried that he has labored for the Galatians in
vain since they have returned to their former pagan life as
evidenced by their renewed preconversion reckoning of time.
Because of its association with idolatry and false deities,
marking time according to this pagan scheme is tantamount to
rejecting Paul's Gospel and the one and only true God it
proclaims (Gal 4:8-9). Galatians 4:10, therefore, stipulates that
when the Galatians accepted Paul's Gospel with its aversion to
idolatry (Gal 4:8), they discarded their pagan method of
reckoning time ... A comparison of these lists demonstrates that
the Gentile conversion to Paul's gospel involves rejection of
idolatrous pagan temporal schemes in favor of the Jewish
liturgical calendar." 40
Gentiles' Adoption of Jewish Calendar.
Troy Martin's conclusion, that the Gentiles' conversion to
the Gospel involved the rejection of their pagan calendar built
upon the idolatrous worship of many gods and the adoption of the
Jewish religious calendar which had been transformed by Christ's
coming, represents in my view a significant breakthrough in our
understanding of the continuity between Judaism and Christianity.
Paul's time references clearly reflect his adoption of the Jewish
religious calendar, though modified and transformed by the coming
of Christ. For example, in 1 Corinthians 16:2, Paul recommends a
fund raising plan for the Jerusalem church consisting of laying
aside at home some money kata mian sabbaton, that is, "every
first day from the Sabbath." The fact that Paul refers to the
first day of the week by the Jewish designation "first day from
the Sabbath," and not by the prevailing pagan name dies solis-Day
of the Sun, reveals that he taught his Gentile converts to
regulate their lives by the Jewish calendar.
In the same epistle, Paul builds an elaborate argument based
upon the festival of Passover and unleavened bread in order to
exhort the Corinthians, "Let us keep the festival" (1 Cor 5:6-8).
The whole argument and exhortation to keep Passover would have
been meaningless to the Gentile congregation of Corinth unless
Paul had taught about the Jewish religious calendar. In the light
of these considerations we conclude, with Martin, that" although
the temporal references in Paul's letters are sparse, 1 Corin-
thians provides strong evidence for the Pauline adoption of the
Jewish practice that marked time by festivals and Sabbaths." 41
The Christian adherance to the Jewish calendar is especially
evident in the book of Acts. Repeatedly, Paul proclaims the
Gospel in synagogues and in the outdoors on the Sabbath (Acts
13:14,44; 16:13; 17:2). In Troas, Paul speaks to the believers on
the first day from Sabbath (mia ton sabbaton) (Acts 20:7). The
portrayal of Paul in Acts," as Martin points out, "supplies clear
evidence that Christians mark time by segments of festivals and
Sabbaths." 42
This conclusion is clearly supported by Colossians 2:16
where we find the standard Jewish nomenclature of annual feasts,
monthly new moons, and weekly Sabbaths.
The fact that Paul taught his Gentile congregations to
reject their pagan calendar, where the days were named after
planetary gods and the months after deified emperors, and to
reckon time according to the Jewish religious calendar, does not
necessarily mean that he taught them to practice Jewish religious
rituals. The Romans themselves replaced just before the origin of
Christianity their "eight day week-nundinum" with the Jewish
seven-day week and adopted in the first century the Jewish
Sabbath as their new day for rest and feasting, without the
concomitant adoption of the Jewish rituals. 43
By the same token, Paul taught his Gentile converts to
reckon time according to the Jewish religious calendar without
expecting them to practice the rituals associated with it. A good
example is Paul's discussion of the new meaning of the feasts of
Passover and Unleavened Bread in the light of Christ's event (1
Cor 5:6-8). 44
Superstitious Motivation.
Our preceding discussion shows that the temporal categories
of Galatians 4:10 ("days, and months, and seasons, and years")
are pagan and not Jewish, like the list found in Colossians 2:16.
To argue, as Ratzlaff does, that the Galatians were observing the
Old Covenant Holy Days means to ignore the immediate context
where Paul speaks of pagan temporal categories to which the
Galatians were turning back again.
The Galatians' observance of pagan sacred times was
motivated by superstitious beliefs in astral influences. This is
suggested by Paul's charge that their adoption of these practices
was tantamount to a return to their former pagan subjection to
elemental spirits and demons (Gal 4:8-9). Paul's concern is not
to expose the superstitious ideas attached to these observances
but to challenge the whole system of salvation which the
Galatians' false teachers had devised. By conditioning
justification and acceptance with God to such things as
circumcision and the observance of pagan days and seasons, the
Galatians were making salvation dependent upon human achievement.
This for Paul was a betrayal of the Gospel: "You are severed from
Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen
away from grace" (Gal 5:4).
It is within this context that Paul's denouncement of the
observance of days and seasons must be understood. If the
motivations for these observances had not undermined the vital
principle of justification by faith in Jesus Christ, Paul would
only have recommended tolerance and respect, as he does in Romans
14. The motivation for these practices, however, adulterated the
very ground of salvation. Thus the Apostle had no choice but
strongly to reject them. In Galatians as in Colossians, then, it
is not the principle of Sabbathkeeping that Paul opposes, but
rather the perverted use of cultic observations which were
designed to promote salvation as a human achievement rather than
as a divine gift of grace.
Conclusion
Several conclusions emerge from this study of Paul's
attitude toward the law, in general, and the Sabbath, in
particular.
First, the three texts (Col 2:14-16; Rom 14:5, Gal 4:10)
generally adduced as proof of Paul's repudiation of the Sabbath
do not deal with the validity or invalidity of the Sabbath
commandment for Christians but, rather, with ascetic and cultic
practices which undermined (especially in Colossians and
Galatians) the vital principle of justification by faith in Jesus
Christ.
Second, in the crucial passage of Colossians 2:16, Paul's
warning is not against the validity of observing the Sabbath and
festivals as such but against the authority of false teachers to
legislate on the manner of their observance. Implicitly, Paul
expresses approval rather than disapproval of their observance.
Any condemnation had to do with a perversion rather than a
precept.
Third, Paul's tolerance with respect to diet and days (Rom
14:36) indicates that he would not have promoted the abandonment
of the Sabbath and the adoption of Sunday observance instead. If
he had done so, he would have encountered endless disputes with
Sabbath advocates, especially among Jewish Christians. The
absence of any trace of such a polemic is perhaps the most
telling evidence of Paul's respect for the institution of the
Sabbath.
In the final analysis, Paul's attitude toward the Sabbath
must be determined not on the basis of his denunciation of
heretical and superstitious observances which may have influenced
Sabbathkeeping, but rather on the basis of his overall attitude
toward the law.
The failure to understand that Paul rejects the law as a
method of salvation but upholds it as a moral standard of
Christian conduct has been the root cause of much
misunderstanding of Paul's attitude toward the law, in general,
and toward the Sabbath, in particular. May this study contribute
to clarify this misunderstanding and allow us to discover, with
Paul, that "the law is good, if any one uses it lawfully" (1 Tim
1:8).
NOTES TO CHAPTER 6
l. For a brief historical survey of this interpretation, see
Samuele Bacchiocchi, "Paul and the Sabbath," in From Sabbath to
Sunday (Rome, 1977), Appendix, pp.339-343.
2. Paul K. Jewett, "The Lord's Day: A Theological Guide to the
Christian Day of Worship" (Grand Rapids, 1971), p.45.
3. "The Sabbath in Acts and the Epistles," Bible Study prepared
by the Worldwide Church of God and posted in its web page
(www.wcg.org, September, 1998), p.2.
4. Ibid.
5. Dale Ratzlaff, "Sabbath in Crisis: Transfer/Modification?
Reformation/Continuation? Fulfilment/Transformation?" (Applegate,
California, 1990), pp.173-174.
6. Ibid., p.174.
7. Commenting on Colossians 2:14,15, Ratzlaff writes: "What was
the 'certificate of debt' or the 'decrees' which were nailed to
the Cross? In context, Paul has been speaking about the old
covenant" (note 5, p.156). This cannot be true, because in the
context Paul refutes the Colossian heresy by affirming the
fullness of God's forgiveness.
8. Dale Ratzlaff (note 5), pp.155-156.
9. Ibid., p.156.
10.Ibid., pp.156-161.
11. Eduard Lohse, "A Commentary on the Epistles to the Colossians
and to Philemon" (Philadelphia, 1971), p.116. In a similar vein,
Herold Weiss emphasizes that in Paul's argument (Col 2:8-19), the
law "plays no role at all" ("The Law in the Epistle to the
Colossians," The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 34 [1972]: 311).
12. Douglas R. De Lacey, "The Sabbath/Sunday Question and the Law
in the Pauline Corpus," "From Sabbath to Lord's Day. A Biblical,
Historical, and Theological Investigation," ed. Donald A. Carson
(Grand Rapids, 1982), p.173. Emphasis supplied.
13. For a lengthy list of commentators who interpret the
cheirographon either as the "certificate of indebtedness"
resulting from our transgressions or as the "book containing the
record of sin," see Samuele Bacchiocchi, "From Sabbath to Sunday.
A Historical Investigation of the Rise of Sunday Observance in
Early Christianity" (Rome, 1977), Appendix, pp.349-350.
14. Martin Luther, "Wider die himmlischen Propheten," in his
Samtliche Schriften, ed. by Johann Georg Walch (1890), vol. XX,
col. 148.
15. Dale Ratzlaff (note 5), p.163. 1
16. Ibid., pp.161-162.
17. Douglas R. De Lacey (note 12), p.182.
18. Ibid., emphasis supplied.
19. Troy Martin, "Pagan and Judeo-Christian Time-keeping Schemes
in Galatians 4:10 and Colossians 2:16," New Testament Studies 42
(1996), p.111.
20. Eduard Lohse (note 11), p.155.
21. For texts and discussion, see G. Bornhamm, "Lakanon, "
Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel
(Grand Rapids, 1967), vol. 4, p.67; also J. Behm writes in the
same Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, IV, p.297: "The
Greeks and Romans knew that abstention makes receptive to
ecstatic revelations."
22. For a discussion of Colossians 2:17, see Samuele Bacchiocchi,
"From Sabbath to Sunday" (note 1), pp.356-357.
23. Eduard Lohse (note 11), p.116.
24. See the Septuagint on 2 Chron 2:4; 31:3; Neh 10:33; Ezek
45:17; Hos 2:11. Also Jub 1:14; Jos. Ber. 3:11; Justin, Dialogue
with Trypho 8:4.
25. See, The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Washington,
D. C., 1957), vol.7, pp.205-206.
26. This is the view of Nobert Hugede, Commentaire de L'Epitre
aux Colossiens (Paris, 1969), p. 144. On the plural usage of
"Sabbaths" to designate the week as a whole, see Eduard Lohse
(note 11), pp.7,20.
27. Gunter Bornhamm emphasizes this view when he writes: "Paul
mentions New Moon and Sabbath (Col 2:16), days, months, season,
and years (Gal 4:10), i.e., in each case days and seasons that do
not stand under the sign of the history of salvation, but under
the sign of the periodic cycles of nature, i.e., corresponding to
the movement of the stars" ("The Heresy of Colossians," in Fred
O. Francis and Wayne A. Meeks, eds., Conflict at Colossae, SBL
Sources for Biblical Study 4, 1973, p.131).
28. Texts and discussion are found in Samuele Bacchiocchi, "From
Sabbath to Sunday" (note 1), pp.173f. and 243.
29. "Paul and the Sabbath," Bible Study prepared by the Worldwide
Church of God and posted in its web page (www.wcg.org, September,
1998), p. l.
30. "The Sabbath in Acts and the Epistles," Bible Study prepared
by the Worldwide Church of God and posted in its web page
(www.wcg.org, September, 1998), p.2.
31. Dale Ratzlaff (note 5), p.169.
32. The Nazarite's vow included abstention from all grape
products (Num 6:2-4). This, however, was a temporary and
voluntary vow. Some, such as Samuel (1 Sam 1:11) and John the
Baptist (Luke 1:15) were Nazarites for life. But we have no
record of a person taking the vow voluntarily for life. Perpetual
vows were taken by parents on behalf of children. The Rechabites
led a nomadic life in tents and abstained from all intoxicating
drinks (Jer 35:1-19). For a study on the Biblical teaching
regarding the use of alcoholic beverages, see Samuele
Bacchiocchi, Wine in the Bible (Berrien Springs, Michigan, 1989).
My study shows that the Bible disapproves of the use of fermented
wine but approves the consumption of unfermented wine, commonly
called "grape juice."
33. Paul K. Jewett wisely acknowledges that "if Paul had
introduced Sunday worship among the Gentiles, it seems likely
Jewish opposition would have accused his temerity in setting
aside the law of the Sabbath, as was the case with the rite of
circumcision (Acts 21:21)" (note 2), p.57.
34. For texts and discussion, see Samuele Bacchiochi, "From
Sabbath to Sunday" (note 1), p.254.
35. See, for example, Willy Rordorf, Sunday: "The History of the
Day of Rest and Worship in the Earliest Centuries of the
Christian Church" (Philadelphia, 1968), p.131; C.S.Mosna, Storia
della Domenica dalle Origini Fino agli Inizi del V. Secolo (Rome,
1969), p.183.
36. Dale Ratzlaff (note 5), p.165.
37. For a discussion of scholarly views regarding the meaning of
stoicheia, see Samuele Bacchiochi, From Sabbath to Sunday (note
1), pp.344-345.
38. Troy Martin (note 19), p.119. See also idem, "But Let
Everyone Discern the Body of Christ (Colossians 2:17)," Journal
of Biblical Literature 114/2 (1995), p.255.
39. For a discussion of the pagan calendar, see also E. J.
Bickerman, "Chronology of the Ancient World" (Ithaca, New York,
1968), pp.70-79.
40. Troy Martin (note 19), pp.117,119.
41. Ibid., pp.108-109.
42. Ibid., p.109.
43. The Roman adoption of the seven-day planetary week just prior
to the beginning of Christianity is discussed at some length in
Samuele Bacchiochi, "From Sabbath to Sunday' (note 1), pp.
238-251.
44. For a discussion of the observance and meaning of Passover/
Unleavened Bread in the New Testament, see Samuele Bacchiocchi,
"God's Festivals in Scripture and History: Volume 1: The Spring
Festivals" (Berrien Springs, Michigan, 1995), pp.75-77.
....................
3. THE FIRST DAY, IS IT REALLY THE LORD'S DAY?
Compiled by Keith Hunt Because certain activities took place on the first day of the
week, such as Jesus appearing to His disciples, or some of them
being together on this day, many have assumed and taught that
this made the first day HOLY or established it as the Christian
Sabbath. Let's not assume anything, but search the Word of God
to see what it plainly tells us about the first day of the week.
In the year 1901 Edward R. Bernard, M.A. then Canon
Residentiary and Chancellor of Salisbury Cathedral, delivered SIX
lectures entitled "THE ENGLISH SUNDAY - ITS ORIGIN AND ITS
CLAIMS." In 1903 these lectures were made into a book, a copy of
which I have in my library. It is a remarkable book for its
plain honesty. Though a supporter of Sunday observance Mr.
Bernard nevertheless says this about Jesus Christ and the 7th day
Sabbath on page 35 (all emphasis is mine throughout).
"......He(Christ) did NOT BREAK the sabbath in the sense of
transgressing the Mosaic law, at least there is no record that He
did, and it is highly improbable. It was part of that law which
He came NOT TO DESTROY but to FULFIL. It was His HABIT to attend
Synagogue worship on that day.....He did not utter a SINGLE WORD
AS TO ITS ABOLITION, but He left it PURIFIED and VINDICATED."
Edward Bernard then goes on to say, " Let us now turn to the
Lord's day.......We must be prepared to find VERY SCANTY TRACES
OF ITS EARLY HISTORY, and NONE WHATSOEVER of its having been
enjoined as a COMMAND."
On page 37 this Chancellor of Salisbury Cathedral says, " It
is PURE IMAGINATION to suppose that directions were given for it
by the Lord Himself. Had there been such, SOME TRADITION of them
would certainly have been preserved for us by the 'fathers' of
the second century."
THE FIRST DAY PASSAGES AND JESUS
There are only EIGHT places in the New Testament(NT) where
the phrase "the first day of the week" occurs.
The first SIX are: Mat.28:1; Mark 16:2,9; Luke 24:1;
John 20:1,19. Please read not only these verses but the whole
CONTEXT and even the entire chapters. We notice that indeed
Jesus did appear to His followers on the first day of the week.
Note what was said by Jesus and the disciples. Here was Christ's
golden OPPORTUNITY to tell His followers that because He had
appeared to them on the first day of the week, THIS DAY would now
be HOLY, this day would now be the CHRISTIAN Sabbath, this day
should now be the day to hold REGULAR church service on. It was
Jesus' opportunity to tell them that the Sabbath of the 4th
commandment which they had JUST FINISHED OBSERVING(Luke
23:54-56), was now "done away with" and the FIRST day was now
the 4th commandment. BUT JESUS NEVER EVER SAID A SINGLE WORD TO
THAT EFFECT, NOR DID HIS DISCIPLES ASK HIM ABOUT IT, OR EVEN
BRING UP THE SUBJECT !
I must spend a little time on John 20:19, as this has often
been put forth as proof that we should now keep the first day as
the Sabbath and hold regular church services on this day.
The followers of Jesus it is said were ASSEMBLED TOGETHER on
this day. And that is indeed true. First, let us notice WHEN this
assembling took place. It was at EVENING, a Sunday NIGHT. John
was using ROMAN reckoning - 12 midnight to 12 midnight, otherwise
it would have been a Saturday night as the Jews reckon the days.
We know from other scripture that it was not a Saturday night, so
it was Sunday night then. See a "Harmony of the Gospels" book.
Now WHY were the disciples assembled together? Was it
because the first day was now HOLY? Was it because Jesus had
instructed them that the first day was now the Sabbath, and
because they had been instructed that church services were to be
held on that first day? NO! Read it in your own Bible. They
were assembled ".....FOR FEAR OF THE JEWS....." The religious
leaders and their rabble followers were still "on the war path"
so to speak against any who claimed to be a disciple of Christ.
If the appearance of Jesus to one or more of His disciples
on the first day or any other day makes that day a Holy Sabbath
or a commanded assembly day, then the day that Christ appeared to
them the THIRD time (John 21:1-14) would also have to be
included. But that day of the week we are not told. Jesus was
seen by them FORTY DAYS (Acts 1:3). All the days of the week on
which He appeared to them is not given to us. Are these days, if
we knew which they were, to be Sabbath days, or days to hold
Church services on?
Those who are really searching for the truth and are being
honest with the scriptures, will have to say along with Edward
Bernard, concerning the so called Lord's Day, "We must be
prepared to find very scanty traces of its early history, and
NONE WHATEVER OF IT HAVING BEEN ENJOINED AS A COMMAND....IT IS
PURE IMAGINATION to suppose that DIRECTIONS were given for it BY
the Lord Himself....."
TWO MORE FIRST DAY SCRIPTURES
Mr.Bernard says on pages 38-39 of his before mentioned book,
" We hear NOTHING MORE of the first day of the week.....but
TWENTY-FIVE YEARS LATER it meets us....in an Epistle of St.Paul.
Writing to the Corinthians (1 Cor.16:2) he mentions it as a
suitable day for putting by what they could spare from the
earnings of the week, for the collection for the poor saints at
Jerusalem....THE PASSAGE DIES NOT NECESSARILY IMPLY THAT
CHRISTIAN ASSEMBLIES WERE HELD ON THAT DAY.....The OFFERINGS
mentioned in 1 Cor.16:2 were to be kept in STORE by the givers
till St.Paul came. In short the course enjoined by him resembled
the MISSIONARY BOX kept in a PRIVATE HOUSE....."
ALBERT BARNES in his notes on the NT has this to say under
'lay by him in store.' " Let him lay up at home, treasuring up
as he had been prospered. The Greek phrase, 'by himself' means
probably, the same as 'at home'......."
What is NOT said in this passage is quite CLEAR to the
honest reader. These verses do not say that the first day of the
week is a HOLY day or now the Christian Sabbath. They do NOT say
that this collection was during a church service or that
Christians were now assembling on the first day of the week for
REGULAR church services, to commemorate the risen Christ, or for
some other specific reason.
Albert Barnes has another very interesting comment under
'upon the first day of the week.' He says, "Greek, 'On one of
the Sabbaths.' The Jews, however, used the word Sabbath to
denote the week - the period of seven days......"
So, this could be understood as Paul saying, "On ONE of the
days of the week" - ANY one of the week days. Paul was not
necessarily telling them to do it on the first day of the week at
all!
For the sake of argument, if you want to take the Greek as
meaning on one of the Sabbaths(7th day of the week), we could see
where this would explain the comment by ADAM CLARKE in his Bible
Commentary. " We may observe that the apostle followed here the
RULE OF THE SYNAGOGUE - it was a regular custom among the Jews to
make their collections for the poor on the SABBATH DAY, that they
might not be without the necessities of life, and might not be
prevented from coming to the synagogue. For the purpose of
making this provision, they had a PURSE.....'The purse of the
arms,' or what we would term, THE POOR'S BOX. this is what the
apostle seems to mean when he says, LET HIM LAY BY HIM IN STORE -
let him put it in the ARM'S PURSE, or in the POOR'S BOX......"
It could then be argued that Paul was telling them to take
up this offering NOT on the FIRST DAY of the week BUT on the
WEEKLY SABBATH(7TH DAY).
IF it was taken up on the first day or any other day of the
week, this IN ITSELF DOES NOT PROVE that by collecting an
offering makes that day HOLY, or the Christian Sabbath.
The last place we will look at where the phrase "the first
day of the week" is used is in Acts 20.
I will again quote from the late EDWARD BERNARD, M.A. page
39-41.
" .......When St.Paul came to Troas he attended a gathering
on the first day of the week......Whether the time of meeting was
on SATURDAY EVENING or on SUNDAY EVENING does not much effect our
present enquiry.....It has been argued that if St.Luke is
following the Jewish mode of reckoning then he considers the
first day of the week to begin on the EVENING of the SEVENTH
day......Even if this be the correct interpretation it CANNOT BE
SAID THAT IT PROVES A CUSTOM OF EARLY MORNING COMMUNION AT THIS
PERIOD, since the prolongatior of St.Paul's discourse is noted
as UNUSUAL,.......It is extremely improbable and unsupported so
far as I know by other evidence......It is I think probable that
St.Luke, Gentile as he was, did not feel strictly ties to the
Jewish mode of reckoning, and therefore is here describing a
gathering which took place on SUNDAY evening. Arising out of the
above comes the question, did St.Paul start on his voyage(Acts
20:7) on a SUNDAY MORNING? This would be the case IF the
gathering met on Saturday evening. In itself there is no
IMPROBABILITY in this but it.....rests on an insecure
footing......"
Again, for the sake of argument, suppose we say this was a
SUNDAY evening gathering. What would be so unusual about that
when you consider that Paul was a travelling EVANGELIST at this
point of his life. He stopped whenever and wherever he could to
preach to whomever would listen. Luke simply records that this
preaching took place on the first day of the week. It is NOT
WRONG to have a travelling minister preach to you on the first
day of the week or any other day of the week for that matter.
BUT, there is NOTHING IN THIS PASSAGE that says the first
day of the week is HOLY, or that it is now the FOURTH
commandment. Nothing here says the first day of the week is
SANCTIFIED, SET APART AS HOLY TIME, or BLESSED in some special
way for the people of God to observe as the 4th commandment.
For the Bible meaning of "to beak bread" please request the
article "The Breaking of Bread, Is it the Communion Service?"
Let me begin to close this study with more words from Edward
BERNARD, " This then is the evidence for the observing of the
first day of the week in Apostolic times. AND HOW VERY LITTLE IT
ALL COMES TO! On the other hand in the book of Acts ALONE, the
SABBATH is mentioned not less than NINE times, most often in
connection with St.Paul's missionary work.....THERE IS NOTHING TO
SHOW THAT THE OBSERVANCE OF THE LORD'S DAY WAS COMPULSORY......In
short, the supposed transference of the Sabbath to the Lord's Day
is a FICTION, which grew up in and AFTER the fourth century" (The
English Sunday, pages 42-44).
HONEST WORDS INDEED from a man who supported, by conducting
church services upon, Sunday observance.
If the WORD of God is your ONLY infallible guide and
foundation as to WHAT is TRUTH, then it should be very plain to
see that the FIRST day of the week(Sunday) was NEVER MADE BY GOD,
a Holy day. That it was never sanctified or set apart to REPLACE
the FOURTH commandment which states we are to REMEMBER the
SABBATH, the SEVENTH DAY, to KEEP it HOLY!
Yes, I know there are other arguments used to "abolish" and
"do away with" the fourth commandment. Such passages as
Colossians 2:16; Ephesians 2:14-17; Galatians 4:9-11; Romans
14:5,6; and others. These are all covered in separate articles.
.................
THROUGH THE EYES OF A CHILD
by Keith Hunt
He was barley seven years old when he attended his first
Sunday school class by himself (his parents were not religious),
but it was the start of many years of near perfect attendance.
He loved the stories of the Old Testament and the teachings and
love of Jesus.
His parents sent him to a Church of England school, where,
for the first half hour of each school day they read and studied
the Bible. It was during those early years that he was taught to
memorize the Ten Commandments of Exodus 20. Often he had to
recite them. This young boy saw how lovey they were, and he saw
that if the whole people of the earth were obeying them, it would
be utopia indeed.
One day in Sunday school another young lad(they were all
about 9 years old) said the Jews kept Saturday as the Sabbath.
Our young boy said, " How strange, why would they keep the 6th
day of the week?" His class mate replied, "No, Saturday is the
7th day, my father told me."
"How ridiculous," replied our little lad, "God says in His
4th commandment we are to keep the 7th day holy, everyone keeps
Sunday, so it must be the 7th day."
The teacher was at a loss for words and the subject was
quickly changed. Our boy thought no more about it, fully
convinced in his mind that he was observing the 7th day on
Sunday.
The years went by. Our little lad was now a young man of 19.
While attending a Sunday observing church, with a landlord that
also observed Sunday, he was told by his landlord that Sunday was
not the 7th day of the week. This was now the second time in
his life that such was said to him. He had never been told by
anyone before except that friend in that Sunday school class ten
years earlier, that Saturday was the 7th day. At 19 he still
believed Sunday was the 7th day of the week.
Being told once more that Sunday was the first day of the
week, he was stunned and shocked. He just could not believe it
was so. He did not want it to be so. For he realized what that
would mean.
He had to know for sure the truth of the matter. Off he
went to the local library to study the Roman Catholic and
Protestant books and encyclopedias. He was numbed into
admitting that all he knew of popular Christianity had somehow
started to keep and observe Sunday as the weekly Sabbath, when
the 4th commandment was so plain in stating the 7th day was to be
remembered and kept holy. He was even more shocked at all the
many arguments given him by ministers and members of churches as
to why the 4th commandment was not to be obeyed, or how it was
changed to Sunday.
With all those years of Bible reading behind him, most
arguments were "laughable" if it had not been so serious a
matter. He had been taught from a small boy that the 10
commandments were good and to be obeyed.
With a stunned heart, with a shocked mind, he realized how
right Jesus was when He had prophesied that false teachers would
arise, who would say that Jesus was the Christ, but would deceive
MANY, and how truly it was that true Christians were the "little
flock" the "salt" of the earth.
The simple understanding and faith of his days as a little
lad reading the Bible were not to be moved. If nine commandments
stood, so did the fourth.
I knew that little boy very well, for that little lad was
myself.
It is written: "Truly I say unto you, except you become
converted and become as little children, you shall not enter into
the Kingdom of heaven." (Mat.18:3).
.......................
Written 1983
by Keith Hunt
Sabbath Arguments Answered #1 The Worldwide Church of God has abolished the Sabbath commandment - I answer their arguments THE WCG TEACHING UNDER
THE LATE JOSEPH TKACH SR.
CONCERNING
THE OLD AND NEW COVENANT AND
SABBATH DOCTRINES.
AN ANSWER BY
Keith Hunt
Solomon wrote that there was nothing new under the sun. So it
is with what Joseph Tkach wrote a few years before his death
concerning the Old and New Covenants together with the Sabbath
commandment. From his writings the Worldwide Church of God have
adopted the Roman Catholic and Protestant understanding and
teaching concerning the Sabbath day as it is defined by them in
connection with the Old and New Covenants.
There was much to agree with in the writings of Tkach on these
subjects. I will not quote what I agreed with but where I
disagreed with his theology. This series of articles concerns my
answers and replies to his arguments on the Covenant/ Sabbath
issues.
WORLDWIDE NEWS - DECEMBER 27TH, 1994
"In this letter, I want to spend some time 'taking stock' of
where we are as the Church of God. God has led us closer to Him
and given us a deeper and richer understanding of the
gospel......Some wish we could have a 'slower pace of
change' .......Please understand I'm not making change just for
the sake of change.
But as I feel Christ leads the Church, I cannot continue a
teaching I feel He has led us to understand is erroneous......."
MY ANSWER
Many should and are finding that the new teaching of being
able to work on the Sabbath (if their boss demands it, or if not
working means they will loose their job or not acquire the job),
VERY EASY to accept, IF they are not reading the whole Bible and
are blindly believing J. Tkach was one of the end time inspired
apostles who had been given more light and more truth than others
that went before him.
WORLDWIDE NEWS - JANUARY 10TH, 1995
".......As I say, we have often overlooked the implications of
this new covenant, and that is what I want to focus on in this
letter.......Each person will want to obey God not because of
some list of rules written down somewhere, but because he or
she has an obedient attitude - a circumcised heart.......People
will keep the spirit of the law......."
MY ANSWER
Here we see the human reasonings and emotions of many others
who say, "I do not want God listing rules for me to have to
obey. I do not want Him telling me in black and white what I must
or must not do. I want to be able to serve Him because I love
Him. I want to keep the spirit of the law from my own good
intentions and not because He tells me what is right and what is
wrong."
This argument reminds me of the Biblical Church of God in
California some years back (after Fred Coulter and I had resigned
from their organization). They came out with a thick study paper
on "Tithing," claiming it was "done away" under the New Covenant.
But at the end of it all, they claimed that a Christian (who has
an income and profit) would have to give at least 10% to God's
work if his heart was right with the "spirit of the law."
It blew my mind when I read all this, for they could not see what
they had done. They had cast aside God's law as if it was old
rags and established their OWN law and rules to serve God. They
had taught their readers and members that the law of the Lord was
NOT to be obeyed while establishing their own way of
righteousness, that in this case ended up the same - a Christian
making a profit should be giving at least 10% and more if his
heart was with God, for after all, "where your heart is there
will be your treasure also."
The BCG just did not want God TELLING them WHAT to DO! They
did not want written rules to follow. They wanted God to allow
them to make their OWN rules and serve Him from the wonderful
"goodness" of the circumcised heart, and because he or she had an
obedient mind set willing to follow the rules it created for
itself to worship the Eternal with.
The BCG in their "tithing" teaching, and the WCG in their
"Covenant/Sabbath" teaching have FORGOTTEN the TWO basic pillars
of the foundation to serve God.
1. GOD DOES NOT GIVE US THE RIGHT TO DECIDE HOW WE WILL
WORSHIP HIM ! It is HE who tells us the HOW, the WHEN, the WHAT,
and the WHY to serve Him in spirit and in truth. Jesus said, "Thy
(The Father's) Word is truth." And He also said, "Man shall not
live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the
mouth of God." EVERY WORD my friend is the WHOLE BIBLE! Sure,
some things the New Testament (NT from here on) shows are
DIFFERENT under the "age of grace" as some call it, but the basic
10 COMMANDMENTS as amplified by both Old and New Covenants
STAND FIRM AND SURE. I submit to you that any child (not filled
with pre-conceived ideas taught them by the mouth of adults) can
come to the knowledge of the truth I have stated. I know for a
fact it is so. I PERSONALLY KNOW THIS TRUTH, for I have been
there !
I did not come to this truth that the laws of the Eternal
stand fast forever because Herbert Armstrong and the
Worldwide Church of God taught it to me through their
literature. I was a dedicated and enthusiastic Sunday School
attender from the age of 7 years old. I attended a Church of
England school all my life to grade 12. The Bible was the first
lesson (for one half hour) each school-day morning. I loved
reading the word of the Lord. I was taught the laws of God were
good and should be obeyed. I was taught to memorize them just as
found in Exodus chapter 20. I was never taught nor did I ever
hear from my teachers that Sunday was the first day of the
week. I grew up believing Sunday was the 7th day of the week. It
was not until I was 19 years old that the truth of Sunday being
the first day came to me through my Baptist landlord, and my
study in the local public library, after coming to Western
Canada.
I had read the Bible and understood enough about what God said
concerning His Holy Laws (both in the letter and in the spirit)
NOT TO BE TAKEN IT by the North American fundamental (I came to
call them funny-mentalists) preachers, who were teaching that the
Sabbath had been "done away" under the NT. Oh, the other NINE
they said should be observed, but the 4th one....the
Sabbath.....well that one was not important any more. Our
societies we live in just make it too hard to keep that 4th
commandment, they said.
The WCG have jumped into the same bed with the funny-mental
guys, and they both have forgotten DEUTERONOMY 12:29-32,
especially verse 32, "What thing soever I COMMAND you, OBSERVE to
do it: you shall not ADD thereto, nor DIMINISH from it."
The Bible is full of direct teaching and examples that give
forth the plain truth that we cannot serve God in the way WE
choose. But we are to worship and serve Him THE WAY He tells us!
And some of those ways are with lists of rules and regulations
written down for us. How silly to think otherwise. What confusion
would arise to believe everyone can serve the Father with what he
thinks is right or wrong in his own eyes. What utter foolishness
to think that the heart of man - even with God's Spirit - can
have an obedient attitude and keep the spirit of the law without
the law written down, so we can know what that law is. God's
laws ARE written down and that is the truth of the matter, pure
and simple. He wants us to KNOW THEM. To read them. To study
them. To mediate on them. To teach them to our children. To love
them. You need to read Deut. 4:1-14; Ps.1; 19:7-10; 111; 119;
just for starters, then you may want to do a deep study in the
word concerning God's commandments and laws. Using STRONG'S
CONCORDANCE of the Bible, read every verse where the words law,
commandments, statutes, precepts, are found in both Old and New
Testaments.
2. The leaders of the WCG have forgotten how DECEIVED and how
CARNAL the human heart can be, even with the Holy Spirit
dwelling in it. Look at what Paul said about himself in Romans
chapter 7, verses 14-24. Paul was a man mightily used by the
Lord, filled with the power of the Spirit, inspired to write much
of the NT, yet he knew very well how the heart of man, even after
conversion, still had within it the law of sin and death.
The converted heart still has within it the law that wars against
the spirit filled mind. It is only through Christ we can overcome
and subdue its wickedness.
Look at how Paul had to write to the people of the Church of
God at Corinth. He told them he had to write to them as ones
"carnal" and as babes, who could not yet be fed on spiritual
meat. They had so many sins and problems he had to correct them
on, yet they were true Christians, in the main, who obviously
had been led astray into many false errors and wrong practices
and conduct.
Then besides all that, we also have the Devil to contend with.
He does not go away to trouble us no more after our baptism. He
still stays around to fire his darts at us, doing all to
penetrate our spiritual armor and inflict us with poison and the
knock-out blow that will destroy us from inheriting the Kingdom
of God.
It is folly to think that the circumcised heart is so good and
so knowledgable that it can obey God without rules written down
somewhere. How would it know those rules? Who would say my rules
could not be different from your rules in serving God? Who
would set the "straight and narrow" way to life that Jesus talked
about? How could there be any straight and narrow way if there
was no fence? How could there be a "broad way that leads to
destruction" as Christ said there was, if nothing is written down
to define what is the narrow and broad ways to life or death?
The truth is that some of us are still so carnal after our
baptism, that if it was not for written laws of God that we can
look at and obey, we would be easy pickings for Satan to destroy.
Some have been honest enough to admit to ministers of God that
they do not like to obey certain laws of the Lord, but they obey
because they are written laws that should be kept. Should these
people keep those laws they do not care for (their carnal nature
speaking up)? Sure they should! As they observe them over time,
it is hoped they come to attain the right attitude of loving
those laws like David did, when less human carnality is
supplanted by more of the Spirit of God, filling their mind and
heart with the love of God, which is the keeping of His
commandment (1 John 5:3; Rom.5:5).
WORLDWIDE NEWS - JANUARY 10TH, 1995
".......Of course, not every law in the Old Testament is done
away - many of those laws are repeated in the New
Testament.......Consider, for example, the Seventh
Commandment, which forbids adultery. Is that in force?
Absolutely! The commandment is repeated in the New
Testament.......Let's consider the First Commandment, in Exodus
20:3: 'You shall have no other gods.' That commandment is
repeated in the New Testament, so it's still in force......."
MY ANSWER
How this reminds me of various religious men and groups I have
come to encounter over the past 30 years and more. It is the
classic argument given to me by some from the Church of Christ: "We only
follow it if it is repeated in the NT."
There was the man I met who only accepted the Old Testament (OT
from here on) and did not recognize the NT. The Bible that Jesus
used was good enough for Jesus, then it was good enough for him,
so the NT was cast off. I met a man who accepted all the NT
except for the writings of Paul. The Roman Catholic Church
accepts the "apocrypha" books as part of inspired Scripture.
There are those who will only obey the laws of the Bible if
repeated more than once in the NT, for they say it is by two or
three witnesses a thing is established, and have an OT verse to
back it. They forgot that verse was in relation to human men and
courts of law in Israel, not to God, who does not lie or deceive,
and is true though every man be a liar. Once out of the mouth of
the Eternal is quite enough.
So it goes, people having their own way around doing what the
Bible and Jesus said to do, and that is to LIVE BY EVERY WORD OF
GOD!
The word "sabbath" appears more often in the NT than any other
word connected with the other nine commandments, especially in
the four Gospel. The fourth commandment is talked about and
expounded upon just about more often in the Gospels than any
other law of God. With all of that, how easy it would have been
for one of the NT writers to have said somewhere the plain words,
"the Sabbath is not important under the NT" or "the Sabbath
command is not for the followers of Christ under the New
Covenant" or "the fourth commandment has been changed to the
first day of the week."
No such words can be found in the entire NT. Those who teach the
Sabbath commandment has been "done away" with in Col.2:16 also
teach that Paul did not do away with it when writing and
instructing the church at Rome, but the members could choose
whatever day they wanted to observe as the Sabbath (Romans 14).
Rather unfair and contradictory of Paul do you not think? To one
church he tells them it is done away but to another church they
can choose which day they like as the Sabbath.
The truth is Paul is not abrogating the Sabbath in Col.2:16
and he is not letting people choose which day they like to keep
as the Sabbath in Romans 14. Those sections of Scripture I have
covered fully in other studies.
Jesus, it is recorded, had more discussions with the Pharisees
over the Sabbath issue than just about any other subject. Not
once did He come close to saying the Sabbath was "done away" or
not having to be obeyed under the age of grace or the New
Covenant. Not once did He mention that the Sabbath could be
observed just as you please, in any way it might be fitting under
any situation that may arise, that everyone could work out
keeping the Sabbath according to their ideas and wishes from week
to week. Oh, he swept aside many of the Pharisees' rules and
regulations of what constituted breaking the Sabbath, but never
once did He say the basic words and law of the Sabbath as written
in the fourth commandment of the ten, found in Exodus 20, was
no longer binding for the age of the Kingdom of God and grace.
Jesus said that unless the righteousness of His followers
EXCEEDED the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees (Mat.5),
they would NOT enter the Kingdom of God! Really pretty plain I
would say. Now, the scribes and Pharisees were Sabbath
keepers, no question about that. But, they were hypocrites, as
Jesus told them. They said but they did not do. Read again
Matthew 23. Christ did not say His followers should have more
righteousness than the Pharisees to enter the Kingdom, except in
keeping the Sabbath for that law was no longer binding under the
New Covenant. If that had have been true, it would have been so
easy for Christ or one of the Gospel writers to have added those
words of explanation. But they are not to be found anywhere in
the NT.
Jesus told His followers they were to do the Father's will,
they were to do His words that He spoke. If His followers loved
Him He said they would keep His commandments.
This is all written for us in the gospel of John. Later, Peter
was inspired to say that the very EXAMPLE Jesus left us in the
way He lived, not sinning (and sin is the breaking of the law of
God - see I John 3:4; Rom.7:7), was FOR US TO FOLLOW (1 Peter
2:21,22).
Christ set us the perfect example during His life on earth
of Sabbath observance. It is all there in the Gospels, plain and
simple to see and read, a small child can find it. Jesus kept
all the Father's commandments, including the Sabbath commandment,
correctly, perfectly, without sin. And in so doing left us an
example that we should follow His steps!
And some have the gall to say the Sabbath commandment is NOT
REPEATED in the NT! What on earth NT are they reading I ask? It
must be a different one than what I have.
Circumcision was very "Jewish" was it not? Yes, indeed! It
was part of their national life for centuries. So also was
Sabbath keeping! There arose a great controversy in the early NT
Church of God. It was over the subject of circumcision, was
it required for salvation? Some said it was. But Paul, Peter,
and others said it was not. This was an important issue, so much
so that finally the Church had to call for a ministerial
conference over the matter. That meeting was held in Jerusalem.
It is recorded for us in Acts 15.
Let me ask you: If the subject of circumcision was important
enough to hold a ministerial gathering to discuss the issue of it
being binding or not under the New Covenant, do you not suppose
the subject of Sabbath observance, being still binding or
having the day changed to the first day, would not also have
caused such debate that a ministerial conference equal to that of
Acts 15, would also have been called and recorded for us in the
NT?
I think so! Especially when we remember we are talking about
one of the BIG TEN commandments, that were written on tablets of
stone by the very finger of God Himself. Doing away with any one
of these ten commandments under the New Covenant would
have generated a huge debate and would not have gone without
notice, at least equal to that found in Acts 15 concerning
circumcision.
But the Sabbath law is not repeated in the NT so says the WCG
leadership. Let me ask another question: Does the NT have to
repeat everything contained in the OT before we are to obey it?
Lots of things are repeated, many are the quotes from the OT we
can find in the NT. But is the Church of Christ minister that
once said to me, "We only obey what we find repeated in the NT"
correct? They didn't have any kind of musical instrument
playing during their service. I guess they could not find a NT
verse upholding the OT teaching and example of musical
instruments being played during worship services.
To answer our question above, we can find Jesus REPEATING an
OT verse at the beginning of His start into His NT ministry. He
said, "Man shall not live by bread alone BUT BY EVERY WORD THAT
PROCEEDS OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD."
Now, if you believe as I do (and some readers may not) EVERY
WORD of God is from Genesis to Revelation today. Pretty simple
to understand I maintain. All this argument about Old and New
Covenants, things repeated or not in the NT, is all really
washed away, carry out to sea, drowned in the depths of the deep
blue ocean, by those few simple words that can now be found in
BOTH the Old and the New - mankind is to live by EVERY WORD of
God. So things do not necessarily have to be repeated in the
New Testament before we are to obey them and live by them.
For the readers who are somewhat unsure about just HOW we are
to go about figuring what laws from Genesis to Revelation are for
us to live by today (for there were indeed many given to ancient
Israel), then I have a two part study to help solve many of
the issues. It is the studies called, "Living by Every Word of God - How?"
The WCG leaders claim the Sabbath commandment is not
specifically repeated in the NT. Oh, yes it is. The NT says it
still remains for the people of God.
The Sabbath command is repeated in the NT in the sense of
telling us it is still for the people of God to keep in the
present continuous age of grace. It is found in the
Jewish book of the NT - the book of Hebrews. Turn to chapter 4
and see it for yourself in verse 9. Some of the modern version
may cover it over and hide it. Even the KJV translation tried to
do that, but at least some Bibles put a note in the margin as to
how the literal Greek reads. The Greek Interlinears will render
it: "Then REMAINS a SABBATISMOS to the people of God." The word
"sabbatismos" is only used once in the NT - here in this verse.
As on Bible Commentator once said, "it seems that Paul invented
this word." The main point is this word literally means: keeping
Sabbath, or Sabbath keeping. The Greek word for "remains" is in
the PRESENT continuous tense - there remains presently and
continuously, a Sabbath keeping for the people of God.
Yes, as the context shows, Paul is using the 7th day rest as a
TYPE of the Eternal rest in Christ and Kingdom rest to come, but
he argues because of those analogies which the 7th day
represents, it is proof that present day Sabbath keeping by the
children of God continues. He goes on to say that those who have
entered the rest of God will refrain from his work (carnality as
to spiritual rest, physical secular work as to literal 7th
day rest) as God did from His.
This passage is covered in-depth by Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi in
his world famous book called "From Sabbath to Sunday."
WORLDWIDE NEWS - JANUARY 10TH 1995
".......Under the old covenant, tithing was required for the
support of the old covenant ministers.......The Israelites were
commanded to give 10 percent under the old covenant.......How
much more joyfully should we give to God under the new
covenant?.......Should we give less than a tithe, when the
blessing we have are so much more glorious than those of the
Israelites?.......Under the new covenant the tithe is voluntary,
done out of love and allegiance to Jesus Christ.......Are you
putting your money where your heart is?......."
MY ANSWER
Aaahhh, just the same reasoning as used by the BCG I mentioned
earlier. The inference is that under the OT tithing was a harsh,
strict, heartless, cold written law. We are not to be governed by
cold laws written down on some parchment, but a tingle of love
up and down the spine, then we will give to God at least 10% if
not more, so they argue.
The attitude is: I do not want God telling me in written laws
how much I should give back to Him. I want to give to Him because
I want to do it, not because He tells me to do it.
Tkach also wrote in this section: "The new covenant doesn't
set a new percentage, but it requires greater sacrifice."
The WCG do not want to loose the tithes from their members -
it is their bread and butter for most of them, especially those
on the top. If the members could give money as they saw fit and
when they thought they were able, then I guarantee you would see
many WCG ministers out looking for work or with much smaller
pay-checks. So old covenant tithing of at least 10% is carefully
guarded to teach it should be continued but under the roof of a
kind of love and not written law. It should be done voluntary
they say. This implies that it was forced on them under the OT
and done without love.
NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH!!
You cannot find in the OT any DEATH penalty for NOT tithing!
You cannot find under the OT that people would be hired by the
state to "check up" on you to see that you were tithing
correctly. There was no secret IRS men coming around in the
night to peek at your books, to see if you were faithfully
tithing.
OLD TESTAMENT TITHING WAS DONE VOLUNTARY!
A theme runs through Tkach's expose on this subject. It is
hidden very surreptitiously, discreetly, camouflaged, and that is
this: The OT was harsh, cold, feelingless, heartless, and no
emotional love. Physical spiritless people doing physical
works forced on them by a harsh God who liked to write down His
laws with fire, smoke and brimstone. A God that showed little
grace or mercy. He sure did not require the people to serve Him
out of love and allegiance. The NT gives us the motivation to
serve God out of love and our own motivation to obey Him as we
are led by the Spirit, apart from any written list of laws.
This is also the ANTITHESIS of the truth! Grace and love is
emphasized under the OT, but law and commandment keeping is
stressed powerfully also. Law and commandments were emphasized
under the OT, but GRACE was abundant also! A classic example is
that of David, a man after God's own heart. David was a man of a
number of HUGE sins, yet he obtained grace and mercy because he
loved and obeyed the commandments of God. You need to read
carefully and slowly Ps.119. He said that rivers of water ran
down his face because people did not keep the laws of the Lord.
This was a man after God's own heart remember. Do you suppose
David had a heart very much like that of God's ?
Now, let me show you a few of the OT verses that may just
"blow you away" as they say. Turn to them, read them in your own
Bible, mark them. They have been there for centuries. I did not
secretly come and put them in your Bible last night while you
were sleeping.
"Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord: And you shall
LOVE THE LORD THY GOD WITH ALL THINE HEART, AND WITH ALL THY
SOUL, AND WITH ALL THY MIGHT. And these words, which I command
you this day, shall BE IN YOUR HEART" (Deut.6:4-6).
"CIRCUMCISE THEREFORE THE FORESKIN OF YOUR HEART, and be no
more stiffnecked" (Deut.10:6).
"And the Lord thy God will CIRCUMCISE THINE HEART, and the
heart of thy seed, to LOVE the Lord thy God with ALL THINE HEART,
AND WITH ALL THY SOUL, that you may live" (Deut.30:6).
If you thought circumcision of the heart was only for the NT,
if you thought loving God with all your heart and life was only
for the NT, then WELCOME TO THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER! The PLAIN
TRUTH if you will! As Solomon was inspired to say, "There is
nothing new under the sun." And when this most wise man had
fully contemplated and experimented with physical life, his last
but one sentence in Ecclesiastes was: "Let us hear the conclusion
of the whole matter: FEAR GOD, AND KEEP HIS COMMANDMENTS: for
this is the WHOLE of man."
Tkach says concerning tithing, "The new covenant doesn't set a
new percentage, but it requires greater sacrifice."
Greater sacrifice in what way I ask? Is it greater to give
money to God's work today than sheep, goats, pigeons, grain etc.
as most did under the OT? We today mainly live in a paper money
society, the ancient Israelites lived mainly in an agricultural
society. Which is more sacrificial when tithing? I think the
farmer who lives off the land could present a case just as strong
as the city dweller who lives by paper money.
Were those under the OT bound by the law to give only so much
and no more? I've never found a Scripture to confirm that idea.
They had to tithe of their increase under the OT and give
OFFERINGS also! They could give as much as they wanted, as much
as they were blessed, as much as their circumstances allowed
after meeting all their other duties for family and the poor.
They could give above 10% as much as their heart led them to give
and as much as their heart was in the work of the Lord. There was
NO LIMITATIONS!
So what's all this about the NT requiring GREATER sacrifice in
the context of tithing?
Another clever psychological mind play by Joseph Tkach Sr. Now
that he is loosing the requirements of the Sabbath command in the
letter of the law, I guess many in the WCG should now be able to
obtain MORE MONEY to put in the treasury of the WCG to pay the
ministers for their full time jobs which in part is being used to
discover where God's laws do not apply under the NT.
Very clever, if it was not so Satanic.
..................................... TO BE CONTINUED
First written in April 1995. Edited and revised, August 1998
Sabbath Arguments Answered #2
WORLDWIDE NEWS - JANUARY 10th 1995
".......Now let's move on to the topic of the Sabbath.......is
the Sabbath required in the new covenant? Or, as
another possibility, is it transformed, to be kept in a
different way? We know the Bible doesn't say the Sabbath was
changed to Sunday.
But is it possible that Jesus Christ changed the way we ought
to observe the Sabbath?
So the question is, How does the Sabbath fit into the New
Covenant?"
MY COMMENT:
The WCG are wise enough to know (like the Roman
Catholic church is) there is no Bible authority that establishes
Sunday as the New Covenant Sabbath, they are not wanting to
make Sunday into Holy time. But as we shall see later, they
now teach that the hours of the 7th day are not holy in and
by themselves either. Like the teaching of the Jehovah's
Witnesses, there is no time under the New Covenant that is
special holy time to God, it is only holy as we determine to
dedicate it to God.
Notice, Tkach implants a question in your mind as he states,
"But is it possible that Jesus Christ changed the way
we ought to observe the Sabbath?"
Now he has you wondering, now he has you pondering the idea
Christ may have changed things concerning the 4th
commandment. Now the seed of "maybe it is so" is in
your mind, he will proceed to build upon that thought
and try to show Jesus DID CHANGE THE WAY TO OBSERVE THE
SABBATH in the New Covenant. Let's continue with more words
from Joseph Tkach.
"Jesus did not argue with the Pharisees about
whether to keep the Sabbath - but he certainly argued about how
to keep it. Compared to the Pharisees Jesus was a liberal. The
Pharisees had rules against healing on the Sabbath, but Jesus
made a point of healing on the Sabbath....... Jesus often
healed on the Sabbath. There again, a humanitarian need was
more important than Sabbath rules. In the past,
we've been too strict with this. Sometimes we wouldn't
even allow nurses to work for an hour on Friday evening
......."
MY COMMENT:
Tkach brings in the problems Jesus had with the way
the Pharisees taught was the way to serve and keep God's laws.
Now I ask you: Were the Pharisees God? Did they write the Ten
Commandments? Were they the perfect holy sinless one (some
perhaps thought they were) or was it Jesus? It was Christ as
the God of the Old Covenant (the WCG may no longer teach Jesus
was the Old Testament God) who gave the Ten Commandments
and explained how they should be observed.
Take Strong's Concordance, look up all the verses in the
Old Testament that state how to observe the Sabbath. You
may be shocked to discover there are VERY FEW!
And not one of them mentions anything about
"healings" on the Sabbath. Get out your Bible Dictionary and
see what is written there concerning the Pharisees,
who they were and what their theology was. You will find
they were not in unity, they had different schools of theology
learning that could not agree on how to serve God and keep
His laws. You will discover they had HUNDREDS and HUNDREDS of
their rules on how to observe the Sabbath. God on the
other hand, gave a FEW specifics and then a FEW basic
principles on Sabbath keeping. And yes, there are a few
specific examples of wrong Sabbath observance. That is it!!
Tkach says, "Compared to the Pharisees, Jesus was a
liberal." Do you see what he has psychologically done? He
has set you up as they say. He put in your mind that
Jesus may have CHANGED the way to observe the Sabbath in
the New Covenant, brought in the Pharisees and Jesus
disagreement with them over Sabbath keeping, then needles
your backside with "Jesus was LIBERAL." It is all a cleaver set
up for the punch line he wants to hit you with, namely "In the
past we've been too strict with this."
Was Jesus LIBERAL?
Let me talk about nurses, doctors, healing and such like on
the Sabbath. Tkach wants to talk about it, so will I.
Tkach does admit that nurses, doctors, are not, quote:
"healing like Jesus was..." And that is for sure. Again,
look up all the passages in the four gospels where Jesus healed
on the Sabbath. Now see if you can find where Jesus held
healing revivals, healing campaigns, where He spent
hours and hours on the Sabbath healing one person after
another. See if you can find where He said to His followers:
"Now is the Sabbath day, what better time to devote hours and
hours to healing people." See if you can find where Jesus used
the Sabbath hours to help people and then got PAID FOR IT!
Jesus did not go out of His way to heal people, He did not go
looking for them, searching them out, on the Sabbath. He
healed people on the Sabbath as the situation AROSE, as it
presented itself, when it crossed His path in the synagogue, on
the road as He strolled through nature. He frankly did not
make the Sabbath a BIG TIME to do physical healing on! Are
you getting the picture? Healing people on the Sabbath was
not a priority in His ministry. Jesus got physically drained
of strength after healing many people in a row, and it is
written He often had to go and rest to recharge Himself
and be refreshed. The Sabbath day is a day of rest, refreshing
the physical and especially the spiritual, not a day of hours of
physical work. All this is not to say the sick are not to be
taken care of. Christians are in Satan's world at the moment. He
has not been removed yet, Jesus has not yet returned to rule the
world and usher in the restitution of all things, when
sickness, hospitals, nurses, doctors will not be needed as
we know them today. We live in a mainly carnal world, where
there are lots of unconverted carnal people READY AND
WILLING AND ABLE to look after the things that need
looking after. There are hundreds of unconverted men
and women studying to be nurses and doctors, ready to take
the place of those who die, get killed, retire, or
resign, for whatever reason. There are many nurses and doctors
who would LOVE to have someone work for them on SUNDAY,
while they work for someone who keeps the Sabbath. For the
most part IT CAN BE WORKED OUT!
You think I do not know? Listen my friends, I've been
around, I've had first hand experience working in hospitals,
meeting people in the "health field" - talking to them,
counselling them on spiritual matters. I've seen and been a
part of Sabbath keeping groups (that I will tell you
about in detail shortly) where MANY were in the nursing home
care, hospitals, nurses aid, working world. And THEY KEPT
THE SABBATH BY NOT WORKING (unless it was an ox in the ditch
emergency, and I'll talk about that later) AND KEPT THEIR
JOBS! So do not tell me it cannot be done.
There are thousands of dedicated people on this earth that PROVE
OTHERWISE, and have the faith to back it up. Maybe too
many of us have forgotten what FAITH is,
maybe we intellectually know what faith is BUT WE DO NOT
PRACTICE IT.
Let's get to the heart and core of this. The SEVENTH
DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH has practiced (against the writings
of their prophetess E. G. White, I will add) allowing
and teaching that nurses and doctors and health care workers
(nursing homes etc.) can work at their regular jobs on the
Sabbath AND get paid for it. I was once in a home of a
friend of mine for THREE Sabbaths in a row. They were SDA
members. My friend's wife was a nurse. She worked her regular
shift (10 to 12 hours in that part of Canada) for those
three Sabbaths. She tried going to church on one of those
Sabbaths and was constantly falling asleep, the other two
Sabbaths she just stayed home and slept. This was a common
practice I found out, there were many Sabbaths during
the year when she worked her shift. For the three Sabbaths
I was there this lady got nothing out of the Sabbath that it was
created for. I found out she had never enquired about
working it out so she could get the Sabbath hours off, because
the SDA church generally taught it was okay for such people to
work on the Sabbath.
Years later, Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi had written his book called
FROM SABBATH TO SUNDAY and was deeply involved with meditating on
the various Sabbath questions and problems that arise in this
space age. He was from birth a Seventh Day Adventist
and now one of their top ministers and professors. He was in
Canada at the town which I was living in, that also happened
to be the headquarters for the SDA church of Canada. He was
there to present lectures on the Sabbath to Sunday issue. My
wife and I attended that particular Sabbath afternoon lecture.
In the evening there was to be an open question and answer
period. We again attended.
The large SDA church was nearly full, a few thousand members and
others like my wife and I were there to hear Dr. Sam (as he
likes to be called) answer various questions from the audience.
A question given him was this: How should SDA Doctors and
Nurses keep the Sabbath within the context of their working
profession?
I looked at my wife, she looked at me. I said to her:
This will be interesting to hear his answer.
His reply to that question was (and I remember it well):
Doctors and Nurses should keep the Sabbath by not working on
that day. If they must be on call, it should only be for
emergencies, and they should receive no pay for hours worked on
the Sabbath.
Let me tell you I felt like standing and saying AMEN TO
THAT DR. SAM! What he said was contrary to the teaching and
practice of his own church. He was courageous to take that stand.
I do not think very many in his SDA church have taken much
notice of his words.
Now let me tell you about Church of God Sabbath keepers
that will put many to shame when it comes to exercising
living faith. I have worked with and among them, so I know
from the horses mouth. There are dozens of groups from the
Islands of Jamaica, Barbados, Bahamas and other parts of the
West Indies and Caribbean, that are directly with or associated
with, the Church of God (7th Day). They are a
warm, happy, singing, lot of Christians. They often do not
have all the theological expertise of some of us from the
"technically scholastic white Churches of God" but what they
lack in technical knowledge they make up in a desire to
"grow" and serve the Lord with all their heart. Many of
them, like the SDA members, find work in the health
field, as nurses; nurses aids, nursing homes, home care
nursing, hospitals etc. They arrange with their place
of employment to be off during the Sabbath hours to
attend church and worship God on His Holy Day! They love
the Sabbath, they rejoice in it, it is the high point of the
week to them; and so it should be. They are a people that have
proved you can work in the medical health profession and still
keep the Sabbath holy. That is what having the faith OF Jesus
in us is all about.
Yes there may be the times when as a nurse or doctor you will be
called in on an emergency that no one else can fill, and that on
the Sabbath.
Under those circumstances help the sick, do it joyfully as
to the Lord, and ask for no physical payment. And when you
do this, do not be filled with pride thinking you
have done some great thing, for I have seen TV programs that
showed groups of nurses and doctors giving their talents and
time to serve others for days at a time, and not getting one
dime in return. Some of them may have been "Christian" but
I bet not all of them were. Even the natural carnal heart
contains some good in some people.
Let's here more from Tkach:
"The Old Covenant told people not to collect food on the
Sabbath, under threat of stoning, but Jesus defended the right of
his disciples to pick grain on the Sabbath.
Let's read it in Mark 2:23-26: 'One Sabbath Jesus was going
through the grainfields, and as his disciples walked along, they
began to pick some heads of grain. The Pharisees said to him,
Look, why are they doing what is Unlawful on the Sabbath?
He answered, Have you never read what David did when he and his
companions were hungry and in need? In the days of Abiathar the
high priest, he entered the house God and ate the consecrated
bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave
some to his companions.'
Jesus did not deny that the disciples were working on the
Sabbath. Instead, he pointed out that David himself had broken
one of God's holiness laws, and it had been OK for him to do it.
Taking cart of hunger is more important than keeping such strict
taboos. The letter of the law was broken, but that was OK because
a more important principle of the law was being kept. There was
an important human need.
David had an emergency, but the disciples don't seem to have had
any such emergency. They were just a little hungry, that's all.
The point was that they didn't need to make a fetish out of
avoiding activity on the Sabbath.
Mark continues: 'Then [Jesus] said to [the Pharisees]: Sabbath
was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is
Lord even of the Sabbath' (verses 27-28)."
MY COMMENT:
Tkach tries to link a law of the Sabbath (which I will show
you lasted for only 40 years) given to ancient Israel with
grain picking as Jesus disciples walked through the
fields on a Sabbath. First, let's look at that Old Covenant
law.
Turn to Exodus 16 and read the whole chapter. There it is
- God sent "manna" - whatever it was, some type of substance
that took the place of grain to make flour and bread. Remember
they were in the wilderness and that's where they would
remain for 40 years until Joshua led them into the promised
land. They were not to go out and gather manna on the
Sabbath day. God would not give them manna on the Sabbath,
but what they gathered on the sixth day would last over until
the first day. It was a miracle from the Lord, each week for
40 years. What a lesson on Sabbath keeping.
The word does not tell us the fine details, what amount
of time was required to go out and gather this
manna, what amount of work it entailed, how much time
and trouble it took to come back and do with it what they did
with it. It does not matter if it was just minutes or if it
was hours, it does not matter from this point. God is God,
and He can set whatever laws he wants us to obey as He wishes,
we do not tell Him what to do or what not to do, and when to do
it. He tells us! It is He that has the right to give any
specific law at any time for as long as He wants. God in
His wisdom and love gave Israel a command, a specific
command regarding this collecting of manna. It
is not for us to argue about it one way or another. God told
the people of Israel not to go out on the Sabbath to collect
manna, there would be none to collect, none would be given
on the Sabbath. He wanted them to get the picture of the
holiness of the Sabbath and exactly which day of the week it
was.
This law was for a DEFINITE purpose and it was ONLY TO LAST
40 YEARS! When they entered Canaan, the manna stopped coming
and that law, that law of the Sabbath ENDED!
When Jesus came in the flesh to this earth, that law of the
Sabbath had not been in force for about 1,400 years! It was
a specific law for a specific purpose for a specific length of
time. God has the right to do such things!
The disciples picking a few handful of grains,
rubbing them between their hands and eating the flour, as
they walked through the fields on the Sabbath HAD NOTHING
WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH THAT OLD COVENANT LAW Tkach mentions.
It is like, putting it kindly, comparing APPLES with ORANGES, and
putting it bluntly, Tkach's theology is kindergarten
poogadi-doo. It is theologically unsound to try to acquaint a
law of the Sabbath that had ended 1400 years earlier with
what the disciples were doing 1400 years later.
Did the Pharisees point Jesus back to that law of not
collecting manna on the Sabbath?
NO THEY DID NOT! They had more sense than that, they knew that
law had not existed for 1400 years. The Pharisees said:
"Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?"
WHOSE law said it was unlawful for them to pick a few grains
and eat them when walking through the fields on the Sabbath? Was
it God's law that said that? If it was you can be assured
they would have been quick to have quoted book, chapter and
verse. To have been able to have PROVED from the word of
God that Jesus had broken a law of God, and so have sinned,
would have been their delight. BUT THEY COULD NEVER FIND
WHERE JESUS EVER BROKE A LAW OF GOD AND SINNED. The laws they
accused Jesus of breaking were the laws the SCRIBES AND
PHARISEES HAD MADE UP for their followers to obey in the way
they prescribed was the righteousness of God. They had about
600 laws regarding Sabbath observance, some of which would
blow your mind. The book of Acts talks about "a Sabbath
days journey."
See if you can find such a law of the Sabbath given by God in
the Old Covenant. You wont find it - it is not there, no
such law was ever given by God. That law was a Pharisee law,
invented by men.
There is no debate here between the Pharisees and
Jesus on some specific law of God or a certain verse of scripture
about Sabbath keeping that could be interpreted different ways.
The Pharisees knew there was no law or scripture in the Old
Covenant prohibiting the picking and eating of a few grains from
the fields on the Sabbath. It was THEIR MAN MADE LAW they
accused Jesus of breaking, that is why Christ answered
them the way He did.
He showed them that David did a lot more than pick a few grain.
I must take Tkach's points one by one. He says, "Jesus
did not deny that the disciples were working on the
Sabbath." BUT JUST A MINUTE! Jesus did not admit they
were working on the Sabbath! Jesus never admitted that
picking a few grains and eating them on the
Sabbath constituted WORK! Do you see what Tkach is doing? He
is putting ideas in your mind from a position he has already
taken in his mind, and is trying to tell you that
because Jesus did not come out "flatly" denying His disciples
were working on the Sabbath, that that meant He agreed
they were working on the Sabbath and so breaking the law of God.
The fact that Jesus did not deny such a thing was not that He
was admitting they were breaking a Sabbath law, but He had no
need to deny such a thing BECAUSE IT WAS NOT TRUE IN
THE FIRST PLACE! There was no such law of God to break,
therefore NO LAW was being broken except the law of the
Pharisees, and it was they who said it should not be done. God
never said it, the self righteous, whitened graves full of
dead men's bones, the Pharisees, they said it.
Tkach writes: "David himself had broken ONE OF GOD'S HOLINESS
LAWS, and it had been OK for him to do it."
Was the law of consecrated bread one of the TEN commandments? No
it was not!
Can you find it mentioned in the outline of the Old
Covenant in Exodus 20 to 24?
No, it is not there! Yes it was a law, but a law of the
sacrificial tabernacle rituals. It was a law in
connection with the priesthood, and rituals of physical
ordinances. When it came to those laws as opposed to LOVE,
MERCY, JUDGMENT, which was to come first - sacrifice or mercy?
Let God Himself answer that question.
Ps.51:16-19, "For thou desirest not sacrifice... .thou
delightest not in burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a
broken spirit: a broken and contrite heart, 0 God, thou wilt
not despise......Then shalt thou be pleased with the
sacrifices of righteousness, with burnt offering and whole
burnt offering: then shalt they offer bullocks upon thine
altar."
Hosea 6:6 , "For I DESIRE MERCY, and NOT SACRIFICE; and
the KNOWLEDGE OF GOD more than burnt offerings."
First God desires MERCY, HUMILITY, LOVE, JUDGMENT, and
KNOWLEDGE of Him, and after that, SECONDLY - burnt offerings
and physical rituals.
There are some laws of God, laws He gave to ancient Israel that
ARE LESS THAN LOVE, MERCY, AND JUDGMENT! Remember what Jesus said
in Matthew 23:23. Some laws of God (like the one under
consideration) TAKE SECOND PLACE to love, and mercy.
What David did in exercising judgment concerning the hunger of
his men, in eating the Tabernacle bread, was GREATER in love and
mercy than a physical law of the ritualistic Tabernacle.
Understand please. It was from God that the tabernacle
rituals came into being, but not at first (see Jeremiah
7:22,23), it was after He had told them to obey His
voice and they rebelled, that the priesthood, tabernacle and
physical rituals and sacrifices were instituted. Yes, there
were many laws regulating that physical system, but they
were SECONDARY to mercy, love, judgment, and knowledge of God.
Jesus was pointing out to the self righteous Pharisees that
David did break a law of God concerning physical rituals
and was blameless. Why? Because his act was of MERCY and LOVE
which God Himself said was ABOVE RITUAL LAWS. The Pharisees
SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT for the Old Covenant plainly said
so. David broke a ritual law, that was true indeed Jesus
admitted, and was blameless, " my disciples have BROKEN NO
LAW AT ALL BUT YOUR MAN MADE LAW, so how much more are
they guiltless in God's eye?" This is what Jesus was telling
them by the example of David and the temple bread.
There are times when LOVE, MERCY, and correct JUDGMENT are
greater than any physical law.
There is a lot of difference between what David did
and what the disciples did on the Sabbath, and someone going
into his bake shop on the Sabbath, spending hours
baking bread and cakes to sell so the car will not be
re-possessed. There is a vast difference between what David did
in a merciful situation, than a farmer getting out his
harvest machines and spending hours working on the Sabbath
because the weather man says it is going to rain on
Sunday. There is a difference between the "home heating"
specialist helping to get the furnace going for the little old
lady next door who will die from the bitter cold of the
Alaska winter( and no one else is available to help) on the
Sabbath, than the same guy working for his boss on the Sabbath
because his boss tells him he must or he'll be fired.
The whole idea behind Tkach's teaching is not "the
emergency", "ox in the ditch" Sabbath work, although he
uses such language to deceive and confuse his readers. It
is DEEPER than that by far. If you think otherwise,
you are where he wants you to be, duped. His overall goal is
to so loose the keeping of the Sabbath that we should never
question how any Church member observes it, never make it a
point of sin (the breaking of it, for that is now left for
the individual to decide how to keep), never make it a
condition for baptism (never ask if they are, or will, keep the
Sabbath as outlined by the 4th commandment).
Making a "fetish out of avoiding activity on the Sabbath" is
one thing, but keeping the Sabbath as Tkach and the WCG now
teach you can and may with God's blessing, is ANOTHER kettle
of fish as the saying goes.
Indeed, the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.
Jesus was and is Lord of the Sabbath. Allowing His disciples to
eat a few grains of wheat as hey walked through the fields on
the Sabbath was breaking no law of God, and was making the
Sabbath a physical delight. The Sabbath was made for the
delight of man.
TKACH WRITES:
"The Lord of the Sabbath has come, and the reality has replaced
the shadow (Colossians 2:17). The New Testament Sabbath, the
Sabbath rest that remains for the people of God (Hebrews 4) is
the new life in Christ, the life of faith in him, the life of the
Spirit. Our weekly Sabbath observance, then, should reflect and
celebrate that fact, but it should not be an Old Covenant
observance.
The way we usually observed the Sabbath in the past has been to
apply Old Covenant rules to the New Covenant Sabbath, and thereby
bind unnecessary burdens.......
But it is not correct to say that God demands that a breadwinner
lose his job over the Sabbath. He should work toward devoting the
Sabbath to God, but for the Church to demand that a person under
all circumstances not work on the Sabbath is to miss the
point of it; and to apply Old Covenant rules to what is now a
part of the New Covenant.
The attitude we need is this: I wouldn't necessarily do what that
person did, but I'm not going to condemn him for it. Christ is
his Judge; and I am not. I do what I do to glorify God, and I
hope my brother is doing whatever he's doing to glorify God, too.
Each person should be fully convinced in his own mind, in his own
conscience, Romans 14 tells us.......
Scripture says that those who don't provide for their own
families are worse than unbelievers, and common sense says that,
too. If the choice is between working on the Sabbath and
providing food for the family, it is not a sin to work on the
Sabbath. It's not the ideal that we should strive for, but again,
we should not apply Old Covenant rules to the New Covenant
Sabbath. They aren't doing it for selfish benefit, but to avoid
hunger and putting their families out on the street."
MY COMMENT:
Now the leader of the WCG sees Col .2:17 and Heb.4 as "doing
away with" the letter of the 4th commandment as found in Exodus
20 and Deut.5. Well Mr. Tkach, Professor Samuele
Bacchiocchi and about 14 million SDA church members, together
with about another 500 thousand Church of God Sabbath keepers around the world,
and 20 million on the African continent [only 2 million of them are SDA]
WOULD STRONGLY DISAGREE WITH YOU, yours truly included.
I see nowhere in the New Testament where Jesus or any of
the apostles or writers of the New Covenant, said anything about
the letter of the law of the Sabbath as found in EX. 20
being obsolete and void and done away with under the age of
grace and New Covenant. On the contrary James was inspired to
write: "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet
offend in ONE point, he is guilty of all. FOR HE THAT SAID,
Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou
commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a
transgressor of the law. So speak ye, and so do, as they that
shall be JUDGED by the law of LIBERTY" (James 2:10-12).
Who was James talking about when he said "for HE that said" ?
It was the God of the Old cCvenant! Where was James quoting
from in saying "Do not commit adultery", "Do not kill."? Why
from the 10 commandment law of Exodus 20 - from the old
covenant 10 commandments. James sure did not teach that
the letter of the law was nailed to the cross or made void
under the New Covenant. Then again, maybe Tkach will do
as Martin Luther of the Protestant revolt fame did, call the
letter of James "an epistle of straw."
It is okay now to be a "bread winner" in the WCG
and work at your secular job. There it is from the horses
mouth. Your circumstance may be that it demands working on the
Sabbath to keep or find a job, so go to it Tkach says. Look,
your Bible says the heart can be deceitful above all things and
desperately wicked (Jer.17:9). Let's face it, we live in a
world that is mainly geared to Sunday keeping, way
more demand for working on Saturday than Sunday. Most in
North America are back to working 45, 50 and more hours a
week, that's statistical fact. You have a better chance at
getting and holding a job if you will work Friday
nights and/or Saturdays. Most of us have probably been in
situations as bread winners where we could have accepted
jobs with Saturday work and solved our problems much easier and
sometimes very quickly. If God left it up to our human heart
to decide how to observe the Sabbath hours in regards to
our secular bread winning work, I guarantee most of us
would be working on the Sabbath, we would come up with some
excuse for why we had to, such as: "Well I'm the bread
winner, so I must", or, "This job (which demands Saturday
work) is the only one I can find in my trade," or, " I can
better provide for my family (and God says I must provide
doesn't He?) if I accept this Saturday working job," or,
"I only have to work two Saturday mornings a month to get this
great paying job, I'll be able to help my family more and have
more to give to the church."
The reasonings would be endless!
Oh, the human heart would think of something you can bet. My
wife and I have often said to each other over the years when
in some very busy secular profession: Thank the Lord He has
given us the 4th commandment, what He wrote in it, for we would
otherwise be working on Saturday.
And that is really the truth of it friends, without the
letter of the Sabbath command as contained in Exodus 20, the
human heart would find an excuse, a situation, a circumstance,
a pretty constant ox in the ditch reason to bread win on
the Sabbath hours.
Once again (and there will be more times to come) Tkach hits the
"no judging" platform.
It is true we can not condemn, as I have previously said,
for we can not see the heart of man as God sees it, and it is
only the Lord who can finally condemn anyone to eternal death.
But is there never a time that we (as Christians knowing what
God says IS sin) can not judge our brother or sister in
SERIOUS matter of sin? Is there never a time that God's
ministers can not judge a child of the Lord in the matter of
serious sins? Are we all just to close our eyes, look the other
way, say nothing when our fellow Christian falls into grievous
sins?
What says the Lord, what says the Word of the Lord, are we given
any instructions on such matters? YES, indeed we are! It is
written, Jesus answered Peter on one occasion, "You have RIGHTLY
judged" (Luke 7:43).
Jesus also said: "Judge not according to the appearance, but
judge RIGHTEOUS judgment" (John 7:24).
Does this sound like we are NEVER to JUDGE? Christ knew that His
disciples would, from time to time, have to use judgment. He
emphasized they better have the true facts and use correct
righteous judgment, when those situations arose.
Jesus' instructions on LARGE sin matters between brethren, is
recorded in Matthew 18:15-20. The context shows this is not
petty disgruntlings like getting hurt feelings because a
brother or sister did not hold the church door open for you when
you had your arms full. This is VERY SERIOUS SINS Jesus is
here talking about, because if the brother/sister does not
repent the church can put them out of their fellowship! We are
not to go around snooping for dirt in our brother's
eye, all acting like secret agents on the look out
for sin in others lives. Sadly this became the situation in
the WCG in the last years of the life of Herbert Armstrong, and
people were "cast out" of the church for just about any
reason in order to keep everyone "loyal" to the human master.
This was CULTISM! All cults will practice this type
of judgment - an UN-righteous, UN-scriptural judgment.
The New Testament plainly does teach a doctrine of "Church
Discipline" where judgment is to be used and correction given.
But the truth of the matter on this doctrine is NOT the way
many teach and use it.
The WCG at one time swung the pendulum on this far out to
the right, now to brake that image they have put the
pendulum far to the left and now teach a doctrine
of "no judgment." Neither is the correct Biblical
teaching. God's way is the plumb line (or pendulum) in the
middle - straight center - Amos 7-9.
Peter judged righteous judgment in the case of Ananias
and Sapphira (Acts 5).
Again, Peter used righteous judgment with Simon the sorcerer in
Acts 8.
Paul used righteous judgment with the high priest Ananias in
Acts 23.
Again, when Paul handed two men over to Satan for correction in
1 Timothy 1:18-20, he used righteous judgment. And when Paul
used judgment on the man guilty of INCEST in the Corinthian
church, it was righteous judgment (1 Cor. 5).
There are more examples in the New Covenant but my point is
already proved.
So what about Jesus saying, "Judge not that you be not judged"?
It should be clear now that Jesus was saying we
should not judge UNrighteous judgment, so we would not be
unrighteously judged. Jesus went on to say:
"For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be
judged.... "(Mat.7:2). It is a serious matter to judge, it
better be done with GREAT CARE! You had better make sure
you have the true facts and that serious sin/s are being
committed, the clear commandments of the Lord are being broken,
that could, if not repented of, effect the individual and
possibly the whole church. We can not condemn, but God gives
us the right to JUDGE in the appropriate situation.
Turn to Galatians chapter 6, verses 1-3. Paul is instructing
brethren to help each other when one of them is overtaken in a
serious fault or sin. The one doing the restoring is to
have humility and not be self righteous and conceited.
Obviously righteous judgment must be employed in this
setting, and clearly it must be the context of clear sin and the
breaking of the commandments of God.
The apostle James wrote about this also: "Brethren, if any of
you do ERR FROM THE TRUTH, and one convert him;
Let him know, that he which converteth a sinner from
the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and
shall hide a multitude of sins" (James 5:19,20).
There it is again, the same as what Paul said only in
different words.
The context is SIN! And a brother/sister falling from the
truth into sin. The New Covenant defines sin as the
breaking of the law - the Ten commandment law (as
amplified by the whole Bible) of God, in-which the Sabbath
command is the 4th point of that law.
To convert someone who has fall en away from
truth into sin NEEDS JUDGMENTAL DISCERNING of the proper
kind, the righteous kind.
Tkach tries to use Romans 14 to give Biblical proof for his
statement.
Obviously, from the rest of the New Covenant, the "judging" we
have been talking about can not be what Paul had in mind
here. Otherwise the Bible would contradict itself. People in
Rome were CONDEMNING each other, and that over NONE ESSENTIAL
MATTERS as far as salvation was concerned. Paul does not
mention the commandments of God, or the law of God. He does not
mention even the statutes or precepts of God. The entire 14th
chapter of Romans is dealing with some of the
Christian FREEDOM areas of life that are not sin and is
left for us to decide which and when we will practice them.
The word "Sabbath" does not appear in this chapter.
The days here mentioned are connected with fasting - when one
determines to fast or not eat, is for us to determine as
individuals - it is our freedom. If we want to eat animal
flesh we can, if we want to eat only herbs and vegetables and no
flesh meat, we can - it is our freedom in Christ. There are
many things we can choose or not choose, neither the doing or
the not doing, is sin. Many in Rome were condemning each other
for things they did or did not do, and Paul had to tell
them BOTH WAYS were acceptable to God - neither the doing or the
not doing of which was SIN!
He also instructed them to be sensitive to the practices and
wishes of other Christians in the matter of "freedom in
Christ." If you doing something you had the freedom to do
(because it was not sin as God defines sin) would cause your
fellow brother/sister to be offended, then Paul taught you should
refrain from doing it.
This is what Romans 14 is all about, and has nothing to do with
the Church or individual Christians judging the matter of sin
and the breaking of the commandments of God.
Finally in this section, Joseph Tkach pits one scripture against
another to "do away" with one while establishing the other as
pre-eminent. This contort of the mind on scripture is a favorite
of Satan's. He tried to use it on Jesus during His 40 days of
fasting.
The verse that Tkach is referring to is found in 1 Timothy
5:8.
As I have said before the psychological mind play used by
this leader of the WCG is very profound. He has repeated many
times (they say repeat a lie often enough and people will
believe it) to his readers that the letter of the law of the
Sabbath is not binding under the New Covenant. After
conditioning you over and over again to believe this or at
least entertain it as a possible truth, he now throws you 1
Tim. 5:8. Ah, he would say, this is NEW covenant teaching
from the lips of Paul.
Do you see what he has done? Because, in his mind, the letter
of the 4th commandment as found in Exodus 20, does
not apply under the New Covenant, then this verse by
Paul has GREATER strength and predominance and application,
for it is found in the New Covenant text. He ignores the
context of this verse and does not ask any questions like: Did
Paul give this verse to prove to Timothy that the letter of the
law of the Sabbath was now void, or to argue the fact that
working on the Sabbath was fine if it meant it enabled you to
provide for your own? Tkach ponders none of this nor does he
ask you to meditate on this verse with those questions in mind.
He has hoped that his hammering away at the letter of the law of
the Sabbath has done its job and convinced you that what he has
said is indeed so. That done, he can then easily hit you
with this verse in the book of Timothy. He hopes you will see
that the GREATER LAW is to provide for your own EVEN TO THE
EXTENT of working on the Sabbath.
Let me ask you this: Is this basic truth and law of God
that Paul is reiterating in 1 Timothy 5:8, found in the TEN
commandments of Exodus 20? It is a truism of
God, yes indeed. It is a principle - a precept - that God
wants us to follow. BUT, are we to follow that precept AT THE
EXPENSE of one of the VERY FOUNDATIONAL COMMANDMENTS of God as
recorded in the 4th commandment of THE ten? Shall we
BREAK other commandments of the Lord to fulfil this one?
Some could argue that God's word says nothing
specifically about the use of so called "illegal drugs" such as
cocaine. Is it okay for me to traffic in drugs because I have
little eduction, am out of work, because no jobs are available
in my area, and God says I am to provide for my own?
Can the mother of say, four little children, LIE for her boss in
order to keep her job, because she must provide for her own,
and there is no "dad" around to take over? A man works as
a waiter. One day his boss tells him there is going to be an all
woman' s club meeting once a month in the evening. They want
to have the waiters sexually dressed or I should say
UNdressed, as part of their entertainment. This Christian man
in our scenario has been chosen as one of many, to give these
sex crazed ladies what they want. He is good looking and well
built. His boss says this is now part of his job, if he wants
to keep his job he must comply. Our man is the bread winner, he
makes a good salary plus tips. He knows God says he must
provide for his own. His wife cannot work for she has a health
disability. He will get even better tips the night these ladies
come to be waited on by sexy stripped men.
Under all these circumstances, is it okay for him to do as his
boss demands? Is it blessed from the Lord for him to so act?
Does the divine precept "if any provide not for his
own....annulment against adultery and immorality, so he can keep his
job and be a provider?
Tkach would probably answer "no he cannot do this."
His reasoning would go like this: The New Covenant REPEATS the
law of adultery and sexual immorality so we must keep it, but
the letter of the 4th commandment is not repeated
in the New Covenant, so we can ignore it if the situation
warrants it. Do you see how the mind can twist and turn to fit
"the situation ethics" of the Sabbath command. The
Catholic and Protestant leaders have been doing it for
centuries. It's not too hard for Tkach to take up their band
wagon and roll with it. It's the same old arguments and human
reasonings that have been around for a long long time to dethrone
the Sabbath command into spiritual "mush," "sentimental"
mind thought, and the least of the commandments.
The context of 1 Timothy 5 and verse 8 has NOTHING to do
with HOW TO KEEP THE SABBATH! Paul is not giving instructions
on "Sabbath questions."
He is not answering Timothy's question about which is the
greater law - keeping the letter of the 4th commandment or
holding on to your job to provide for your own.
Look at it friends! See if you can find anything about the
Sabbath law in those verses of 1 Tim. 5. The plain truth is
that Paul is talking about and giving instructions REGARDING
"widows that are widows indeed" (verse 3). Widows in the church
that had no relative to help support them physically, they were
to be honored (helped) because they were true widows in every
sense of the word.
Such, the church was to help with their physical needs if they
needed help. The church was always to help its genuine poor, many
verses show that truth.
Widows that had children or nephews in the church,
that was another story. That situation Paul was inspired to
give different instructions on. It was the God given duty for
children and nephews to help and take care of the physical needs
of their blood line widows.
The context is and Paul is answering the question: WHO SHOULD
TAKE CARE OF THE NEEDS OF THE WIDOWS IN THE CHURCH?
Paul's clear instructions (inspired by the Holy Spirit) was: "If
any man or woman that believeth have widows, LET THEM RELIEVE
THEM, and let not the church be charged; that it may RELIEVE
THEM THAT ARE WIDOWS INDEED" (verse 16).
Paul, a man of God who upheld, served, obeyed the commandments
of God. Paul, a man of God who wrote that the laws of God were
HOLY, that they were SPIRITUAL, that they defined WHAT SIN WAS!
This man of God that the Jews could find NOTHING to accuse him
of (Acts 25; 26), was then a Sabbath keeper in the letter and in
the spirit.
This man of God who said: "Follow me as I follow Christ" would
as they say "turn over in his grave" if he knew people like
Tkach were using his instructions about supporting church widows
to teach that breaking the Sabbath in the letter was fine and
dandy, that his instruction for support of widows came ABOVE and
was GREATER than the words of the 4th commandment as written in
Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5.
Again, let me repeat (Tkach likes to keep repeating his
pronouncements): this section of 1 Timothy 5 has nothing
directly to do with "how to keep the Sabbath." It would have
been the furthest thing from Paul 's mind for him to have thought
that anyone would construe that he was teaching letter of the law
Sabbath breaking when uttering these words about physically
helping widows in the church.
Notice the words of Tkach: "If the choice is between working on
the Sabbath, and providing food for the family, it is not a sin
to work on the sabbath."
He gives you no Scripture to back up his lofty decree and rule.
Nothing here with a "thus says the Lord." Just a statement of
Paul's taken out of context, put together with previously
stated reasonings, founded on the sands of false doctrine (the
letter of the 4th commandment is "done away" under the NT) and a
deeper truth has been revealed to him that to prevent your "own"
from going hungry, it is okay to work at your job on the Sabbath.
Where is FAITH in all of this? If you can do your own thing
anytime you think it necessary, then faith is not needed, yet the
Scripture says we live by faith, we trust God to help us obey His
commandments, just as Daniel and his three friends did, even in
the face of death for such obedience.
Where is the CHURCH in all this and its caring,
loving, helping, people when in physical need?
Where is the NATION in all this, and our unemployment
benefits and welfare system (most Western nations have such help
available)? Where is the Churches POOR FUND in all this (the NT
says the church is to help the poor and needy)?
Where are all the FOOD BANKS and other charities that serve the
needy, in all this?
There should not be, need not be, one single person, one single
child, in the Church of God that should go hungry or homeless
BECAUSE OF SABBATH KEEPING!!
If they are doing what the Father says to do, if they are doing
their part in finding suitable employment, if they are not being
lazy and trying to bum a free ride off society and/or the
Church, if they are serving the Lord and keeping His
commandments, the CHURCH ALONE, never mind Governments, should
never see a single member go hungry or be living on the
streets. Such language from Tkach is mind freezing and
incomprehensible in the light of the true Church of God passages
concerning works (i.e. James 1:22-27; 2:14-17; 1 John 3:14-24).
There are many other NT verses to add to the above, that teach
the Church is to look after its own in a physical way, those that
have need of such help. Possibly because the WCG is forgetting
all this, possibly because they do not have a "poor fund,"
possibly because they are in financial decline, they cannot or
will not function as the true Church of God should. So it
is easy for them to loosen the letter of the Sabbath command and
let people work on God's Holy Day, faith not having to be
exercised. This will mean less responsibility for members to
help those in physical need because of Sabbath keeping, and more
money coming into the WCG bank account to pay Tkach and all his
"dumb sheep" ministers, who lack faith to walk away and tell him
to "get lost: and stop making the WCG into another CULT.
That is the truth of it friends. The WCG is already another cult!
This is why I say that: A cult blindly follows its head leader.
It has become a cult partly because it has a head leader, a
single person that pulls all the strings, presses all the
buttons, dictates to the people what they will believe and
practice and follow. If you think these new teaching of the WCG
have come about because all the ministers in that organization
got together at some ministerial conference, and collectively,
prayerfully, studied the Word, and saw the light, you are
DREAMING yourself into never-never-land.
It is Tkach and a few of his inner circle chimps who have devised
these new freedom (they claim it is freedom, but it is really old
sin coming as light) laws to impose on the membership. It is they
who wheel the power, they dictate what shall be, and it would
seem many do act as their dumb sheep by following their every
"baa, baa" into the sheep fold of cultism.
...................................... TO BE CONTINUED
First written in 1995.
All articles and studies by Keith Hunt may be copied, publushed,
e-mailed, and distributed as led by the Spirit. Mr.Hunt trust
nothing will be changed without his consent
Sabbath Arguments Answered #3The Worldwide Church of God has abolished the Sabbath commandment - I answer their argumentsWORLDWIDE NEWS, JANUARY 10th, 1995
MORE
FROM TKACH:
1. We see New Testament examples of Sabbath keeping, but we don't
see commands like the Old Testament had: Do not gather food, do
not carry a burden, do not travel out of the city, etc.
2. The conservatives should not condemn the actions of others,
and the liberals shouldn't despise the rule-keepers. We should
welcome each other based on faith in Jesus Christ.
The point is that we should not be sitting in judgment of how
others observe the Sabbath.
Some will be extra careful to be home by sundown, while others
will not. Some will work on the Sabbath because they have an
ox in the ditch, while others will not view their situation as an
ox in the ditch.
It is not for us to determine for others whether their situation
is an ox in the ditch. It is for each person to determine for
himself or herself.
3. There is nothing in the New cCvenant that says we are required
to keep the Sabbath according to the rules of the Old Covenant In
the New Testament, we see examples of people keeping the Sabbath,
and we see statements that tell us the Sabbath is a shadow
pointing to the reality, who is Christ.
That doesn't mean that the Sabbath is done away, but it means the
Sabbath is fulfilled in Christ. It means Christ is more important
than the Sabbath. It means the Sabbath rest for Christians in
Hebrews 4 is the new life in Christ, not just a day of the week.
And Paul tells us in Romans 14 that we should not be involved in
disputes over days.
It is wrong-headed to think that achieving an accurate and
balanced understanding of this issue is watering down the truth.
4. It is not the Sabbath itself that is changed, but the precise
way this holy time is to be observed. It is holy, of course, in
that we dedicate it to God, not in the sense that it is binding
on Christians. The Sabbath has been fulfilled in Jesus Christ.
5. It's true that the Sabbath is not commanded as part of the
new covenant in the way it was under the old covenant. Not
keeping it doesn't make them any less Christian, as I've
tried to make plain.
6. But it is not a yoke of bondage around our necks. And God
does not expect Christians to go into a poverty cycle to keep it.
7. We are saved by faith, not by rules, and certainly not by
judging one another.
WORLDWIDE NEWS, JANUARY 24th, 1995
8. Colossians 2:16-17 tells us that the reality, or substance,
is Christ, and now that he has ncome, now that we have the
reality and have entered into it, there is no more requirement
for the physical figure, just as there is no more need for the
physical sacrifices.
MY COMMENT:
I have pointed Tkach's comments, and I will answer them
in turn.
Take the time to look up all the verses in the first FIVE
books of the Bible concerning the Sabbath. These books
contain the laws of God. Use Strong's Concordance for your
study. As I have said before, you will find very little
in the way of specific commands for Sabbath keeping. I
have commented on the law in Exodus 16 about gathering
food on the Sabbath, a law that ended when Israel entered
the promised land under Joshua.
See if you can find in those five books of Moses any
law about "carrying a burden't or "travelling out of the
city." Those laws are not there! What was written
later by others concerning such practices as Israel or
Judah had laid upon themselves for Sabbath keeping, has
nothing directly to do with any law given by God in the
five books of Moses.
By the time Jesus came in the flesh, the Jews (scribes
and Pharisees) had 600 laws for what THEY considered
correct Sabbath keeping. Most of these Jesus said
were man made and He cast them aside. The verses on
Sabbath observance found in the books of Moses are VERY
CLEAR on one thing - you must not WORK AT YOUR
REGULAR SECULAR JOB, NOT YOUR SERVANTS, NOT EVEN YOUR
OX OR ASS - IT WAS A DAY OF REST, HOLY TO THE LORD.
Those who would not comply were to be put to DEATH! I
would say God was very SERIOUS about His Sabbaths. You
may want to look up all the laws that carried the death
penalty if broken. Sabbath keeping was among those laws!
Do you think God takes this matter lightly?
Someone is bound to bring up the law about "no fire"
on the Sabbath, found in Exodus 35:3. The Bible
Commentary by Jamieson , Fausset, Brown Vol. 1, page 419,
gives the truth of the matter - quote:
"CHAP.XXXV.1-35. Contributions to the Tabernacle. 1.
Moses gathered, &c.; On the occasion referred to in the
opening of this chapter, the Israelites were
specifically reminded of the design to erect a magnificent
tabernacle for the regular worship of God, as well as
of the leading articles that were required to furnish
that sacred edifice....... 3. Ye shall kindle no fire
throughout your habitation upon the sabbath day. The
Sabbath was NOT A FAST DAY. The Israelites COOKED THEIR
VICTUALS ON THAT DAY, for which, of course, a FIRE
WOULD BE NECESSARY; and this view of the institution is
SUPPORTED BY THE CONDUCT OF OUR LORD (Luke xiv.1). But
in early times the Israelites, while sojourning in the
wilderness and subsisting on manna, received a double
supply on the sixth day, which they cooked also on that
day (see on ch.xvi.23), so that a fire for culinary
purposes was entirely unnecessary on the Sabbath day.
As the kindling of a fire, therefore, could only be
for secular purposes, the INSERTION of the prohibition in
CONNECTION WITH THE WORK OF THE TABERNACLE makes it HIGHLY
PROBABLE that it was INTENDED chiefly for the MECHANICS who
were to be EMPLOYED in that erection; and as some of them
might have supposed it was allowable to ply their trade
in the furtherance of a structure to be dedicated to
religious worship, it was calculated TO PREVENT ALL SUCH
IDEAS, by absolutely forbidding any fire for the sharpening
of tools, for the melting of metals, or any other material
purpose bearing on the sanctuary." (emphasis mine).
This Sabbath law was for the regulating of the
Tabernacle and its physical preparation and upkeep. Even
the Holy place where God would dwell under the old
covenant was not an excuse for tradesmen to apply
their skills on the Sabbath hours.
That law was established for as long as the
Tabernacle/Temple of God stood.
If there was no physical Tabernacle, then that specific law
was automatically redundant, just as the law about gathering
manna was redundant when there was no more manna to
gather.
A few laws regarding Sabbath observance in the books of Moses are
redundant and void, but the CONTEXT and PHYSICAL LIMITATIONS of
those laws make it easy (so easy a young child can understand) to
see WHY they are not applicable under the New Covenant but to use
that understanding to teach that the BASIC sabbath law as found
in the words of Exodus 20 is "done away" under the New Covenant
is like saying black is now white.
It is TWISTING and PERVERSION of the word of the Lord, it
is the fulfilment of the ancient prophets words when they
said the leaders of the people would "call evil good, and
good evil" and when turning the people away from the law of
God they would tell them " we are delivered to do this
thing."
I thank the Lord that He still has a few who have not bowed the
knee to Baal and are as little children in faith, who can read
the easy to understand parts of God's word and law and
FOLLOW and OBEY it. Truly the Father has hidden these things
from the wise and prudent and has revealed them unto babes.
2. Jesus was neither liberal or conservative. He did not ply the
oneagainst the other as in some "tug of war" match.
Jesus was PERFECTION and set us an example to follow His
steps. Paul followed Christ and told us to "follow me as I
follow Christ." The Jews tried, but could find no
fault in Paul. If he was teaching and practicing what Tkach is
now teaching about Sabbath keeping, you can bet your
bottom dollar the Jews would have torn Paul apart for
religious perversion and "wrong headedness" in watering down
the truth against the commandments of God.
See how Tkach keeps pounding away at "not judging"
on this Sabbath observance issue. True, there are liberties
WITHIN THE LAW of the Sabbath we must all decide upon and
not set up our 600 laws as the Jews did. The Lord
gives us only BASIC guidelines for Sabbath keeping, not
600 laws of do's and don'ts. But Exodus 20 and other
verses are clear, no theological degree needed to read
them and understand. The law defines what sin IS. It is
sin to do your secular job on the Sabbath, and that
we do have the right to judge.
I have commented on the ox in the ditch teaching of
Sabbath keeping, but a few more words may be helpful for
the reader. If you own a tow truck as part of your
secular work (you tow cars for a living) and one day, just
after leaving home to attend Sabbath services, you come
across a car that has plowed into the ditch and
people need help to get back on the road, and you can
help. So should you help? We will suppose in this case
you are not far from home to return with your tow
truck and pull the car out. Yes, you should do so! It
is the kind Christian thing to do and you will accept
NO PAY for doing good on the Sabbath. That and many
other such situations fulfils the ox in the ditch Sabbath
observance. I am not saying anything NEW here. The
Church of God has always taught this kind of Sabbath
keeping.? BUT THIS IS NOT THE WAY TKACH IS USING IT.?
From the context of his wordy writings on this, it
is much BROADER than what the Church of God has ever
taught, and it goes hand in hand with his BROADER
teaching on "do not judge" one another. It sounds like
wonderful liberty he offers you, he wants you to think
it is wonderful liberty from God's revelation to you, but
he does this while he himself is the servant of
corruption and lawlessness.
3. Just a minute. is there ANYTHING in the New Covenant
that says we are NOT required to keep the Sabbath
according to the rules of the old covenant? I see
the New Covenant saying Christ came not to destroy the law
or the prophets but to fulfil and magnify the law. I see
where Jesus said that if the righteousness of His
disciples did not exceed that of the scribes and
Pharisees, they would not be in the Kingdom of God. I
see where Jesus said FEW would be saved and MANY who
used His name, thought they were Christians, did things
for Him, preached about Him, would be cast out, would not
enter the Kingdom, would be weeping and gnashing their
teeth.
I see where Jesus will tell them "depart from me, you
that work lawlessness." I have before proved that a few Sabbath
laws of the old covenant CANNOT be applied today,as the physical
situation is not there to apply those rules, but otherwise, apart
from those few rules, I see nothing in the new covenant that says
we should not apply Old Covenant rules to Sabbath keeping.
Once more, Tkach uses the old Protestant arguments of Romans 14
and Hebrews 4 to "spiritualize away" the letter of the 4th
commandment. It should by now be very clear to the reader that
Tkach and the WCG are now a fully Protestant Church, a daughter
of the BABYLONIAN WHORE of the book of Revelation, who may happen
to still meet on the 7th day of the week for church services
(until they move over to Sunday).
4. There it is, could not get much plainer. The Sabbath command
according to Tkach is not binding on Christians. It has
been fulfilled in Christ. Now it is only a spiritual
something or other. I guess this goes along nicely
with, and fits into their new theology about God - just
a spiritual blob of NOTHING! If the reader does not have my
article entitled "The WCG'S NOTHINGNESS GOD" them please
write for it - it's free.
It is now we ourselves who make the Sabbath holy. It
is no longer God who has put His very presence into
those Sabbath hours in a unique way to make it holy
time, but only as we dedicate it to God does it become
holy. I guess by the same reasoning then, if we do not
dedicate those hours to God, then it is not holy and
so we do not break (by doing our work or own thing) a
commandment of God, and do not sin. The WCG have torn
out the 4th commandment from the TEN, stood on it with
their dirty feet and have slid down the mountain side
into the abyss ofdestruction and the removal of their
candlestick from the true Church of God.
I do not want anyone to say I teach things I DO
NOT TEACH, so let me make it plain. Keeping the Sabbath in
the letter and the spirit perfectly will not per se
get you into the Kingdom of God, because you may have a
wrong attitude against another law/s of God, or just a
bad attitude against God for some reason. Ancient Judah
keptthe letter of the Sabbaths and Festivals and New Month
days, but God said He hated them because their whole
attitude to Him was putrid - they observed in the letter
somethings of God but their heart was far from God. It
can be the same with us. Sabbath keeping will not save you,
but on the other hand, can you be saved without Sabbath
keeping as defined by the whole Bible? No, you can not,
for he that will not let God define what sin is and
be willing to serve the Lord with all his heart and soul
and mind, will not receive the Spirit of God that saves
you (Acts 5:32; Romans 8:6-11).
You can not be saved BY keeping the Sabbath, yet you
can not be saved WITHOUT keeping the Sabbath. Sounds
confusing? Better request my article "Saved by Grace" and
get it all clear so you will never be deceived by
anyone.
5. See it for yourselves friends, from the mouth or pen of the
head cookand bottle washer of the WCG. All the Roman Catholics
and all the Protestants, if they have an honest sincere
attitude toward God are no "less Christian." There is
now NOBODY in the WCG or any other group that are less
Christian for "not keeping it" - the Sabbath. So as far
as the 4th commandment of the big ten, the keeping of
it as defined by Exodus 20, or the not keeping of it
so defined, MAKES DO DIFFERENCE TO BEING A TRUE CHRISTIAN,
you are no less or no more Christian whichever way you choose, so
says Mr. Tkach Sr.
I can see the hands of the Catholics and Protestants
being raised and saying "Praise the Lord, the members of
the WCG are one of us."
The Catholics/Protestants will feel at home now in the
services of the WCG, and manymembers of the WCG will
feel at home in the Sunday keeping churches.
It will only be a matter of time and the WCG will meet for
services on Sunday because it will be the most convenient
day of the week to hold meetings on.
6. There are MILLIONS and millions of Sabbath keepers -
letter of the law Sabbath keepers - around the world. Many
of them are poor because of many factors, they could be
classified by our North American standards as in poverty,
but is it really due to observing the Sabbath? Most of
them would never think they are in a poverty cycle
because they keep the Sabbath. Those whose hearts are
right with God are delighted to know the truths of God
(the 4th commandment one of those truths) and so live
their lives accordingly. Not all by any stretch of the
imagination, of Sunday church goers are living in physical
richness. Millions of so called "Christians" around the
world, are living in, or at times find themselves in "a
poverty cycle" no matter which if any day they set aside
for God. Poverty has a whole lot more to it than
"Sabbath keeping." But Tkach would like his readers to
believe that some in the WCG who are in the poverty cycle
can blame it all on obeying the letter of the Sabbath
law. Another falsehood of Satanic deception. If we wanted
to argue our way out of poverty from the Bible, I could
use the example of David. During his troubles and poverty
at one time in his life, he looked at all the great
wealthy wicked and un-godly persons around him, who just
thumbed their nose at God, yet accumulated mountains of
wealth.
He at first could not understand it, but later came to
see the truth of the matter (Ps.73).
Using this section of scripture I could argue that
your poverty cycle can be overcome by rejecting God and
being a part of the wicked of the world.
Some say you can prove anything from the Bible, and
I guess for the carnal mind that is true, but for
those who hunger and thirst after righteousness there is
only ONE WAY, ONE TRUTH, and ONE LIFE - Jesus and His
perfect example.
7. Tkach says we are not saved by rules. He is not
reading ALL the Bible that is obvious. What does he
think Jesus meant when He told the young rich man who
wanted to know how to enter into life. " . . .if thou
wilt enter into life, keep the commandments" (Mat. 19:17)?
Jesus went on to make it clear WHICH commandments He
was speaking about.
Now I believe Jesus, how about you? You are saved
by grace through faith and not of works, as Paul was
inspired to state, but you will also never be saved
without obeying rules. My article "Saved by Grace"
explains it all in simple clear language.
Notice again the "judging" issue is brought back for
one more punch in your face.
8. The truth of Colossians 2:16-17 is explained in my
article called Colossians 2:16. It is free upon request.
Tkach has now adopted the popular Sunday keepers
teaching. He puts the physical letter of the Sabbath
law in the same bag as physical sacrifices, and as one
has been put aside so the other also. The Sabbath is
debunked to physical ritual and thrown out with the
blood of bulls and goats. Another result of his inept
reading of God'sword. Physical sacrifices were from the
beginning - they were voluntary until God instituted
a rigorous Priesthood/Sacrifice system under Moses for the
Israelites. But NEVER were sacrifices mentioned with the
TEN COMMANDMENTS. Many Bible scholars of yesterday
(Albert Barnes, Adam Clarke, Matthew Henry, and other famous
writers and preachers) and today have and do acknowledge
that the ten commandment law is the ETERNAL MORAL LAW OF
GOD! They admit it is a law of God for all peoples and
for all ages, the keeping and observing of those ten
points would bring peace, joy, happiness, and blessings for
everyone on earth. The observing of animal sacrifices would
do no such thing!
When God first brought Israel out of Egypt, He did not
say anything to them about a sacrificial system. He told
them to obey His voice (Jer.7). He personally spoke the
TEN commandments to them, they heard His voice (Deut.5).
To try and lump the MORAL law of God into the
same mould as the sacrificial system is, to speak politely
- theological ineptness, and to say it not so politely -
idiotical baffoonary.
How anyone who pretends to read the Bible in any serious
way, can state that one or more of the Ten commandments
are "done away" because animal sacrifices are now
"done away" is hard for me to fathom, unless I realize
it is the mind of Satan that is speaking and not the
mind of the Holy Spirit.
Here is what the famous Bible Commentator, Albert
Barnes, wrote in his comments on Colossians 2:16; ". . .
There is no evidence, from this passage, that he would
teach that there was no obligation to observe any holy time,
for there is not the SLIGHTEST REASON to BELIEVE that he
meant to teach that ONE OF THE TEN COMMANDMENTS HAD
CEASED TO BE BINDING ON MANKIND. No part of the
MORAL LAW - NOT ONE of the Ten commandments - could be
spoken of as 'a shadow of things to come.' These commandments
are, from the NATURE OF MORAL LAW, of PERPETUAL AND
UNIVERSAL OBLIGATION." (Barnes' Notes on the New
Testament, One Volume Commentary, page 1070, emphasis his
and mine).
I could argue that Hebrews chapter 4 does use the 7th day
Sabbath as a type and "shadow of things to come" but
the main point was clear in the mind of Albert Barnes
and others of his time - the points of the ten
commandments comprise the MORAL LAW of God, binding and
perpetual on all mankind for all times.
These Ph.D religious commentators of yesterday may
have sincerely believed that the 4th commandment was
transferred to Sunday under the new covenant.
But they wholeheartedly taught all ten points of that law
was God's moral law of perpetual obligation by all
mankind, especially those who would call themselves
"Christian." Never did these learned men dream of
synthesizing the moral law with the law of animal sacrifices,
never did they teach that as the one is void today
(animal sacrifices) so is any part of the other (the moral
law of the ten commandments).
This teaching of Tkach has come about in modern times,
from the minds of some Protestant funny-mentalists (funny
if it was not so serious a matter) who being faced with
the "Sabbath question" had to devise a way to get rid
of the 4th commandment. The old fellows taught the 4th
commandment was Sunday, the new guys could not do that,
so other ways around the problem had to be invented.
Tkach is now using most if not all of them (including
"shadows" and "animal sacrifice" ideas) on the membership
of the WCG.
All those shadowy ideas will one day meet the reality of
Jesus, and the shadowy persons who have shadowingly (excuse
my pun) taught them will hear "depart from me, ye that work
lawlessness." There indeed will be "weeping and gnashing
of teeth."
WORLDWIDE NEWS - JANUARY 24th, 1995
All Christians have an obligation to live the life of
the Spirit as children of God, but not as slaves of the law
(Romans 8:1-17).
MY C0MMENT:
Now it is possible to make a god out of
anything - even the Ten commandment law of the Lord. The
Jews of Jesus' time had become slaves to the Sabbath by
their 600 rules of do's and don'ts. So yes, it is
possible to be a slave to the letter of God's law
and forget or neglect love, mercy, judgment. Remember
what Jesus told the Pharisees in Matthew 23. They loved
to obey the letter of the law of tithing, but forgot mercy
and judgment. But did Jesus tell them they should
IGNORE the letter and just live the spirit? NOT AT ALL!
Read it for yourselves friends. Jesus did not "do away"
with the letter.
Somehow I do not get the feeling Tkach is saying
what I've just said. His other words show a more sinister
theme.
The very section of scripture he sites contains these
words: "For to be carnally minded (the minding of the flesh,
mrg. reading) is death; but to be spiritually minded is
life and peace. Because the carnal mind is ENMITY AGAINST
GOD: for it is not SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF GOD, neither
indeed can be....... Now if any man HAVE NOT THE SPIRIT
OF CHRIST, he is none of His" (verses 6-9).
To live the life of the Spirit IS TO BE SUBJECT TO THE
LAW OF GOD!
Did the Spirit of life that dwelt in Jesus (and must
dwell in us if we are to be His) lead Him to be subject
to the law of God? Did Jesus by His words or life teach
that the letter and spirit of the 4th commandment was "done
away" ? He threw on the garbage heap many man made rules
and traditions concerning Sabbath observance, but NEVER in
word or action did He give the slightest notion that the
4th commandment was THEN or LATER to be cast out along
with animal sacrifices or physical circumcision. He lived
a SINLESS life in every way. He was perfection personified.
He never broke God's commandments either in the letter or
in the spirit. He was our PERFECT example
We are to have that very Spirit of Christ that was in
Him, IN US, if we do not we are none of His.
Paul had just stated in Romans chapter seven, that the
law of God (ten commandment law, verse 7) was HOLY, JUST
and GOOD. That is was SPIRITUAL (verses 12,14).
He had said in verse 22, "For I DELIGHT in the law of
God after the inward man."
The whole context of this part of Paul's letter is to
LOVE, SERVE, DELIGHT, OBEY the law of God. Go back to
chapter 6. Look at verse one: "What shall we say
then? Shall we continue in sin (the breaking of the law
- 1 Jn.3:4 with Rom.7:7) , that grace may abound"? He
answers emphatically in the next verse: "GOD FORBID"!
Notice verse six: "Knowing this, that our old man is
crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be destroyed,
that henceforth we should NOT SERVE SIN."
Verse 12 says, "Let not SIN therefore REIGN in your
mortal body, that ye should OBEY IT in the lusts thereof."
Verse 15 asks and answers the "grace" question: "What
then? shall we SIN, because we are not under the law,
but under GRACE? GOD FORBID"!
Now verse 18, "Being then made free from sin, ye
became the SERVANTS (slaves) of RIGHTEOUSNESS."
Do you know a Bible definition of righteousness? Here is
one: ". . . .for ALL THY COMMANDMENTS are righteousness "
(Psalm 119:172).
Notice verse 19, the last part: "even so now yield
your members SERVANTS (slaves) to righteousness unto holiness."
In chapter 7 and verse 25, Paul said he SERVED
the law of God. His attitude of mind was to love, and obey
it, yet because he was still in the flesh he often came
short of its perfection.
In one sense, in the RIGHT sense we are to be SLAVES to
the law of God.
We are to be a DAVID! We should want God to be able
to say of us that, "he is a man/woman after my own heart"
as He did of David.
Why could God say this about David? Read the Psalms and
you will see.
One of the greatest qualities David had was to
love the law, commandments, statutes and precepts of
God, as the Lord Himself loves them.
You need to take the time friend and read Psalm I; 103;
111; and 119 for starters.
Look at Ps.119 and verse 136. David said: "Rivers of
water run down my eyes, because they keep not thy law."
When you hear or read about this new teaching from
Tkach that most of the members of the WCG will blindly
follow, do you shed tears? Can it so trouble you that you
wake up in the middle of the night thinking about it? Have
you had days of a "heavy heart" because they "keep not
thy law"? Can you still shed tears over this like David
did?
Friend, I have. And as a servant and minister of the
Most High, I must take the time to answer Tkach in fine
detail.
In the correct sense our attitude should be that we
are SERVANTS - SLAVES - to the law of God. We are to
love the Lord with all of our heart, soul and mind.
That, as I have shown you, is commanded of us in BOTH
old, and new covenant. And the new covenant says: "For
this is the LOVE OF GOD, that we KEEP HIS COMMANDMENTS:
AND HIS COMMANDMENTS ARE NOT GRIEVOUS" (1 John 5:3).
The new covenant also sates: "And hereby we do KNOW
THAT WE KNOW HIM, IF WE KEEP HIS COMMANDMENTS. He that
saith, I know Him, and keepeth NOT HIS COMMANDMENTS, is a
liar, and the TRUTH IS NOT IN HIM.......And whatsoever we
ask, we receive of Him, BECAUSE we keep His commandments, and
do those things that are pleasing in His sight....... And this
IS LOVE, that we WALK AFTER HIS COMMANDMENTS....... Here
is the patience of the saints, here are they that KEEP THE
COMMANDMENTS or GOD, AND THE FAITH OF JESUS.......Blessed are
they that DO HIS COMMANDMENTS, that they may have right to the
tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city."
(1 John 2:3-4; 3:2?; 2 John 6; Revelation 14:12; 22:14).
WORLD-WIDE NEWS - JANUARY 24th, 1995
But the physical keeping of the Sabbath is not part of our
New Covenant obligation (Galatians 4:1-31).
MY COMMENT:
Once more in BLACK and WHITE, right before your eyes. There it
is, as clear as day, the new teaching of the WCG - the old
teaching of some (probably most) of the Pro-testant
funny-mentalists, popularly known as fundamentalists.
The Sabbath, as written in Exodus 20 is "void" - "done
away" under the new covenant.
Galatians chapter 4, especially verses 9-11 is called upon
to try and prove their stand of "no Sabbath observance."
Does the Bible contradict itself? Hebrews chapter 4
in the original Greek absolutely proves there is
presently - to day - still a Sabbath keeping for the
people of God, which is the 7th day of the week (verses
4,9), and those that enter God's rest cease from his OWN
WORK, AS GOD DID FROM HIS (verse 10). Now if this
is to be understood that we cease from our sins and enter
a spiritual rest, then so it must be understood for God
also. The very wording applies to both mankind and
God. Did God on that 7th day of creation CEASE FROM
SIN TO ENTER SPIRITUAL REST? No way! Not in your wildest
dreams! The Lord, ". . . RESTED from all HIS WORK which
God CREATED and MADE" (Gen.2:3).
The immediate context before this verse gives you the
plain truth what God had been doing on the
previous six days - the work He had been busy with was
PHYSICAL CREATION WORK! God rested on that 7th day from THAT
WORK and so blessed and sanctified (set apart) the 7th day.
It is so simple a child can understand, I understood it
when I was 7 years old and starting to read the Bible and
being taught to recite the Ten Commandments of Exodus 20.
So does the Bible contradict itself? Many say it
does and remain infidels and scoffers and atheists.
Did Paul in Galatians 4 say there was no Sabbath to observe,
contradicting Hebrew which says, "there remains a Sabbath
keeping to the people of God"? And did Paul to the Galatians
teach there was no Sabbath keeping, while to the Romans
teach they could choose whatever day they wanted as the
Sabbath (Rom.14)? Turn to Galatians 4:10. Can you
find written the word "Sabbath"? Can you find written,
"Ye observe the 4th commandment"? Can you find written,
"Ye observe the Jewish Sabbath'? Is it written in this
verse, "Ye observe Old Covenant days"? Is it written
here, "Ye observe Sabbaths of the law of Moses "? No
such words, language or phrases are used! That alone
should get you wondering about the correctness of these
funda-mental Protestants and WCG of late.
I have an article that explains this verse of Galatians
4, correctly! I have a study article on the book of
Galatians as a whole - it is in-depth., but it will
help you understand that book like you have never
understood it before - the title is "A Study in the
book of Galatians."
If you do not want to write for the article or
the study paper for whatever reason,
I want to finish my comment here with this. The good old
boys of yesterdays Protestant persuasion, who still
upheld all the Ten commandments as God's eternal moral
law, did not believe Paul was "'doing away" with the 4th
commandment in Galatians 4:10.
I will quote again from Albert Barnes (Barnes'
Notes from the New Testament, One Vol. edition, page 947: "It
is not a fair interpretation of this to suppose that the
apostle refers to the Sabbath, properly so called, for this
was a part of the Decalogue, and was observed by the SAVIOR
HIMSELF, and by the APOSTLES also. It is a fair interpretation
to apply it to ALL THOSE DAYS WHICH ARE NOT COMMANDED TO BE
KEPT HOLY IN THE SCRIPTURES; and hence the passage is as
applicable to the observance of SAINTS' DAYS, and days in
honor of particular events in SACRED history, as to the
DAYS OBSERVED BY THE Galatians. There is as real servitude
in the observance of the numerous festivals and fasts in
the Papal communion, and in some Protestant churches,
as there was in the observance of the days in the
Jewish ecclesiastical calendar; and, for anything that I can
see, such observances are as inconsistent now, with the
freedom of the gospel, as they were in the time of Paul .
We SHOULD OBSERVE AS SEASONS OF HOLY TIME WHAT IT CAN BE
PROVED GOD HAS COMMANDED US, AND NO MORE" (emphasis his
and mine).
Thank you Albert Barnes and I say "amen" to your comment.
You will never learn the truth about the book of
Galatians from the present leaders of the WCG. You will
learn more truth about this "hard to understand" writing
of Paul from the commentary of Barnes, than from Tkach. It
is possible your Public Library will have the one volume work
of Barnes' Notes on the New Testament.
WORLDWIDE NEWS JANUARY 24th, 1995
But to say that the Sabbath is a binding command on Christians in
the New Testament, and to forbid employment as a
requirement for membership, is to misunderstand and
misapply the Scriptures. (On the other hand, to play
golf or go to sports stadiums instead of assembling for
worship is wrong).
MY COMMENT:
As goes out the one, so comes in the other. Naturally, now
that the Sabbath commandment has been relegated to the
trash can by the WCG, they will not think about it
much anymore, nor will they teach members or candidates for
baptism that the breaking of the 4th commandment IS SIN.
The theology of the WCG will now be much the same as
their other sister churches of the WOMAN BABYLON mentioned
in Revelation 17:5. Her daughters may say bowing to idols
is sin, they may say stealing is sin, they may
say adultery is sin, they may say you should observe 9 of the 10
commandments but the Sabbath command - it is not
binding on Christians today, they tell you. And to
teach that you are forbidden to be employed in secular work
on that day, is close to out and out heresy in their
eyes, certainly it would be classified as fanatical.
How the truth has been turned upside down, indeed black is
called white and white is called black in many churches
today.
You will now begin to see in the WCG a move away from teaching
what the Bible defines as sin (the New Covenant defines it
very clearly), a move away from the Bible definition
of righteousness, a move away from what is true
repentance, sanctification, and holiness, as defined by the
word of the Lord. You will see an ever increase of man
made rules, regulations, traditions, and psychological
philosophies. It is already happening in the statement
above from Tkach.
He has been busy telling you that the 4th
commandment of the Old Covenant is NOT BINDING under the
New Covenant, what it commanded then does not apply
today. He has been telling you that you no longer have
to look into the Old Covenant to see how you should
regulate your life to comply to the Sabbath command. By his
very words, and his very teaching on the subject, you
no longer have to use Isaiah 58:13,14 to instruct and
guide you in Sabbath observance.
Those verses say: "If thou turn away thy foot from the
Sabbath, from doing THY PLEASURE on MY HOLY DAY; and call
the Sabbath a DELIGHT, the HOLY of the Lord, HONOURABLE;
and shalt honour Him, NOT DOING THINE OWN WAYS, NOR
FINDING THINE OWN PLEASURE, NOR SPEAKING THINE OWN WORDS:
Then shalt thou delight thyself in the Lord; and I will
cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth,
and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father: for the
mouth of the Lord hath spoken it."
The very next verses put this in the context of SIN and INIQUITY.
You need to read Isaiah chapter 59, verses one through to
fifteen. Remember in the original Hebrew there was no divisions
of chapters and verses.
The WCG will no longer use this section of the Old
Covenant to teach people about the Sabbath command, for
to them the 4th commandment is not binding on Christians
in the New Testament.
Now, if it is not binding then it is not sin. If we are
permitted by God to do something then it is not breaking a
law, or rule, God tells us to not break. That should
be simple to understand, should it not? So if the Sabbath
command is "no more" then there are no words to define what
should or should not be done on that day. There is then
no definition of sin for that command as that command
is not a command any more, under the New Covenant,
according to Tkach . If that is so, and human logical
reasoning would deduce that is so, WHY DOES TKACH TELL
YOU THAT "to play golf or to go to sports stadiums instead of
assembling for worship is wrong"?
Paul said: "......but sin is not imputed when there is
no law" (Rom.5:13). And he also said: "....... for
where no law is, there is no transgression" also, ".......
for by the law is the knowledge of sin" (Rom. 4:15;
3:20).
If the Sabbath command is no longer binding on
Christians in the New Testament, if that law is "unbound"
- "done away" - then by the very words Paul was inspired
to preach under the New Covenant, there IS NO SIN FOR
BREAKING THE SABBATH COMMAND IN WORKING OR IN PLEASURE!
It is just that simple - no law - no sin! As long as you are not
doing other sins (that the Bible defines as sin) on the
7th, or the 5th, or the 1st, or any day of the week, you
can DO WHAT YOU LIKE! You are breaking no Sabbath law
or command by doing sinless activities, because the 4th
commandment law is not a law anymore, and where there is
no law there is no transgression, no knowledge of sin,
and sin is not reckoned or marked on your tab when
there is no law.
You will notice Tkach says it is wrong to play golf
or attend sports stadiums instead of worship services. He
did not use the word "sin" for he can not, for the
reasons I have just pointed out to you. He is wiser than
that, he hasn't forgotten these verses I have just talked
about. He knows the bottom line of the theology he now
espouses and teaches - no law - no sin. So he can
not tell you it is sin to play golf on the Sabbath, or
attend the local football game. Those things
he says would be "wrong " - a word that to most of us
is LESS than sin.
He has before stated in his writings that the WCG will
continue to meet on Saturday for worship services so he
would argue, under the "spirit of the New Testament" it
would be "wrong" (in his estimation) to play a game of golf
instead of attending worship services.
Do you see what is going on here? Tkach and the leaders
of the WCG have told you there is no longer any
Sabbath command as defined by the Old Covenant and the
4th commandment of Exodus 20, so they know then there is
no sin for breaking it. Now they must try to devise ways
to still get their members to attend Saturday worship services.
Man made philosophies and teachings must be employed to
hold the people together for Saturday services. They will
claim this human dogma is within the spirit of the New
Covenant - not called sin, but "wrongs" and
"rights" - "better" and "worse." This will be the way
for a while, get the people brain washed to it, get them
accustomed to it, then, believe me it will come, they can
move along to the next step on their time table - a
change from Saturday worship services to SUNDAY worship
services!
MORE FROM THE SAME WORLDWIDE NEWS:
The Sabbath does not appear in any of the "sin
lists" in the New Testament. Nor does it appear in any
of the commands or lists of virtues in the New
Testament....
MY COMMENT:
See, he is telling his readers the keeping of the
Sabbath command OR the not keeping of it is NOT VIRTUE OR
SIN. It is just "no there" any more according to Tkach,
so it can not be virtue to keep it, nor can it be sin,
not to observe it - according to the WCG.
I could argue that the Sabbath command is included in the
"sin list" of Galatians 5:19-21. I could argue that it would
come under and be included in HERESIES (the teaching
that the Sabbath command was "done away" under the New
Covenant would have been huge heresy to James and the
Jerusalem church, and to Paul - more proof of that later).
I could argue that the Sabbath command could come
under Paul's words in verse 21 "and such like." I could
argue that the Sabbath command is included in the lists
of virtues in the New Testament, under the word "love" of
Galatians 5:22, for "love is the fulfilling of the law"
(see Romans 13:9,10). I could argue this way with many more
New Covenant Scriptures, but to the mind of Tkach he would
not be persuaded on this point unless I could show him
the specific phrase containing the specific word "Sabbath"
or "fourth commandment." I know how his mind is working, I
have encountered it many times from other Protestant
ministers and members. This is just another tactic to NOT
live by every word of God as Jesus said we should, and
just plainly rebel at the one commandment of God they think
is "old fashioned" and very troubling for our modern
demanding work-a-world societies.
The truth of the matter as to why the specific Sabbath command
was not listed in the virtues or sin lists of the New
Testament is the HISTORICAL and BIBLICAL fact that Sabbath
keeping in those days was NO BIG DEAL! The need to
mention it as some BIG sin or some GREAT virtue for God's
people was not relevant to the everyday Christian life of the
times.
The Jewish people were granted full religious freedom under
the Romans. Any child can see that by just reading the
Gospels and book of Acts.
The Jews were free to worship on and observe the Sabbaths of
the Lord. They were free to have their Temple and synagogues,
free to travel from all parts of the Empire to Jerusalem for the
Festivals. The Jewish societies were built upon, and around, the
7th day - Sabbath observance.
It was not a Sunday observing society - it was a
Saturday(Sabbath) observing society!
The Gentiles of the Roman Empire were free to became Jewish
proselytes. Again, just read the first five books of the New
Covenant. Many Gentiles did accept the Jewish faith and
served God as the Jews did, which meant they observed
the Sabbath command as found in the Old Covenant. They
attended the synagogue services on the Sabbath and
heard Moses and the Law read to them (Acts 15:19-21).
Being converted to Christ and the New Covenant
Church of God (which was looked upon as a sect of Judaism by
the Romans and the Jews - read the book of Acts), and
keeping the Sabbath was NO BIG DEAL, no BIG virtue in human
estimation. Thousands of Jews and Gentiles were keeping
the Sabbath outside of the Church of God. The Sabbath
question was NOT A QUESTION OR ISSUE for the Apostolic
Church of God. It was a part of life and part of accepted
society in those days.
The Sabbath comes around once every 7 days. It is by nature a
more physical law - do not do your regular work, rest and
worship God in reading His word, singing, praying, fellowship
and attending Church. We can only break the Sabbath once
a week as it comes to us. We can only keep the Sabbath
once a week as it comes to us. A society geared around
Sabbath (7th day) observance would make that commandment
EASY to comply with and not break (unless you were part of
the Pharisees with their 600 man made rules).
But many (if not all) of the sins listed in the "sin
lists" of the New Covenant were an EVERYDAY - day in day
out - battle to overcome and put away from their minds, actions,
deeds, heart, and living situations of daily life in a society
that fed on those sins. Look at the sin list in Galatians 5.
These were sins that God's people had to fight, overcome,
and put away, on a daily living experience. Some of them MUCH
HARDER to overcome than the once a week Sabbath command. Yes,
the Sabbath can be broken by wrong actions, wrong words, and
wrong thoughts, and most Sabbath keepers do break it from time
to time in those areas, but if we are honest about it, and if you
have been around as many Sabbath keepers as I have over the
last 65 years, you will admit that once in the groove of
Sabbath observance, it is easy to follow in the main.
There are millions of Sabbath keepers around the world, most of
them have the right attitude and love to serve the Lord in the
light they have been given.
Most of them have little trouble keeping the Sabbath, some
have lost jobs, not been able to accept jobs, because of the
Sabbath. Some have had to observe it secretly in the country
they lived in. But most once in the swing of keeping the
fourth commandment manage very nicely thank you. Most of
them will tell you they have much more difficulty overcoming and
putting away OTHER SINS that can plague them every day of
the week.
Sabbath breaking is not found in the sin lists of the New
Covenant because it was NOT A MAJOR PROBLEM AND SIN TO
OVERCOME in the world of the Apostles.
Sabbath keeping is not mentioned in the virtue lists of the new
covenant because it was no BIG VIRTUE to keep the Sabbath in a
Sabbath observing society at the time of the Apostles. The
sin of "lying with a beast" (having sex with an animal) is not
specifically named in any of the "sin" lists in the New
Covenant, not because it is no longer a sin (it was under
the Old Covenant, see Lev.18:23-30), but because it was not a
big problem among those coming into the Church, just as it is
not preached about or mentioned much in the Church today - it is
not a wide daily sin issue today nor was it at the time of the
apostles. It was a larger problem among the nations that
Israel would encounter as they went into the promised
land.
Not practicing such a sin is not named in the virtue lists of the
New Covenant, not because it is not a virtue to refrain from
such sins, but because it was NOT A PROBLEM of the time,
and so did not warrant any specific mention as some great virtue
on the Christian's part. The virtues mentioned are obviously
virtues that most people in the Church had problems attaining
and practicing. The Apostles felt no obligation in having to
repeat all the sins and virtues and commandments of the Old
Testament, and the New Testament. People could, as James said:
"For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him,
being read in the synagogue every Sabbath day" (Acts 15:12).
They could, after sometimes being told about specific areas of
sins they had (Acts 15:20), go to the Church on the Sabbath and
learn more - learn how to live by every word of God. They could
learn "everything about sin but were afraid to as" and
"everything about righteousness but were afraid to ask"
from the Old Covenant, from attending Sabbath services, and
from the true servants of the Lord.
If the Apostles were here with us today, in our societies, then
their list of sins and list of virtues, would probably be
somewhat different than when they wrote their lists in the
first century A.D.
TKACH CONTINUES HIS ARGUMENTS:
At creation, God rested on the seventh day and
sanctified it. But we also need to understand that at
creation, God gave no command to human beings regarding
keeping the day as a Sabbath. The day is not called
the Sabbath at creation, it is called the seventh day.
There is no commandment regarding the Sabbath until
after the Exodus. The Sabbath commandment is based on
God's rest in the creation account, but there is simply
no biblical teaching that a Sabbath commandment existed
before God formed a relationship with the Israelites, a
relationship codified at Mt. Sinai.......
TO BE CONTINUED
...........................
Written April 1995
|
Sabbath Arguments Answered #4 MY COMMENT:
Ah-AAAHHH, here we are at last with the standard argument used
by the Protestants since they had to figure a way around
not teaching as the Roman Catholic Church taught, namely:
"We keep Sunday because the Church decreed the holiness of
the Sabbath command would be transferred to Sunday."
The Catholic Church says they have the authority by being the
true church and the Pope being the vicar of Christ on earth,
to change or make holy days. The Protestants rejecting this
had to come up with other ways to get around the words of the
4th commandment, hence the argument Tkach now uses.
This argument falls like a deck of cards when you understand HOW
the Bible is written at times, and when you let the Bible speak
for and interpret itself.
1. Turn to Matthew chapter 19. The Pharisees came to
Jesus and asked Him if it was "awful for a man to put
away his wife for EVERY CAUSE"? (verse 3). There
was one school of the Pharisees that said it was lawful
- a man could divorce his wife for burning the toast.
Jesus answered from the BOOK OF GENESIS. From the
account of the creation of Adam and Eve - from Genesis
2:18-25. Jesus said it was NOT LAWFUL TO DIVORCE FOR JUST ANY
REASON.
The Pharisees went to Moses and claimed he, a servant
of God, led and inspired of God, did say it was lawful (verse
7).
Jesus answered that argument by saying: ".....Moses,
because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put
away your wives: BUT FROM THE BEGINNING IT WAS NOT SO" (verse
8).
Jesus went back to the VERY BEGINNING and told them the ORIGINAL
DESIRE AND INTENT OF GOD in making man and woman and bringing
them together in marriage.
The very words of Genesis chapter two, verses 13 to 25, carried
WITHIN THEM, the intent of God that man could not put away his
wife for any reason.
Now look at those verses friend, those verses in Genesis
do NOT SPELL OUT that original intent of God. It is not
there in black and white, the words "put away your
wife" are not there! The subject of divorce is NOT THERE!
Do you see how the Bible is written AT TIMES? Certain
specifics are not mentioned, but the INTENT is there!
Jesus read those words in Genesis, looked deep into
them, saw the clear intent of God in them, and answered the
Pharisees by saying, "from the beginning it was not the
intent or wish that man should put away his wife for every
cause."
So it was with the Sabbath friends. God blessed
and hallowed and sanctified the 7th day of creation week, at
the BEGINNING, for the INTENT that all mankind would remember
it and keep it holy!
You can look and look for God's law regarding marriage and
divorce from Genesis to the time of the Old Covenant given to
Israel, AND YOU WILL NOT FIND IT! It is not spelled out for
you, but the law and intent of God was there in the beginning -
Jesus said so! The intent and law of marriage from the
beginning was that man have one wife only and that he could not
put her away for every reason. Under the love and spirit of God
it was the intent they remain married till death separated them.
So it was with the Sabbath. Because you cannot find it spelled
out for you in black and white until Moses and the giving of
it to Israel DID NOT MEAN IT DID NOT EXIST AS A LAW OF GOD FOR
ALL PEOPLE. The intent that God did make it a law for all men and
women to follow and obey is found in Genesis 2, verses 2 and 3.
The excuse that Genesis does not lay down or record
specific words of a command to human beings "regarding
keeping the day as a Sabbath" is a daniel of the intent of
God, and a "grasping at straws" of the rebellious carnal
mind towards the laws and commandment of God.
2. Genesis does not use the word "Sabbath" but Exodus 20
does. Moses was inspired to say: "For in six days the
Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that
in them is, and rested the seventh day: WHEREFORE the
Lord blessed the SABBATH day. and hallowed it" (verse
11). God calls (it was God speaking these words of the
Ten commandments - Deut.5) , the seventh day He blessed
and hallowed at the beginning - the Sabbath day! The
intent is clear to those whose hearts are right with
the Lord, to those who hear His voice.
3. The New Covenant says Noah was "a preacher of
RIGHTEOUSNESS." It also says Lot was a "righteous man" -
see 2 Peter 2: 4 - 9.
What is a Bible definition of righteousness? Here it
is: "all thy commandments are righteousness" (Ps.119:172).
I can show you that from Genesis to Moses, all of God's
ten commandments are mentioned directly or indirectly.
Request the free article "The Ten Commandments before Moses."
4. It is written that God told Abraham his seed would
multiply as the stars of heaven, that all nations through
his seed would be blessed, BECAUSE.... " that Abraham
obeyed my VOICE, and kept my CHARGE, my
COMMANDMENTS, my STATUTES and my LAWS" (Gen.26:5).
The child like in attitude and mind will see from all this
that God's Ten commandments, including the FOURTH ONE, was
in full force and effect FROM THE BEGINNING.
As a young child of seven, eight, nine, ten years of age,
reading my Bible I so understood it. Truly I repeat with
Jesus the words: "Thank you Father that you have hid these
things from the wise and prudent, and have revealed them
unto babes."
5. Now, finally on this point, let us use the word of
God to interpret itself to us.
Turn to Romans 6:23. Mark it - the wages of SIN is
DEATH.
What is sin? The Bible answers in 1 John 3:4 and
Romans 7:7. Sin is the breaking of the law of God. Does
that law have "points"? Yes, James answers in the
book of James 2: 10,11.
Where can we find all those points listed? In Exodus
chapter twenty.
Now turn to Romans chapter 5. Let's read verses 12 to
14. Sin entered the world, came on the scene for humans by
one man - Adam. What is sin? The breaking of the law of God
that has points - ten points, which includes the 4th. All
humans from Adam on have sinned, and have come under the
penalty of death.
Verse 13, Paul is telling us that even before the law
was given in a special way to Israel, SIN WAS IN THE
WORLD! The law of God in its ten points was in
existence before it was codified and given to the children
of Israel. Sin, Paul says, is not imputed or charged to
man if there is no law. You cannot be given a speeding
ticket if there is no law to tell you that you cannot go
faster than "x" miles an hour.
God' s law must have been in existence from the
BEGINNING because Adam and all mankind have sinned, and
sin is the transgression of the law, which says "thou
shalt not covet" which is the law of Exodus 20, that has
ten points, which James says if we only break one we are
guilty of all.
Romans 5:14. Death REIGNED from Adam to Moses.
All from Adam had sinned (verse 12) though it may not have
been the sin that Adam committed, but it was sin and
death came upon all people because ALL (from Adam on) have
sinned.
What is sin? Sin is the breaking of the law of God,
the law that says "thou shalt not covet" - the Ten
commandment law that was codified into points and given to
Israel under Moses at Mt. Sinai . But before that event
happened, sin(the breaking of that law) was in the world,
because Adam and everyone since Adam had broken that law -
had sinned - and had come under the penalty of that
law - death.
I have painstakingly repeated myself as I have expounded to you
the truth of what Paul is teaching in these verses. Using the
Bible to interpret itself is one key to understanding
it correctly.
Paul says "......where no law is, there is no
transgression" (Romans 4:15). Also he wrote: "for by the
law is the knowledge of sin" (Romans 3:20).
In all these verses Paul pointed to the law of
God - the law that contained "thou shalt not covet"
(Romans 7:7). He knew what law he spoke about, he knew his
readers would know what law he was referring to. He had
ample space to make it clear to them that from Adam to Moses
there was only nine points to the law, no Sabbath command, IF
that was the truth of the matter. But, no such
explaining was given, no such explaining was needed, for
it just was not so. The law of God (which defines what sin
is) as given and codified to Israel in ten points, was
in existence from the very beginning, from Adam to Moses.
The Sabbath commandment was MADE at the beginning, and
it was made for ALL MANKIND (Mark 2:27).
TKACH AGAIN:
Even if the Sabbath were a command from creation,
which it isn't, Colossians 2:16-17 tells us that the
Sabbath is a shadow, and that Christ is the reality to
which it pointed. Now that the reality, Christ, has
come, the shadow, as a binding law, is no longer in
force, regardless of when it began....
MY COMMENT:
Turn to Colossians 2:16,17. Does it say what Tkach
tells you? I see words about "men judging" and "the body
of Christ" (the word "is" does not appear in the original
Greek). I see things mentioned that "are a shadow" - the
word "are" is in the Present Indicative tense in the
Greek - which are presently, today, continuing to be
shadows. I see all this but I do not see words like
"done away," "nil and void," " no longer binding as a
law," "no longer in force," and I certainly see no such
sentence as, "Sabbath is the shadow, and that Christ is
the reality to which it pointed. Now that the reality,
Christ, has come, the shadow, as a binding law, is no
longer in force."
I see no such language. Neither did Albert Barnes (who I
have previously quoted from) see such language, and
knowing as he did that the law of God was a moral
law of perpetual obligation, did not believe Paul was
here teaching that the 4th commandment was no longer
binding on Christians.
Peter said that SOME THINGS Paul wrote were HARD TO
UNDERSTAND, and, "which they that are unlearned and unstable
WREST, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their
own destruction" (2 Peter 3:16).
It is not the intent of this publication to expound the true
meaning of Paul's writing in Colossians chapter two. I
have a separate article on that subject free upon request.
And you may also like to see what Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi
writes about it in his well acclaimed book "Form Sabbath
to Sunday." MORE WORDS FROM TKACH:
We have, through faith in Christ, entered the spiritual reality
of the Sabbath.
MY COMMENT:
Certainly there is a spiritual reality to the
Sabbath. Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi in his book "Divine Rest
for Human Restlessness" expounds all that in great
detail.
But the whole basic teaching of Tkach and his right hand men
is the keeping of a Sabbath in a spiritual sense ONLY
and not the letter or the physical. Their teaching
is now that of the Jehovah's Witnesses and others.
STILL MORE FROM THE WORLDWIDE NEWS OF JAN. 24th 1995:
To think that it, as an Old Covenant command, is still
a requirement for the people of God, is to miss the
point of it, to minimize the coming of the Messiah, and
is no better than going back into animal sacrifices
and circumcision. .
MY COMMENT:
Keeping the Sabbath as related by all of God's word,
is to minimize the coming of the Messiah, according to
Tkach. NOTHING COULD BE FARTHER FROM THE TRUTH!
He has either never read or has deliberately forgotten all that
Dr. Bacchiocchi has written concerning the Sabbath and the
Messiah.
The point of the Messiah coming in the flesh, one very
important point, was to DIE FOR THE SINS OF MANKIND! ! If
sin could be just forgotten about with the waving of the
hand of God, then Jesus did not have to come and give
His life on the cross for you and me and all mankind.
The coming of the Messiah to die for us was in
part because we had BROKEN AND TRAMPLED ALL OVER GOD'S
HOLY SABBATH DAY!
When we start to look at things the way God looks
at things, when we start to think as God thinks (Isaiah
55:7-9), then we will see this statement from Tkach is
MOUNTAINOUS PIG SWILL!
This man, this leader of the WCG, has the audacity
to put the holy Sabbath day commandment contained in the
perfect law of liberty, the law that is Holy, Just, and
Good, the law that Paul said was SPIRITUAL. This man
dares to put that Sabbath commandment in the same bag
of goods along with "animal sacrifices" and circumcision,
claiming that keeping the Sabbath as outlined by
Exodus 20, is no better than doing physical sacrifices
and physical circumcision.
This teaching and blasphemy from his mouth shows how
inept, incompetently inane, asinine, nonsensical, and
foolish, is his reading of the Bible. Never, in my
wildest crazy nightmares as a young boy, did I ever from
my reading of the Bible, come up with the notion that
the 4th commandment and the keeping of it, was no
better than doing animal sacrifices.
The Church of England school I attended, for the
first half hour of the day was devoted to the reading
and study of God's word, the teachers and Anglican
priests, never taught such gibberish, babble, balderdash
mumbo-jumbo. In those days during the 40's and 50's
they taught us to stand and recite all the Ten
commandments as found in Exodus 20.
They taught us they were God's perfect holy and righteous
law. They taught us those laws were good, wonderful, and
if obeyed would bring the world utopia.
Never in all those years in Sunday School from the
age of seven, was I ever taught that any one of the Ten
commandment, including the Sabbath command, if obeyed was
no better than doing animal sacrifices. I never heard
such language from any mouth of all those Bible teachers
of mine.
I read my Bible, I entered Bible quizzes and
competitions, and won prizes and certificates for my
efforts. It blows my mind that anyone claiming to be a
Bible teacher and guide to others could ever come up with
a comment that Sabbath keeping as given in the Ten
commandment is "no better than going back into animal
sacrifices and circumcision." This truly shows you the
perverseness of the mind of Tkach Sr.
Let us study for a while that which pertains to physical
circumcision, the Sabbath, and the New Covenant.
Question:
When was circumcision introduced to the world?
Answer:
At the time of Abraham - Genesis 17.
Question:
When was the Sabbath introduced to the world?
Answer:
On the 7th day of creation week - Genesis 2.
Question:
To whom was circumcision given?
Answer:
To Abraham and his seed - Genesis 17:9-14.
Question:
To whom was the Sabbath given?
Answer:
To mankind - Mark 2:27.
Question:
Who spoke the Ten commandments with His own voice to
Israel?
Answer:
God - Deuteronomy 5.
Question:
Was the law of circumcision included in those Ten commandments?
Answer:
No! See Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5.
Question:
Was this law of the Ten commandments so glorious that
upon Moses carrying the tablets of stone containing
them, his face shone so brightly, he had to veil it?
Answer:
Yes indeed - see 2 Corinthians chapter 3.
Question:
Did this law show what sin was? How many have sinned?
What is sin's penalty? Was this the administration of
death?
Answer:
The answers are found in these scriptures - Romans 3:20;
I John 3:4; Romans 7:7; 3:23: 4:15; 7:10; 2 Corinthians 3.
Question:
Is there any scripture that says circumcision defines what
sin is?
Answer:
Not one verse in the entire Bible - search it and see for
yourself.
Question:
What did Paul teach about physical circumcision in
comparison to the law and commandments of God?
Answer:
"Circumcision does indeed profit if you keep the Law; but
if you habitually transgress the Law; your circumcision is
made uncircumcision. But if a man who is uncircumcised keeps
the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision
becredited to him(as equivalent to) circumcision? Then
those who are physically uncircumcised but keep the Law
will condemn you who, although you have the
code in writing and have circumcision, break the Law.
For he is not a (real ) Jew who is only one outwardly
and publicly, nor is(true) circumcision something
external and physical. But he is a Jew who is one
inwardly, and (true) circumcision is of the heart, a
spiritual and not a literal (matter). His praise is not
from men but from God" (Romans 2:25-29 Amplified Bible).
"For circumcision is nothing and counts for nothing,
neither does uncircumcision , but (what counts is) keeping
the commandments of God" (1 Corinthians 7:19 Amplified
Bible).
To Paul's eyes there was no comparison between physical
circumcision and the commandments of God (which included
the Sabbath command). They could not be put in the same
bag of trash and thrown out or "done away with."
Question:
Did Paul ever teach that people should not get
circumcised or have their children circumcised if they
wanted?
Answer:
No, he certainly did not - read Acts 21:17-25; 24:10-27;
25:1-27; 26:1-28. Paul did not teach against circumcision,
only that physical circumcision was not required for salvation.
Question:
Did some in the Church of God teach that you had to be physically
circumcised to be saved?
Answer:
Yes - Acts 15:1.
Question:
Did Paul disagree with their teaching on this matter?
Answer:
Yes - Acts 15:2.
Question:
Did this matter of physical circumcision become a major issue in
the Church?
Answer:
Yes - see Galatians 2:1-5; 3:1-3; 5:1-6,11,12; 6:12-15.
Question:
Did this circumcision teaching get so out of hand that
the New Testament Church had to call a ministerial conference
to decide the issue once and for all?
Answer:
Yes - see Acts 15.
Question:
What was the outcome of the issue?
Answer:
Physical circumcision was not required to be saved -
Acts 15.
Question:
Is the keeping of the commandments of God required to be saved?
Answer:
Read Matthew 19:16,17; 1 John 2:4; Revelation 22:14.
Question:
Was physical circumcision a big part of Israelite life?
Answer:
It was such a dominant part of life, and such
importance had been placed on it, that to say it was
not necessary to be saved was looked upon by some in
the church as heresy. The contention grew so great that a
MINISTERIAL CONFERENCE in Jerusalem was called to argue
the issue and to make a final church wide decision.
All this trouble and effort over physical circumcision.
Question:
Was the observance of the Sabbath in the letter, a major
part of Israelite life?
Answer:
Yes indeed it was. Any casual reader of the New Covenant
should be able to see the truth of that. The Jews (the
religious Jew, especially of the Pharisee party) had
made a fetish, an obsession, a passion, out of observing
the Sabbath in the letter. It was an integral,
indispensable, inherent requisite for the worship of the true
God - Jew and Gentile alike were to keep the Sabbath
if wanting to serve the God of Israel.
Question:
Do you think that anyone (including Paul) teaching in the
New Covenant Church that literal Sabbath keeping was
"done away" or not needed, would face no stiff
opposition from others, and from especially those of the
Pharisee party within the Church?
Answer:
There was such a stir, a tumult, a huge commotion
made about physical circumcision when Paul and others
CHANGED IT to the spiritual heart and not the letter that
was required for salvation, that a Jerusalem MINISTERIAL
MEETING WITH THE WHOLE CHURCH IN ATTENDANCE HAD TO BE CALLED
TO ARGUE THE MATTER INTO A FINAL DECISION. There would have
been NO LESS A COMMOTION MADE OVER SOMEONE TEACHING THE
LETTER OF THE SABBATH COMMAND WAS NO LONGER BINDING!!
The commandments of God in Paul 's eyes and the other
apostles were MUCH GREATER in spiritual importance than
physical circumcision. Can you imagine any CHANGE or
"doing away with" the Sabbath command going UN-
NOTICED, without a stir, causing no arguing, no
disputing, no ministerial conference in Jerusalem to
debate the issue? If you can believe this was the
case then you surely are out of touch with the
reality of reading the New Covenant, and are blissfully
dreaming away in never-never-land with bugs-bunny as he
chomps away on his carrot.
I have shown you from the book of Acts, the religious Jews
COULD FIND NO FAULT IN PAUL, NEITHER IN HIS TEACHING OF
MOSES AND THE LAW, OR IN HIS LIFE! The only thing they
could bring against him was that he taught about one
called Jesus and the resurrection from the dead.
With that knowledge any FIRST GRADER would see
that Paul did not "change" or " do away" with the
observance of the Sabbath as found in the Ten commandments
and Old Covenant. He taught a CHANGE in the law of
circumcision - from the physical to the spiritual heart
- to be saved. He did not teach you could not be
physically circumcised, only that it did not save you. THE
JEWS COULD FIND NO FAULT IN HIM! If Paul had changed
the Sabbath into something only "spiritual in Christ", if
Paul had "done away" with the letter of the Sabbath
altogether, if he had been teaching you could CHOOSE
ANY DAY for the Sabbath(as some today claim he taught
in Romans 14), if he had been ridiculing, scoffing at,
correcting those that were keeping Old Covenant Sabbaths,
if he had been teaching such people to forsake such days,
if he had been preaching that those days were all
fulfilled in Christ, were only a shadow and now "nailed
to the cross" in Christ and not to be observed in the
letter, if he had been teaching and living that breaking
Old Covenant Sabbath days was no longer a sin, if he had
been TEACHING AND LIVING ANY OF THIS, YOU CAN BET YOUR
BOTTOM DOLLAR THE JEWS WOULD HAVE BEEN ON HIS CASE, DOWN
HIS NECK, PINNING HIS HIDE TO THE DOOR SO FAST IT WOULD
HAVE MADE YOUR HEAD SPIN INTO BLUBBER!!
It is the height of madness to stand the law of physical
circumcision on the same platform as the law of the
Ten commandments which includes the 4th commandment
concerning the Sabbath day. Only deceivers and wolves in
sheeps clothing coming to devour the flock and get a
following after themselves, would try such oratory
tactics.
Let us now study that which pertains to animal
sacrifices, the Sabbath and the New Covenant.
Question:
Was there any animal sacrificing before Moses?
Answer:
Yes, there was. Genesis chapter 4 is the first account.
Cain and Abel offered sacrifices. They must have
learned to do this from their parents - Adam and Eve.
Animal sacrificing does go back to the beginning.
Question:
Can we find in God's word any instruction regarding a
detailed Priesthood/Sacrifice system, before the time of
Moses?
Answer:
No! From the accounts recorded before the time of the Old
Covenant priesthood/sacrifice system given under Moses to
Israel, it would appear physical sacrificing to God of
animals was ( 1) voluntary ( 2) done by individuals, or heads of
families ( 3) performed when God commanded it to be done.
Question:
Is there any instructions about a systematic
priesthood/animal sacrifice law, in Exodus chapters 12 to
15, as Israel came out of Egypt?
Answer:
No there is not!
Question:
When God revealed the 7th day Sabbath to Israel
(they had lost the knowledge under Egyptian slavery),
in Exodus 16, was there anything about animal sacrifices
included in obeying this law of God?
Answer:
This law of the Sabbath is revealed to Israel
without any instructions regarding a laborious daily
sacrificial system by a set priesthood.
Question:
How important did God think His TEN commandments
was when He revealed them to the children of Israel?
Answer:
So important that He SPOKE THEM WITH HIS OWN VOICE,
and the people of Israel HEARD THAT VOICE - see Deut.5.
Question:
Was it originally God's intention to give Israel a detailed daily
sacrificial system?
Answer:
No it was not! See Jeremiah 7:21-24.
Question:
What did God want the Israelites to do?
Answer:
They were to obey the Lord and walk in all His
ways that He commanded them.
Question:
What were the foundational commands He wanted them to
obey, and the ones He felt so important that He spoke
them to Israel with His own voice?
Answer:
The TEN COMMANDMENTS!
Question:
Is the Sabbath command one of those Ten Commandments?
Answer:
Yes, it is the 4th commandment
Question:
Did animal sacrifices FORGIVE sins?
Answer:
No! Physical sacrifices never took away sins - see
Hebrew 10:1-4.
Question:
What did animal sacrifices do?
Answer:
They reminded the people how they were sinners.
Question:
If we look at animal sacrificing and look at obeying
God, which comes out on top in God's eyes?
Answer:
Obeying and doing the will of the Lord - see Hebrews
10:1-5.
Question:
Was it foretold which Jesus would do - animal sacrifices
plus the will of God, or the will of God without animal
sacrifices?
Answer:
Is found in Hebrews 10:1-5.
Question:
Did Jesus ever sin?
Answer:
1 Peter 2:21,22.
Question:
Did Jesus set us an example to follow?
Answer:
1 Peter 2:21.
Question:
Those who say Jesus is living in them are to walk in whose
footsteps?
Answer:
1 John 2:6.
Question:
Did Jesus observe the 4th commandment, even in the
letter as is fitting in the eyes of God?
Answer:
Read Luke 4:16 and the entire four gospels.
Question:
What is the New Covenant definition of sin?
Answer:
1 John 3:4; Romans 7:7; James 2:10-12.
Question:
What law contains "thou shalt not covet"; "Do not
kill"; "Do not commit adultery" ?
Answer:
The Ten commandment law as found in Exodus 20.
Question:
Did Jesus ever break that law?
Answer:
No never! Jesus kept the law of the Ten commandment
PERFECTLY in the letter and the spirit. He never sinned
in thought, word, or action. He observed the Ten
commandment, including the Sabbath command PERFECTLY. He did
the will of God.
Never offered an animal sacrifice, but obeyed the law of
God that has points - ten points, and He set us a
flawless example in doing so.
Question:
Is Jesus the same today as He was yesterday?
Answer:
Hebrews 13:8. His obedient character towards the Father and His
commandments is the same today as when He walked this earth.
Question:
Did Jesus give a specific answer to the young rich man
who asked Him what he should do to inherit eternal life?
Answer:
Yes, He got very specific in His answer - see Matthew
19:16-19.
Question:
Which commandments was Jesus referring to?
Answer:
Obviously the Ten Commandments. Jesus did not quote every
one of the ten, but the young man would get the point,
just as any person with a right heart towards God
today, would understand Jesus meant ALL Ten
commandments. I was able to understand this when I
read it as a boy of nine years old.
James also was inspired to tell us that if you
break any one of the points of this law you are guilty
of all, and that law will judge you.
Question:
Did Jesus tell the young rich man that to inherit eternal
life he would also have to keep the animal sacrifice law?
Answer:
No way! No such language can be found anywhere in the
words of Jesus.
Question:
Did the Temple rituals/Priesthood/Sacrifices come to a
stop when Jesus died on the cross?
Answer:
Not at all! A quick glance over the book of Acts will
show you that all the temple rituals continued as before
even after the death of Christ. What shocks some Christians
is the realization that under the request of James and
the elders, Paul and four others partook of temple
rituals and offerings, see Acts 21:17-26. It was
not a sin to participate in temple sacrifices and
rituals. Paul did not teach that people should not
circumcise their children or participate in temple
sacrifices and rituals, while the priesthood and temple was
still operating. What Paul taught was that those
physical things were not required to do in-order to be
saved. And to prove that this is what he really
taught, Paul performed and participated in some
temple rituals.
While the temple stood and while the priesthood was still
functioning, a Christian could, if they wanted, practice
those physical rituals. It was not required to be
saved, it added nothing to your standing with God, those
sacrifices and rituals did not take away your sins, at
best it was only a reminder you were a sinner and its
shadow of blood led you to the real blood that could take
away your sins - the blood of Jesus.
After 70 A.D. when the temple was destroyed by the Roman
armies, and the priesthood ended, it was impossible to
partake of those rituals even if you wanted to.
It is a fact of history that after 70 A.D. when there was
no more temple sacrificing, the Sabbath Day command was
still being observed by Jewish and Gentile Christians.
Even when the false church grew and gained
predominance and Sunday worship was practiced by the
majority of those who called themselves Christian, the
argument was not so much that NO Sabbath day was to be
observed, or that you could choose whatever day you
desired, but the argument was that Sunday, the first or
eighth day (whichever way you looked at it) was the New
Covenant "Lord's Day."
Again let me repeat: Church History proves my last sentence
to be correct.
Neither the true or false Church of God believes that when animal
sacrificing came to an end in 70 A.D. at the destruction
of the Jerusalem Temple, so also was there an end
to keeping a Sabbath day holy to the Lord. The contention
eventually became WHICH day - Saturday or Sunday - the
7th or 1st day of the week - which was the New Covenant
Sabbath to be observed by Christians?
Question:
In connection with the ceremonial, sacrificial, and
administrative laws associated with the Levitical
priesthood and temple, were such words used as: obsolete,
set aside, ready to disappear, growing old, taken away,?
Answer :
Yes - see Hebrews 5 7:1 8 ; 8 :13; 1 0 : 9.
Question:
What does this same book of Hebrews say about the
Sabbath command?
Answer:
Hebrews 4:9 The original Greek uses the word Sabbatismos,
meaning Sabbath keeping. The Greek is also in the
present tense - a "Sabbathkeeping, remains for the
people of God." If the one is "obsolete" and the other
"remains," they DO NOT BELONG IN THE SAME CATEGORY!
Question:
Is the Sabbath and animal sacrifices both referred to as
"shadows" ?
Answer:
Yes they are. See Colossians 2:16,17 and Hebrews 10:1
Notice in Colossians chapter two no such words are used
for the Sabbath as "obsolete," "set aside ," "ready to
disappear," "taken away." These words are only used in
connection with the temple rituals and physical
sacrifices.
The Sabbath is a "shadow of things to come" as it not
only portrays the redemptive rest in Christ, but also
foreshadows and pictures the FUTURE rest (Hebrews 4:11) that
Christians will experience when Jesus establishes God's
Kingdom on earth. This reality (future immortality in God's
Kingdom) has not yet taken away the shadow. That's why
Paul used the PRESENT TENSE in Colossians 2:17 for the
word "are." The Sabbaths of God picture something that is
YET to come. It is therefore incorrect and erroneous to consider
the Sabbath an "obsolete shadow."
Question:
Does am apple cast a shadow?
Does the statue of Liberty cast a shadow?
Answer:
Yes they both cast shadows of themselves.
Question:
Would you classify an apple and the statue of Liberty
as being in the same category of things?
Answer:
No! Unless you have a wild imagination. An apple would be
categorized with and among perishable fruits and vegetation.
The statue of Liberty would be categorized as long lasting
lifeless physical object. Both cast a shadow, but they
certainly do not belong in the same category. An apple will,
if left out in the sun to cast a shadow soon "grow old,"
be "ready to disappear," and be "taken away" and stop
casting its shadow when it has reached its purpose for being
and goes back into the ground.
The shadow of the statue of Liberty will last MUCH LONGER as it
is naturally different than an apple. Under normal
conditions it would last many centuries longer than an apple or
a bail of straw. Sure, in time the weather would bring the
statue of Liberty to powder, but if maintained for its purpose,
it would last (we are of course excluding all events such as
earthquakes) until its purpose was deemed finished, then it
could be destroyed. Its shadow and reality could then come to an
end.
So it is with the Sabbath day. It still casts a shadow because
part of its reality has not yet been fully completed - the rest
of the Kingdom to come that physical mankind will experience.
When there is no more physical humans then and only then could
it be said that the Sabbath's shadow and reality has been
completed and it is no longer needed.
The Sabbath was made for mankind, when there is no more physical
mankind, there will be no more need of the Sabbath, but not
until then.
WORLDWIDE NEWS JANUARY 24th, 1995:
But the Sabbath and Holy Days, along with the other ceremonial
observances of the Old Covenant, are fulfilled in Christ and
are not binding in their physical observance in the New
Covenant.
MY COMMENT:
Once more the Protestant teaching of lumping the
Sabbaths of God with the ceremonial rituals and dumping
them into the same bag to be thrown out with the
trash, comes out from Tkach in the above statement. This
kind of theology from the Protestants gained wide support
only in relatively recent decades. As I have shown
you, the old Bible commentators such as Albert Barnes did
not teach or believe that the Sabbath command of the Ten
commandments was just "ritual" or "ceremony" and
came to an end at the cross.
MORE FROM THE JANUARY 24th 1995 WORLDWIDE NEWS:
The Sabbath and Holy Days become holy time for us as we devote
them to God, but they are not holy time in the sense
that the Old Covenant is still in force.
When the people of God, who are made holy through faith in
Jesus Christ, devote time to the worship of God, that becomes
holy time. It becomes holy time because it is devoted
to God, who is holy, not because that particular time is
itself holy.
MY COMMENT:
Ah, it is so good that this bold faced heretic has
put his words on paper.
This is no "hear say." His teaching is out on plain
display for anyone to see.
Do you see what Tkach says here friend? THERE IS NO HOLY
TIME THAT GOD SAYS IS HOLY BECAUSE HE PUT HIS PRESENCE
INTO IT, SANCTIFIED IT, AND HALLOWED IT - MADE IT HOLY,
Tkach says. it never happened, or if it did at one
time, it is not so any more, according to Mr.T.
Now this leader of the WCG says time only becomes holy
as we decide to devote whatever hours to worship God.
Then that time becomes holy. So it could be the
hours of Tuesday, or Friday, or Sunday, or Saturday.
This is Jehovah's Witnesses talk, as well as some
Protestant groups.
There are no hours, there is no day of the week that
is of itself holy because God said it was holy, in Tkach's
mind or teaching.
But what says the Lord?
It is written: "And God BLESSED THE SEVENTH DAY, and
SANCTIFIED IT (set it apart): because that in it He had
rested from all His work which God created and made"
(Genesis 2:3).
Once more I must go back to my childhood in Sunday School
and the Church of England School I attended. As a child
of 7, 8, and 9 years old, I could understand this verse
in Genesis. It was so obvious to me. God, on the seventh
day of creation rested from the physical work He had
been doing and BLESSED and SET APART that day as
special to Him, a day that His presence was IN, in a
special way. I had been taught in religious classes about
Moses and the BURNING BUSH, how God spoke to him and told
him to take off his shoes because the GROUND on which he
stood was "holy ground" (Exodus 3:1-5). Oh, some may
argue that God is everywhere, in everything, so the
universe is holy. Let them reason so if they must, but
this verse in Exodus tells me that God put His
very presence into that piece of ground in a special
way, and that area of earth became HOLY GROUND, and Moses
was to take off his shoes!
God has the right to make something HOLY if He
chooses, for He is God. Man is not God, God is God,
and He made the ground Moses was standing on HOLY
ground.
He also made the seventh day of creation week a
BLESSED and SANCTIFIED day, set apart from all other
days.
As a young child I had read Mark 2:27 where Jesus
said the Sabbath was made for man - mankind. I had read
Psalm 111:7,8. I had read Matthew 19:17-19.
How simple it was, how easy to understand, the 7th day was
hallowed from the beginning, it was a part of the
wonderful, holy, good, Ten commandments, and as long
as there was human kind on this earth those commandments
which contained the 4th one, were FAST FOREVER, WERE
SURE!
It was so simple to understand for the simple minded
who had no argument to argue with God, who had no
commandment they wanted to get around, who only saw how
wonderful the world would be if all people and nations
would obey those ten points of that holy law.
Did God HALLOW - make HOLY that seventh day of Genesis
chapter two?
Turn to Exodus 20 and verse 11. Read it friends!
Mark it well! Remember it! The Lord rested the seventh
day, He blessed the Sabbath day, and He HALLOWED IT!
Tkach can say all he wants to say. He can talk till
he is blue in the face. He can repeat over and over
to you until the cows come home, that there is no holy
time. He can tell you this till he is blue or green
or red in the face AND IT WILL NOT ALTER THE SCRIPTURES! It
will not make the hours of the 7th day when they arrive
for you, UN-holy time.
Tkach backs up his statement WITH NO SCRIPTURE! He talks
and talks with his statements of dogma, as if HE WERE GOD
MAKING THE RULES AND DECIDING WHAT IS HOLY AND WHAT IS UNHOLY.
The 7th Day Sabbath was made holy from the beginning. It
was holy under the Old Covenant. I see not one verse of
the New Covenant that says it is NOW UN-holy.
Those who come to the beginning of the Sabbath day
and because of the hardness of their heart, or because
they are deceived into believing lies that it is no longer
holy, WILL NOT MAKE IT SO! They can break it, trample all
over it with their dirty shoes, ignore it, scoff at
it, do their secular work on it, find their own
pleasure during it, but it WILL STILL REMAIN AS HOLY
TIME. All they will have done is SIN by breaking that 4th
point of God's holy law. All they will have done is put
themselves UNDER THE PENALTY OF ETERNAL DEATH (Romans
6:23), unless they acknowledge their sin, repent of
it, and cry out to God for mercy and grace through
the blood of Jesus, who died because of sin, because the
holy law that defines sin could not be cast aside or done away
with.
The wages of sin is still death: "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"
(Hebrews 10:26,27).
ONCE MORE FROM TKACH:
But we do not need to, and should not, judge one another
with respect to the days we devote to God (Colossians
2:16; Romans 14:5).
MY COMMENT:
Again and again Tkach hits this ball for you to catch -
no judging, no judging, no judging each other when it comes to
the holy days that God set apart and made holy.
We are to believe that Paul told the Galatians he did not
want them to turn and observe these "beggarly elements" of
Old Covenant days(remember the words "old covenant holy
days" do not appear in that book). Paul is supposed to
be saying the same kind of thing to the Colossians, we
are to believe. Then to the Romans we are to understand
Paul is saying it is okay to observe days and devote
them to God as we ourselves choose. They were not told that
such were "beggarly elements" or that doing so would be
"in bondage." And if it was fine for the Jews and
Gentiles of Rome to observe days, surely some would
have chosen the holy days of the oOd Covenant, certainly
the Christian Jews would have been inclined to have
chosen those days, as it was part of their heritage.
There is far too much contradiction, confusion in these
three passages of Paul to understand them the way that
certain Protestant funny-mentalists explain them.
And they are even more contradictory in the light of
other New Covenant passages such as James 2:10-12.
But such is the reading of the Bible from the
daughters of BABYLON MYSTERY RELIGION. Their reading of
the Bible is a mystery and it is confusion (that 's what
the word Babylon means).
Let me give you a key to the reading and
understanding of the New Covenant.
The first books you should read are the four Gospels,
then the book of Acts, after them the books known as
"the general epistles" - James, 1 and 2 Peter, 1,2,3,
John, and Jude, then Hebrews. Those books will give you
the basic foundation of the New Covenant, basically easy to
understand. Then after digesting the fundamentals and
having a firm foundation of truth you are ready to
begin to tackle the deeper theology of Paul and his
epistles.
You will have already read that Peter said some things
of Paul are hard to understand, and many who are
unlearned do twist and pervert to their own
destruction.
Those "unlearned" as Peter called them, are those who
have not even come through grade school - who have no basic
foundation of solid truth to stand on, and because
of their carnality towards the law and commandments of God,
are easily led by Satan to pervert the writings of Paul
and be taken away into practicing sin.
In studying Paul you will be wise to refer to such
works as before mentioned, works like " Barnes' Notes on the
New Testament."
Barnes is not 100% accurate on all things he comments about, but
he did have his foundation correct, namely the Ten commandments
are all God's moral law which is not in ANY part "done away
with" under the New Covenant.
You will also be wise to build your foundation
on the life and writings (the Psalms) of David, the man
whom the Lord said was a man after His own heart. If you
think "grace" is only New Covenant then you have never
read the Psalms of David. The Psalms of David will show
you the truth of the matter regarding "law" and
"grace" and how both are indispensable to salvation
and inheriting eternal life.
These foundational parts of the word of the Lord (also
including the book of Genesis) was what I was raised
on as a child. I had so many years feeding on this
basic teaching of God that when I was 18 and came to
North America and ran smack dab into the funny-mentalists
(as I call them) of Protestantism with all their arguments
from Paul (perverted understanding) as to why the 4th
commandment is "changed" or "done away" under the New
Covenant, I was able to LAUGH at them, and answer from
the simple foundation of God's word. Yes, I literally did
laugh at some of the ministers and church leaders who
talked to me about such theology. I answered them from
the grade school scriptures and asked them if the Bible
contradicted itself - they WERE SPEECHLESS AND COULD NOT
ANSWER ME!
Actually it was not until after these encounters that I
delved into deep study of the writings of Paul and his(as
Peter said) hard to understand passages. I had the
foundation and I KNEW that Paul could not possibly
contradict either himself or the other scriptures. The
well known old theologians like Barnes were a help.
Tkach uses the book of Galatians, as do many of the other
unlearned, to pervert the truth of the Old and New
covenant and the 4th commandment. By and large these
men talk about things they haven't got a clue about -
they are theological dunces, wolves in sheeps clothing,
whitened graves full of dead men's bones, who come
to destroy and devour the flock of God. They themselves
will not go into the Kingdom and they prevent many who
would, from entering.
The majority of the religious leaders of the masses during
Christ's time would not hear Jesus, they said He was a
crazy man, inspired of the Devil. The plain truth was it
was they who were mad and led of the Devil. The masses of
people would not or could not understand Jesus, but He
said the true sheep heard His voice and knew
who spoke the truth of the word of the Lord.
It is still the same today. Those who have their nose in
the Bible, who read it from cover to cover, who love the
Lord with all their heart and soul and mind, who
have the attitude of a David in loving the law and
grace of God, will KNOW THAT TKACH IS A FRAUD, A
FALSE PROPHET, AN ANI-CHRIST! THEY WILL KNOW THAT WHAT I
HAVE WRITTEN IS THE PLAIN TRUTH OF THE MATTER.
They will not hear or follow those who offer them liberty but
are themselves the servants of sin and lawlessness. They will
serve and obey the will and commandments of the Lord, while
knowing they are truly saved by grace through faith and
not of works lest any man should boast.
...................................... TO BE CONTINUED
Written April 1995
Sabbath Arguments Answered #5
THE HEART OF THE OLD COVENANT TO THE NEW COVENANT
This section is not an in-depth expounding of the Two Covenants.
We are, since the death of Jesus and the coming of the Holy
Spirit on the feast of Pentecost, under the NEW COVENANT, no
question about it, no argument needed.
A lot can be written about the Old Covenant and all
its laws, some individual, some national, some for health,
some for farmers, some for the priesthood and tabernacle, some
for the king etc.etc. I am not here addressing all that detail. I want to answer the
question as to what is the basic heart of going from the Old to
the New covenant.
The New Covenant was not the idea of the apostles, nor was it
some new "thought up" teaching of the early A.D. Church of God.
The coming of a NEW covenant was proclaimed and foretold in
the writings of the OLD covenant.
There were two things very evident about the Old Covenant - 1.
Personal salvation for the masses was never promised (Numbers
11:16-29) and, 2. The Israelites did not have the heart to
obey God (Deut.5:29; 29:4).
So the coming of a NEW covenant was foretold, yes it was, I
will give you the passage shortly. But before we turn to it we
need to ask: Will the foretelling of this New Covenant also
give us the basic HEART of it?
Let us turn to where the foretelling of the NEW covenant is found
- Jeremiah 31 and verses 31 to 34. Read it carefully friend -
mark it well.
"Behold, the days come saith the Lord, that I will make a NEW
COVENANT with the house of Israel, and with the house of
Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their
fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them
out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they break,
although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord: but this
shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of
Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I WILL PUT MY LAWS IN
THEIR INWARD PARTS, AND WRITE IT IN THEIR HEARTS; and I will
be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach
no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother,
saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the
least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I
will FORGIVE THEIR INIQUITIES, and I will REMEMBER THEIR SINS
NO MORE."
Aaaahhh! There it is friends, forget about all the fine points
about which Old Covenant laws are not applicable within the New
Covenant, put aside all that fine tuning, look at the HEART of
the matter - the basic foundation of the New Covenant. Law is not
"done away" under the New Covenant. IT IS PUT INTO THE INWARD
PARTS - WRITTEN INTO THE HEART - SALVATION WOULD BE EVERYWHERE
AND PERSONAL - SINS WOULD BE FORGIVEN AND FORGOTTEN!
Do you see it friend? Do you see the New Covenant was all
about LAW AND GRACE! It was not to be Grace OR Law, it was not
to be Grace WITHOUT Law. The NEW covenant was to be Grace AND
Law. The New Covenant was not to be external laws taught to you
from a priesthood, but personal salvation - a personal
relationship with God where His laws would be written in your
heart and where your sins would be forgiven - a covenant of law
AND grace.
The heart of the New Covenant is NOT "doing away with" law but
ESTABLISHING it much deeper than under the Old Covenant. That is
why it was also foretold that the Messiah would come not to
abolish law but to MAGNIFY IT and make it HONORABLE (Isaiah
42:21).
What was the BASIC fault with the Old Covenant? Was it all the
laws that people want to argue over? Not according to the writer
of New Covenant book of Hebrews. Yes the first covenant was not
perfect - it did have a MAJOR fault, but that fault was not
the laws per se - read it yourself in your Bible, It has been
there all along friend, I didn't come last night and write it in
your Bible, it's been there for centuries. What was the fault of
the Old Covenant? Hebrews 8:8, "For FINDING FAULT WITH THEM."
The fault was with the PEOPLE, not the laws as such of the Old
Covenant.
The people Moses said WERE NOT GIVEN THE HEART TO OBEY THOSE
LAWS, they were NOT GIVEN THE SPIRIT OF GOD EN MASS - personal
salvation with God's Spirit writing those laws on their heart and
coming under His grace WAS NOT GIVEN TO THE PEOPLE AS A WHOLE.
God was now, under the NEW covenant, going TO RECTIFY THAT
FAULT! The New covenant would be a better covenant, established
upon better promises. The writer of Hebrews (many believe it
was Paul ) then goes on to quote from the passage we have read in
Jeremiah 31.
How clear, how plain, a child can understand. The New
Covenant is Law AND Grace!
There is one more thing - very important - to the heart of the
NEW covenant. The prophet Ezekiel was inspired to give us the
specifics.
"And I will give them one heart, and I will put a NEW
SPIRIT WITHIN you; and I will take away the stony heart of
the flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh: That they may
WALK IN MY STATUTES, AND KEEP MINE ORDINANCES, AND DO THEM:
and they shall be my people and I will be their God...... A
NEW HEART also will I give you, and a NEW SPIRIT WILL I PUT
WITHIN you...... And I will PUT MY SPIRIT WITHIN you, and
cause you to WALK IN MY STATUTES, AND YE SHALL KEEP MY JUDGMENTS,
AND DO THEM......(Ezekiel 11:19,20).
The prophet Joel was also given this wonderful message of the New
Covenant promise of the Spirit of God to come for the masses of
the people. A better promise for a better covenant. Read it in
Joel 2:28-32. This began to be fulfilled on the feast of
Pentecost recorded in Acts chapter two. Peter referred to this
very prophecy of Joel in what was taking place on that great
festival day.
The HEART of the NEW covenant is not doing away with law, it is
ESTABLISHING the law of God not in stone or on paper, but in the
heart of man, it is giving the heart and mind of man
the very Spirit of God which enables man to think and act as God
does. The HEART of the NEW covenant also is Grace and Mercy -
the forgiveness of sins through the shed blood of God, who became
man in order to over-come sin by living a sinless life, and
giving His life on the cross for the sins of the whole world.
The HEART and CORE of the NEW covenant is to ESTABLISH LAW
through the SPIRIT of God, and to be FORGIVEN by the BLOOD of God
when we break that law and sin.
WILL ALL SINCERE CHRISTIANS BE IN THE KINGDOM AT CHRIST'S
RETURN?
Have you ever been a part of the Sunday keeping Christians? I
have. Do you have friends, or relatives that are part of the
1st day observing Christians? I do.
Occasionally at the request of one of these friends, for some
special reason or event, I will attend a Sunday service (Sunday
School and Worship hour). Occasionally I am invited to
a friend/relative wedding of one of their children in a Catholic
or Protestant church. There have been many changes over the
last 30 years in many Catholic/Protestant churches as to HOW
services are conducted, but there is still an overall message
that has not changed that much from the days I was a faithful
Sunday observer. Most Catholic and Protestant churches still
teach that Christians should obey 9 of the Ten
commandments, and there are some that still teach the 4th
commandment was transferred to the FIRST DAY of the week. My
wife and I are have friends who teach these things, so
we know first hand what the Catholic/Protestant groups by and
large teach about the Ten commandments.
There are millions and millions of sincere Christians who observe
Sunday as the day of rest, who believe and teach it is wrong to
lie, to steal, to covet and lust, to murder, and to break
the Ten commandments, including the 4th (but they say it is
now Sunday). Now if the Sabbath command is either "done
away" or "changed" under the New Covenant, and all these
hundreds of millions of Christians are trying not to break the
other nine commandments, if they teach you should not break
them, does the other differences of doctrine really matter that
much?
Many will say it does not matter.
Many will say it does not matter if you believe you do not go to
heaven at death and I do. Many will say because you believe in
baptism by full immersion in water and I think sprinkling is
okay, it does not matter, we will all get into the Kingdom.
These millions will tell you as long as Jesus is accepted as
Savior, that we are saved by His blood, by His grace through
faith, and that we try to live by the golden rule of the Ten
commandments, NOTHING ELSE really matters, we are all part of
the body of Christ and headed for the Kingdom or heaven.
How many Christians are there in the world? Well the Roman
Catholic church has a BILLION PLUS for starters. All the
Protestant churches around the world may add up to about another
billion. Quite a sum of people would you not say, yes I think
so.
The majority of all these people are SINCERE in their Christian
life, sure some are phony and just hang on to the churches for a
free meal or whatever physical gain they can obtain, but the
majority are wanting to serve the Lord to the best of their
knowledge, to the best they know how.
If the Sabbath Day question makes no difference and it is one of
the BIG TEN, then the other differences all these churches
have between themselves make even less of a difference. If this
is true, and for our argument we will say it is true, then a HUGE
SEGMENT OF THE POPULATION OF THE WORLD, and a MAJORITY part of
those who call themselves "Christian" SHOULD BE IN THE KINGDOM OF
GOD AT JESUS' RETURN!
To believe this view then one has to do some pretty fancy foot
work around some clear and blunt statements of Jesus that teach
it is NOT THE MANY BUT THE FEW that will make it into the
Kingdom at His return.
Jesus told His disciples that unless their righteousness EXCEEDED
that of the scribes and Pharisees they would not get into the
Kingdom (Mat.5:20).
Now the scribes and Pharisees were very very careful in trying
to observe the letter of the law of God, but they fell short in
the "spirit" of the law. Nevertheless, it does not sound like
Jesus was making entry into the Kingdom as easy as "falling off
a log."
Then a little later in this "sermon on the mount" as it is often
called, Jesus said this: " NOT EVERY ONE that saith unto me,
Lord, Lord, SHALL ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM of heaven; BUT he
that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven" (Mat.7:21).
So some who were thinking they were serving the Lord, who knew
Jesus was the Lord, who NO DOUBT called themselves "Christian"
and thought they should be in the Kingdom, WOULD NOT MAKE IT!
They did not make it because they some how did NOT DO the WILL of
the Father. So there is a condition then to being saved by grace
through faith, HOW ELSE would you understand this very plain
statement of Jesus? Christ went on to say: "MANY will say to me
in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name?
and in thy name have cast out devils? and in THY NAME done many
wonderful works?" (verse 22).
These were probably very sincere Christians, who thought they
were saved by grace through faith, who told people they were
children of the Lord, who were busy doing what they considered
the "work of the Lord." They were probably what we would call
"good" people.
They were people you would like as neighbors and friends. They
probably taught that at least 9 of the Ten commandments should
be obeyed and they may have taught even the 4th one should be
also, except it was changed (they were told by their ministers or
priests) from Saturday to Sunday under the New Covenant, or it
was totally "nailed to the cross" under the age of grace.
These were probably very sincere Christians.
They will be arguing with Jesus as to why they should be in the
Kingdom. I'm sure there will be many more arguments put forth
than the ones Jesus gives us in this little massage. But notice
the answer Christ gives them. He did not say they did not
understand what "grace" was, or what "faith" was, or why He had
to shed His blood, or that they did not know what the "fruits of
the Spirit" were. No, it was none of that. He will answer
them:
"I NEVER KNEW YOU: depart from me, ye that WORK LAWLESSNESS"
(verse 23, original Greek).
Somewhere along the line they had been living and practicing the
BREAKING OF THE LAW!
I didn't say it friend. Don't get angry at me. I didn't come
last night and write it in your Bible. It has been there all
along for you to read. It was there when I read it at the age
of 7, 8 and 9.
These were people who possibly thought or were taught that one
or more of the laws of God were "void" or "changed" under the
New Covenant. They may have been sincere, but you can
be sincere and be sincerely WRONG! Whatever the case, these
people thought they were at liberty to practice as a way of
life, LAWLESSNESS - the breaking of the law of God.
Jesus did not say they had not earned enough brownie points to
work their way into salvation, of course not, Jesus knew
salvation could not be earned by obedience to laws, but Jesus was
making it plain that to live lawlessly would keep you out of
the Kingdom, would disqualify you from the gift of grace that
does save you.
Jesus did not end it there. He went on to say that you must
build upon the ROCK - Himself.
His teachings - hearing and DOING THEM. Those that did not do
that were building their house on the SAND and when the test
would come they would find themselves blown away (verses 24-27).
Again let me repeat, it seems so obvious, but I must repeat it
for those who, cannot see the obvious. This teaching of Jesus'
is straightforward, simple and easy to understand, even a child
can comprehend it, no theology degree needed, just read it and
believe. Living a life of lawlessness - believing you can
practice as a way of life, breaking the law of God, any one of
its points as James put it, would keep you out of the Kingdom of
God, no matter how sincere a Christian you were. Sincerity was
not enough according to Christ. There is something that does make
a difference. Not all by any means who carry the name of Jesus,
who call Him Lord, will make it into the Kingdom of heaven.
Jesus talked about HEARING and DOING His sayings and teachings.
Now you look in the four gospels, you look into all the
teachings of Jesus as He expounded the New Covenant, and you
see if you can find where Jesus taught the Sabbath command as
written in the Old Covenant, as written in Exodus 20, was "done
away" or going to be done away with at His death, or when the
Holy Spirit would be sent, or any time after, for that matter.
Jesus taught NO SUCH THING!
He taught by His words and by His example, complete perfection
of 7th day Sabbath keeping.
Look, you want to believe Paul "did away with" the 4th
commandment (you are 100% wrong in your thinking), then you
follow this false idea, but I will follow CHRIST. I call myself a
CHRISTian because I follow Christ not your imagined Paul. I can
even show you where Paul said HE FOLLOWED CHRIST! Many today
need to start calling themselves after their false idea of Paul
- a Paulian, and stop calling themselves CHRISTian, because
following Christ they are not if they do not observe the 7th day
Sabbath. They may think they are Christian, they may think they
belong to Christ, they may call Him, "Lord" - but if they are
lawless people and will not repent, they will hear these
shocking (to them it will be) words: DEPART FROM ME, ye that
WORK LAWLESSNESS!
If all the living hundreds of MILLIONS (and there are hundreds
of millions who have died) who call themselves by the name of
Christ, who believe you should keep at least 9 of the 10
commandments (and tens of millions believe the 4th one is still
in effect, only it has been changed to the first day of the week,
or you can choose whichever day you like so they choose the
first day), if they are going to be in the Kingdom at Jesus'
return, that is a very large segment of the world as I have said
before. If all those sincere (most of them are no doubt) people
are truly a part of the body of Christ, then how does that square
with Jesus' statement in Luke 12:32? Jesus said to His
followers, "Fear not LITTLE FLOCK; for it is your Father's
good pleasure to give you the Kingdom."
The original Greek here is a double diminutive which really
means, and what Jesus really said was, "fear not LITTLE LITTLE
flock" or as we may say it today, "fear not VERY LITTLE
flock...."
This does not sound to me like Jesus ever taught that His
true followers would become a HUGE segment of the world's
population. Somewhere there would be a difference drawn in the
eyes of Jesus between those who called themselves Christian and
those who really WERE Christian. We have already seen Jesus
names the difference as a willingness to not only HEAR the word
of the Lord but to also DO IT! Jesus has already said
the difference would be between those who were LAW ABIDING and
those who were LAWLESS! The difference would be between those who
would OBEY the Law and word and sayings (teachings) of Jesus, and
those who would only give lip service to God but would rebel at
some point of the Law and so be classified by God as "doing
lawlessness" - iniquity. It should be evident by now that Jesus
put the difference between true Christians and false Christians
as a BASIC attitude and life style of DOING and PRACTICING His
word and the laws of God, or NOT DOING THEM! Jesus did not say
the difference would be in knowing the truth about whether you
have an immortal soul or not, or about if you will ever get to
heaven or not, or the truth about when you are really born
again, or the truth about the identity in Bible Prophecy of the
Anglo-Saxon peoples. Jesus did not say the difference would be
understanding all the many prophecies concerning the reign of
Christ on the earth in the coming millennium.
I'm not saying that we should not know the truth to all these
things, for the truth on these matters is contained in the word
of the Lord. What I am saying is that knowing the truth on these
topics will not put you into the Kingdom! It is nice to know the
truth on these things, but the difference between a true
Christian and a deceived Christian is much more basic and much
more fundamental, and much more "down to brass tacks" than mere
intellectual mind knowledge. The difference is based on the Holy,
Righteous, Good, Perfect, Spiritual law of God, the law that
James TWICE called the "law of LIBERTY." The difference is
between those who would DO and TEACH others even the least
commandments, and those who would BREAK and teach others to
break these commandments (Matthew 5:17-20).
Did Jesus ever say that it would be the MANY who would be
deceived into a false Christianity by teachers that would come
in the name of Christ? Indeed He did!
"And Jesus answered and said unto them, TAKE HEED that no man
DECEIVE YOU. For MANY shall come IN MY NAME, saying I am the
Christ; and shall DECEIVE MANY" (Matthew 24: 4, 5).
So, it is possible to come in the name of Jesus, to say that
Jesus is the very Christ, to teach in His name, yet DECEIVE MANY!
Notice the emphasis Jesus gave on the word "many." It was many
not the few who would come in Jesus' name, and it was the many
not the few who would be deceived.
The deception within a so called Christianity - using the name of
Christ, would become so great that even the very elect would
be deceived if it were possible (verse 24).
How do you read your Bible? Do you see and do you believe what
Jesus said? Or do you think He was mistaken, that He just did
not know what He was talking about?
These words of Jesus do not sound to me that the majority of
those who use the name of Jesus are really the called and
elected of Jesus. It sounds to me that Christ taught it would be
the MANY - the majority - who would be, calling themselves
Christian but would in fact be deceived.
We have seen Jesus said that MANY would call Him Lord but would
not make it into His Kingdom at His return, and Jesus said he
would claim not to know them because their work was
"lawlessness."
So, you know that there are perhaps about 1 to 2 billion people
alive today who call themselves Christian. Would you like to ask
Jesus a very specific question, like, "Are there few that will be
saved out of this huge Christian population"?
Well, there was a man who saw the same situation in his day and
did ask Jesus this very question.
Turn to Luke the thirteenth chapter and begin to read in verse
22. "And He went through the cities and villages, teaching, and
journeying towards Jerusalem. Then said one unto Him, Lord,
are there few that be saved?"
Here was the golden opportunity for Jesus to make it plain to all
people for all times, HOW EASY IT WAS TO BE SAVED, how it was
just a matter of accepting Him as the Messiah, believing in His
death for sins, just accepting grace, sort of willing to obey
nine of the Ten commandments, but not the 4th because it would
become "void" at the cross. Jesus has this wonderful chance to
say all these things and "put the record straight" that getting
saved had nothing to do with obedience to law, and the MANY - THE
VAST MAJORITY who walked down the isle to accept Jesus into their
heart, would be saved.
According to the popular preachers of today, to hear them answer
this question, that should have been the kind of answer Christ
should have given to this inquiring man. These preachers would
have us believe Jesus answered something like, "Sure, the many
will be saved" or, "It is as easy as breathing to be saved" or,
"Having me in your mind will save you, so billions upon billions
through the ages will be saved."
Shocking as it may seem to you, JESUS ANSWERED WITH NO SUCH
WORDS!!
Let's read how Christ answered this very specific, precise,
pointed and pertinent question.
"And He said to them, STRIVE to enter by the NARROW DOOR - force
yourselves through it - for MANY, I tell you, will try to enter
and WILL NOT BE ABLE" (verses 23, 24 Amplified Bible, emphasis
mine). HHHOOO! What an answer! It is a shocking answer to many
that have never read it, or that have been fed by the preachers
the "believe on the name of Jesus and you shall be saved"
verses of scripture only.
I had read this answer of Jesus from my youth up. I remember the
stunned look on the faces of fundamental Protestants when I gave
them this section of scripture when they tried to tell me being
saved was as easy as blinking your eye lid. I was stunned that
they had never read this answer from Jesus.
They could not figure out how to put those two answers on being
saved, together. The one from Christ and the one that said, "if
you believe with all your heart you shall be saved." It seemed
like a huge contradiction to them.
It is not a contradiction, not at all. Jesus just simply
expounded in practical terms the kind of belief with your
heart you must have to be saved.
Let's continue to read how Jesus amplified believing with
all your heart.
"When once the Master of the house gets up and closes the door,
and you begin to stand outside and to knock at the door (again
and again) saying, Lord open to us. He will answer you. I do not
know where (what household, certainly not Mine) you come from.
Then you will begin to say, we ate and drank in Your presence,
and You taught in our streets. But He will say, I tell you,
I do not know where (what household - certainly not Mine) you
come from; depart from Me, all you wrongdoers!" (Luke 13:25-27
Amplified Bible).
VERY SOBER WORDS INDEED from Jesus. Why are not these words read
to the New Converts in the churches of our land? Why do people
want to pick and choose the parts of the Bible that tickles them
and puts them to sleep with day dreams of how inheriting eternal
life is like the "lazy old sun that has nothing to do but roll
around heaven all day."? As I have said, you can not EARN
salvation by your works, Jesus certainly never taught that idea,
yet you have just read one of His teachings. Those who work at,
live at, practice as a life style, WRONGDOING, will be on the
outside looking in.
The Amplified Bible renders the Greek translated as "iniquity" in
the KJV, as wrongdoers.
They were sincere no doubt, but they were sincere WRONGDOERS!
They were doing and practicing a thing or things that were
contrary to the laws and will of God, they were disobedient
to God somewhere in their way of life.
The INTERLINEAR GREEK NT by George Berry translates this word as
"unrighteousness."
These people were not practicing righteousness - they were
UN-righteous. They believed in Jesus, they called Him Lord, they
thought they were within His presence, they thought He was
teaching them, but it is obvious from Jesus' words, they were
teaching and living contrary to the righteousness of God.
What is a Bible definition of righteousness? Turn to Psalms
119:172 and you will see that ALL of God's COMMANDMENTS are
righteousness. And that was written in the Old Covenant
where the command concerning the Sabbath Day is found.
So the MANY - the majority - will not be in the Kingdom at
Christ's return, it will be only the few. Now what specific law
of righteousness do the MANY within Christianity ignore or claim
is "done away" or is changed? Most are willing to teach and
practice 9 of the 10 commandments, but the one most refuse to
obey and to practice is the 4th commandment, and in not obeying
it they practice as a way of life - iniquity, sin, unrighteousness, lawlessness.
Yes this large group of Christians who will be on the outside
looking in, will include those who teach and practice other sins
such as Homosexuality, Lesbianism, Fornication, Abortion, and the
like. But the number of Christians who believe you can do these
things and be in the good graces of the Lord are VERY FEW in
relation to the hundreds of millions today and in the past
who have believed and practiced the sin of breaking the 4th
commandment. Let me again say:
Most professing Christians and their ministers teach you should
obey NINE of the Ten commandments, it is only the 4th they have
trouble with, put down, change, or cast out completely.
After reading what Jesus said, after reading all of this
expounding of mine, most of Christianity would still say I'm
over-reacting, being fanatical, and just continue on their merry
way as before. Jesus knew this would be the case that is why He
went on to say that those who called themselves Christians and
would not be in the Kingdom, would be WEEPING AND GNASHING
THEIR TEETH - they would be in UTTER SHOCK to hear Jesus tell
them He never knew them. Oh yes, very SOBER words from
Jesus indeed.
Let me close this section by saying that Jesus and the word of
God also makes it very clear that you could be a Sabbath - 7th
Day observer, keep it in the letter and spirit very well, and not
be in the Kingdom at Christ's return. Your attitude and practice
of another of the commandments (like the rich young man of Matthew
19) may be unrighteous, wrongdoing, and lawlessness. Sabbath
keeping is a PART of true Christianity, but it is only a
PART!
True Christianity is a constant humble and repentant attitude for
being a sinner (under grace) and a desire to become perfect even
as your Father in heaven is perfect (believing to righteousness
- Romans 10:8-10).
Such that be a DAVID will inherit the Kingdom of God, and today
those are not the many but the FEW!
HOW TO INHERIT ETERNAL LIFE - ACCORDING TO JESUS
I have before turned your attention to how Jesus answered the
rich young man who asked Him how to inherit eternal life. But we
need to look at that section of scripture in Matthew 19 another
time, we need to ask a few more questions and find
the answers.
An argument put forth is that Jesus, in listing certain
commandments that needed to be observed in order to inherit
everlasting life, did not mention the 4th commandment - the
Sabbath command. So the carnal mind reasons that the observance
of the fourth commandment is not obligatory on Christians under
the New Covenant.
......................................
TO BE CONTINUED
Written April 1995
|
6. Sabbath Arguments Answered The Worldwide Church of God has abolished the Sabbath commandment - I answer their argumentsBut wait a minute! Jesus did not state the FIRST commandment
either. The commandment not to take the name of the Lord in
vain was not mentioned by Him, nor was the command "thou shalt
not covet." The SECOND commandment was not listed by Christ
either!
Does this mean (and following the logic of the argument above it
would) we can break these other commandments with impunity and
inherit the Kingdom? No Christian church that I am aware of
openly teaches its members that they can use "profanity," carve
some idol out of wood, set it up in their house or back yard,
worship it, and have eternal life.
Please let me reiterate, remember that God does not have to
repeat Himself in FULL all the time.
There is at times enough said by the Lord in His word for you to
be able to get the CLEAR INTENT of His message to you. This I
have expounded. before with the example of Divorce and
Remarriage when Jesus took the Pharisees back to the intent of
God from the beginning in Genesis 2.
The answer of Christ to the rich young man, and the commandments
He did list, show the intent of Jesus. The young man and the
disciples would have got "the picture" - they knew what
law of God Jesus was referring to. They knew it was the TEN
commandment law! And if we are willing to be honest, we KNOW IT
ALSO!
It is not so hard to understand. Suppose you were born into a
family where your father had been an alcoholic at one time but was
now a member of the AA. From a child you had seen him every week
go off to attend AA meetings. As you grew older you became
aware of what that organization was all about, and how they had a
set of commandments its members should follow if they want
victory over their alcohol problem. You may have seen your
father fall at times and get drunk, repent of it, go off to the
AA meeting for more help and encouragement to overcome. You had
grown up in this environment, you knew the basic rules and the
list of commandments the AA had for such persons as your father.
Then one day after your father had been overcome by alcohol, he
comes to you crying and asking what he should do to gain
life from this problem. You answer him by saying he must follow
the rules, commandments, of his AA organization. He answers you
further by asking "which" commandments." You reply by quoting
three or four of their basic well known list. You would NOT HAVE
TO QUOTE THEM ALL for your father to get the point - the
intent - that you mean ALL OF THEM!
It is a common usage of speech. The intent is clearly understood
in such a situation. Nobody is trying to teach that commandments
are "done away" with under those circumstances of
conveying your intent of speech.
And so it was with Jesus' speech and answer to the question
posed by this rich man on how to have eternal life. The intent
of the answer was "keep the commandments - all ten of them."
Then we should be willing (unless we have some carnal axe to
grind) to realize from this passage that Jesus had the golden
opportunity to state that under the New Covenant, all of the ten
commandments should be obeyed EXCEPT the 4th one, for it
would be abolished at the cross - at His death, or when the NEW
covenant came into effect. Yes, what an opportunity for
Christ, but He didn't even give it a "close encounters" of the
1st, 2nd, 3rd, or any kind. The intent of Jesus was not to void
any of the big ten, but to establish them! Ah, and that was
one of the things the prophets foretold the Messiah would do when
He came. He was to ESTABLISH and MAGNIFY the law, and make it
HONORABLE - Isaiah 42:21.
Then we should also realize that the gospel of Matthew was not
written as Jesus actually said these words, but many YEARS AFTER
Christ had risen from the dead and ascended to heaven.
If some new revelation had been given to the early apostolic
Church of God concerning the abrogation and revoking of the 4th
commandment, after the ascension of Jesus, then here was
an occasion for Matthew to INSERT in parentheses a remark to
clarify state the NEW covenant position of no Sabbath command.
Matthew, inspired by the Holy Spirit, could have easily written
something like: Jesus said, Thou shalt not murder, Thou shalt
not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear
false witness, Honor thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt
love thy neighbor as thyself (Thus Jesus was showing we should
obey the Ten commandments - nine of them for we now know the
4th commandment is abolished).
How easy it would have been for the writers of the four gospels
to somewhere in the course of Jesus talking about the
commandments of God, to have inserted a parenthetical statement
to the effect that the Sabbath command was under the New
Covenant, either void or changed to any one day in seven. It
would have been so easy to do if that had been the case, BUT IT
WAS NOT DONE BECAUSE IT NEVER HAPPENED. JESUS NEVER TAUGHT THE
SABBATH COMMAND WOULD BE ABOLISHED OR CHANGED. ON THE CONTRARY,
JESUS TAUGHT THE SABBATH WOULD BE OBSERVED BY HIS FOLLOWERS RIGHT
DOWN TO THE TIME OF HIS RETURN TO EARTH AND THE FIRST
RESURRECTION!
JUST BEFORE JESUS' RETURN - THE SABBATH IN EFFECT
Matthew chapter 24 is a prophetic chapter that concerns the TIME
JUST PRIOR TO AND UP TO THE COMING OF JESUS IN GLORY TO
THIS EARTH.
This chapter has really nothing to do with 70 A.D. and the
destruction of Jerusalem by the armies of Rome. The intent
(there's that word again) of this prophetic message of Christ
was NOT FOR 70 A.D. The very beginning words give you the plain
truth of the matter. Read them friends, they say what they mean
and mean what they say, you just have to believe them!
"And as He sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto
Him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and
WHAT SHALL BE THE SIGN OF THY COMING, AND OF THE END OF THE
WORLD?"
Jesus had just told them that all the stones of the Jerusalem
Temple would be thrown down to the ground - not one stone left
upon another (verses 1,2).
THAT HAS NOT YET TAKEN PLACE FRIEND!!
The so called "wailing wall" now standing in Jerusalem WAS APART
OF THE TEMPLE IN JESUS' TIME. THOSE STONES ARE STILL ON TOP OF
ONE ANOTHER!
This prophecy of Christ's is YET TO BE FULFILLED. IT WAS A
PROPHECY. THIS WHOLE CHAPTER 24 OF MATTHEW IS FOR THE END TIME,
SHORTLY BEFORE AND LEADING UP TO THE RETURN OF CHRIST AND THE
FIRST RESURRECTION.
The disciples asked Jesus for SIGNS of His COMING and the END OF
THE AGE (original Greek).
Jesus went on to give them the signs to watch for.
A child can see this. I was a child once. I had a red letter
Bible then as I do now - all the words of Jesus are in red
letters. As a child I had read over and over again the words of
Jesus as recorded in the four gospels. I had read Matthew 24
many times as a child. I did not understand it like I do
today, but one thing was VERY PLAIN to me. THIS WAS A PROPHECY
CONCERNING THE SECOND COMING OF CHRIST, AND THE SIGNS TO
WATCH LEADING UP TO HIS RETURN AND THE RESURRECTION.
As a child I knew NOTHING OF 70 A.D. I had never been taught it
in my grade school(remember I was attending a Church of England
school) or Sunday school. I was completely oblivious to the
history of some Roman armies devastating Jerusalem in 70 A.D.
But I was not oblivious to what I could read with my own eyes in
the first few verses of Matthew 24. There it was as plain as the
nose on your face. The disciples asked Jesus about HIS COMING AND
THE END OF THE AGE! You need to forget about this 70 A.D.
business.
Someone has put it in your head. It probably was not there
before someone came along and fed it to you. 70 A.D. is GONE -
it came and went a LONG TIME AGO - forget about it. This
prophecy of Christ's is FOR OUR TIME AND BEYOND!
There is YET coming an ABOMINATION that makes desolate the city
of Jerusalem - armies will yet surround Jerusalem and destroy it
- see the parallel account as given in Luke 21 and note
verses 20, 21.
When this is about to take place, when the time is very near that
Jerusalem is to be desolated and the stones of the temple of
Jesus' day will be thrown to the ground, "not one left upon
another,"
THEN THOSE CHRISTIANS LIVING IN JERUSALEM AND JUDEA ARE TO FLEE
TO THE MOUNTAINS!
Notice what Jesus said should be a part of the prayers of His
people at this END TIME, THE TIME LEADING TO HIS COMING AND THE
RESURRECTION: "But pray that your flight be not in the
winter, NEITHER ON THE SABBATH DAY" (verse 20).
This is FOR THE END TIME. The next verse also proves it. Verse
21 - at that time there is to come a time of trouble such as "was
not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever
shall be." This is the SAME TIME as foretold by Daniel in his
12th chapter and verse one.
Also by the prophet Jeremiah, chapter thirty, verses one to nine.
The time of trouble in 70 A.D. for Jerusalem was bad but not as
bad as the Second World War of 1939-45. The Second World War did
not lead up to the coming of Christ and the Resurrection, so this
prophecy of Matthew 24 is still YET FUTURE! And the desolation
of Jerusalem is yet to take place. When it does God's true
people living in Judea are to be praying their fleeing to the
mountains will not be on THE SABBATH! The Sabbath day is Holy,
it is to be kept holy, it is not to do "our own thing" on. It is
a day to rest physically, to worship the Lord in spiritual ways,
and not a day to be concerned about saving your physical
neck.
AT THIS TIME IN HISTORY, AT THE END TIME, WHEN ALL THAT HAD BEEN
NAILED TO THE CROSS AND "DONE AWAY WITH" WAS LONG TIME AGO CAST
OUT WITH THE ANIMAL SACRIFICES AND CIRCUMCISION, WHEN THE 4TH
COMMANDMENT WAS LONG TIME FORGOTTEN ABOUT, JESUS IS TELLING HIS
FOLLOWERS TO PRAY THEIR FLIGHT WILL NOT BE IN THE WINTER (winters
are still taking place today) NOR ON THE SABBATH DAY! JESUS
EXCEPTED HIS CHRISTIANS TO BE OBSERVING THE SABBATH - TO BE
REMEMBERING THE SABBATH DAY TO KEEP IT HOLY - IN THE DAYS
SHORTLY BEFORE HIS RETURN AND THE RESURRECTION (verses
22-31).
ISAIAH'S PROPHECY ABOUT JESUS' RETURN IN GLORY AND THE SABBATH
COMMAND
The prophecy of Isaiah in chapters 54, 55, and 56, is in the main
one large prophetic utterance that is dealing with the end time -
the last few years before the Messiah's coming in glory to rule
and re-establish the 12 tribes of Israel, at the beginning of the
Kingdom of God on earth.
All the prophets foretell that at the coming of Christ in power
and glory, the tribes of Israel are in captivity in their enemies
lands, from which the Messiah delivers them and brings them back
into the Holy Land - the Promised Land of Palestine. There He
rebuilds and blesses them, pours out His Spirit on them and they
blossom as a rose garden to be a light of truth and salvation for
the nations of the world.
Chapter 54, verses 1-8 tell this truth just mentioned. Notice
verse 10. There will come great physical changes in the earth but
God's covenant of peace will never be removed. This has not
yet taken place - the tribes of Israel do not today have
perpetual peace. The children of the Israelites are not today
being taught of God by and large and peace and oppression and
terror has not yet ended, verses 13-17. When the Messiah Christ
comes it will.
Nations of the earth are not now running unto Israel to learn of
God. When these prophecies are fulfilled and Israel is glorified
the nations will run to them for knowledge of the true God -
chapter 55:1-13.
Now chapter 56. Notice what the first verse says: "Thus saith
the Lord, Keep ye judgment, and do justice: for MY SALVATION IS
NEAR TO COME, and my RIGHTEOUSNESS TO BE REVEALED." This is a
special time in history, a time when God's salvation and
righteousness is to go forth in a way that it never went forth
before. If you want to argue that this was foretelling the start
of the NEW covenant spiritual Church of God, fine, I will accept
your view, in fact that view will add double weight to the
permanence of the 4th commandment, so believe it that way if
you will and see the Sabbath firmly established for the age of
grace.
The context shows this to be at the end time, when the Messiah
comes to bring a time of salvation and righteousness that is
different than at any other time in history. A time when
salvation and righteousness will go forth to all nations as never
before, when Israel will go forth with joy, and be led forth with
peace, when the mountains and the hills break forth with singing,
when the Holy One of Israel shall be called the God of THE WHOLE
EARTH (chapters 55:12; 54:5).
In this setting, when salvation will go forth to all nations,
what does the Lord choose as THE commandment with a special
covenant relationship between Him and those who will serve
Him? Does He choose the commandment about lying, or the command
not to covet, or the one that says "honor thy father and thy
mother," or the command not to take the Lord's name in vain?
No! God chooses the command that by the time the Messiah will
come in glory and power, the world at large, and even the people
who call themselves God's children, will, for the MOST PART, have
forgotten and have not remembered - the FOURTH COMMANDMENT that
says "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy...." God says,
"Blessed is the man that doeth this, that KEEPETH THE SABBATH
FROM POLLUTING IT...." (verse 2). How important does God think
His Sabbath command is? Look at the words He uses in connection
with this "covenant" of His.
"For thus saith the Lord unto the eunuchs (those cut off from
God) that KEEP MY SABBATHS, and choose the things that please Me,
and take hold of MY COVENANT; Even unto them will I give IN MY
HOUSE AND WITHIN MY WALLS a place and a name BETTER THAN OF SONS
AND OF DAUGHTERS: I WILL GIVE THEM AN EVERLASTING NAME, that
shall not be cut off" (verse 4, 5).
Wooowww! Does God look upon the Sabbath command as the "least of
the commandment" as some today do? These words here sure do not
give me that impression. Acquiring from the Lord a name BETTER
THAN SONS OR DAUGHTERS is mind numbing, and the Lord ties that
language and promise of His TOGETHER WITH SABBATH KEEPING!! A
prophecy about Sabbath keeping, written under the OLD
covenant, for the NEW COVENANT!
Will the New Covenant be in force shortly before the Messiah
comes in glory? Sure it will!
As the reign of Christ begins on this earth, will the New
Covenant CONTINUE? Sure it will.
Notice what the Lord continues to promise: "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....... the Lord God which
gathereth the outcasts of Israel saying, Yet will I gather other's
to him, beside those that are gathered unto him" (verses 6-8).
The world at large will have forgotten God's Sabbath command by
the time Jesus the Messiah comes to reign and rule this
earth and the nations upon it. The Lord's word shall go forth at
this time, it will not return to Him void (chapter 55:11). A
part of that word of salvation and righteousness will be for all
nations and peoples to REMEMBER "the Sabbath from polluting it."
The Eternal God has not promised in His word that being His
child, being a Christian, would be like eating an ice-cream
sundae - all sweet, smooth, and enjoyable.
Sometimes Christianity is an ABEL - you may be persecuted and
killed by those closest to you.
There may be times when Christianity is a NOAH - the vast
majority may be going the other way, while laughing and
ridiculing your stand for God and His righteousness. At times
Christianity may be an ABRAHAM - needing lots of faith to obey
God. Then at other times Christianity may be a DAVID - loving the
commandments of the Lord to where you shed tears over seeing how
people make them void. Sometimes Christianity will be a DANIEL -
obeying and doing the simple things like praying, knowing it
could cost you your life. It is possible Christianity is like a
SHADRACH, MESHACH, and ABEDNEGO - willing to die before giving
in to the pressure of breaking one of the commandments of God.
Being a Christian may be like an apostle John - relatively
unharmed, living to a golden age and dying a natural peaceful
death.
Jesus never said it would be easy to follow Him - to love the
Lord your God with all your heart, and soul, and mind. Jesus
never said it would be necessarily smooth and sweet to live by
every word of God, as He taught man should do (Matthew 4:4).
In His Olivet Prophecy He foretold that at the time of the end
(the years of today), because of the many false prophets
deceiving the many (Mat.24:11), "......iniquity SHALL ABOUND,
the love of many SHALL WAX COLD" (verse 12).
Sin - iniquity - in the last days would ABOUND. The breaking of
the commandments of God would greatly increase at the time of the
end because false prophets would teach many that they were at
liberty to do - to practice - sin, lawlessness, and still be
saved by grace through faith.
This heresy teaching would lead many to wax COLD with love. And
love - the love of God is ".......that we keep His commandments;
and His commandments are not grievous" (1 John 5:3).
Truly the attitude of the Church of God at Laodicea is upon us
today. God says: "I know thy works, that thou art neither COLD
nor HOT... So then because thou art LUKEWARM, and neither cold
nor hot, I will SPUE THEE OUT OF MY MOUTH" (Revelation 3:15,16).
Drinking ice cold or hot tea can be both enjoyable, but lukewarm
tea - yuck!
Many today in the Church of God are spiritually saying, "....I
am rich, increased with goods, and have need of nothing" (verse
17). Many are saying they can break the commandments of God with
impunity and are still under the grace of God in the New
Covenant. Jesus answers them:
".....knowest not that thou art WRETCHED, and MISERABLE, and
POOR, and BLIND, and NAKED. I counsel thee to buy of me GOLD
TRIED IN THE FIRE, that thou mayest be rich; and WHITE RAIMENT,
that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness
do not appear..." Those who do lawlessness will have no white
garment when Jesus returns. They will be shocked and ashamed
when they hear "depart from me, I never knew you." To all such
people with such lukewarm attitudes Jesus went on to say, "and
anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, THAT THOU MAYEST SEE" (verse
18).
Lukewarmness needs to be cut away with the word of the Lord that
is powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even
to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit, and of the
joints and the marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and
intents of the heart" (Hebrews 4:12).
It was foretold in the pages of the NEW covenant that false
ministers, false prophets, and elders of the Church of God, would
arise within the body of Christ, who would bring in DAMNABLE
HERESIES! It was also foretold that MANY would follow them to
their own destruction.
You need to read Matthew 24; Acts 20; 2 Peter 2; 1 John 2;
and Jude.
If you are reading all the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, if
you are as a little child in belief and understanding of the
word, you will not be deceived, you can be a part of the very
elect.
The leaders of the WCG have already turned the Godhead into that
which is as the physical wind - a nebulous, impalpable,
ambiguous, confused, and intangible NOTHINGNESS! To them
the Godhead is now like the WIND, something that is an
everywhere..... NOTHING.
Now, they say the Sabbath Day command is also a spiritual
nothingness. Like God, it also to them has no body - no
substance - no letter - no law.
The leaders of the WCG now teach you are not really the offspring
of God, not really His children, but something less than that.
What you are is also ambiguous, but they say you certainly
are not a child (literal son and daughter) of God.
Oh, if the great apostle Paul was here today, he would again be
shouting out these words of his:
"That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after
Him, and find Him, though He be not far from every one of us:
For in Him we live, and move, and have our being, as certain
also of your own poets have said, FOR WE ARE ALSO HIS OFFSPRING.
Forasmuch then as WE ARE THE OFFSPRING OF GOD, we ought NOT
TO THINK that the Godhead is like gold, or silver, or stone,
graven by art and MAN'S DEVICE. And the TIMES OF THIS IGNORANCE
God winked at; but NOW COMMANDETH ALL MEN EVERYWHERE TO
REPENT" (Acts 17:27-30).
TO BE CONTINUED WITH A POSTSCRIPT
Written April 1995
All articles and studies by Keith Hunt may be copied, published,
e-mailed, and distributed as led by the Spirit. Mr.Hunt trusts
nothing will be changed without his consent.
|
|
7. Sabbath Arguments Answered
POSTSCRIPT
There are those in certain schools of Theology (which the
leaders of the WCG have now espoused) that like to try and tie up
Biblical things such as Covenants, into neat defined packages.
They like nothing to overlap, no "blurring" of things, no
"searching effort" of the mind to be employed, no "studying" of
the word to show yourself approved unto God. They just want to
put the Old covenant and the New covenant into neat separate
boxes, throw the old out with everything it contained, grab the
new only and run with it to the finishing line.
I guess this gives them a certain sense of peace of mind and
security. They then have to pay very little attention to what
is written in the Old covenant, it can be used as just a good
story book for their children.
Of course people who think this way also close their eyes and
mind to specific verses in the New covenant that would fray the
edges of their neat little box.
I have already in this thesis stressed one of those
verses. A command of the Lord that was first given in the Old
covenant, but also taught again in the New Covenant by Jesus
Christ Himself, and that is:
MAN IS TO LIVE BY EVERY WORD OF GOD AND NOT JUST BY PHYSICAL
BREAD ALONE (Matthew 4:4). Under that instruction it is not
possible to espouse a theology of one neat New Covenant box,
that says we will live by and practice only those things
REPEATED in the New Covenant. Any such theology DEFIES the very
words and teachings of the New Covenant SAVIOR that those
people proclaim to follow.
That plain teaching of Jesus as found in Matthew 4:4, instructs
us to read the books of the Old Covenant and LEARN from them HOW
TO LIVE! We are to learn from the Old, things that we are to
live in our daily lives while under the New. There are then no
neat little boxes with neat edges, that we can totally discard
one in all its entirety, while clinging only to the other.
Jesus obviously did not come along to perform some spectacular
MAGIC TRICK like, here is the Old box all packaged up and tied
with ribbons, here is the New box - at the wave of the wand, the
entire old has vanished , everything as a package is "done away"
and only the new box remains to be opened to see what
laws and commandments it proclaims.
Jesus did not teach anything so neat and simple as that modern
"simpleminded"(not the same as being childlike to enter the
Kingdom) funny-mental (funny if not so serious) theology, as
taught by some today, in the world of fundamental Christianity.
To live by every word of God, as Jesus taught, means what it says
and says what it means. You will have to read the WHOLE Bible
from Genesis to Revelation, understand the Old covenant by the
New covenant, and the New covenant by the Old covenant. You will
have to "study" diligently to correctly know HOW and WHAT and
WHEN to live as a Christian. It will take "searching the
scriptures daily" to be a workman that needeth not be
ashamed. It will take some meditation, some fasting, some
prayer. It will take the Spirit of God "guiding you into
all truth" as Jesus promised it would for His true disciples that
knew HIS voice, and would not follow the voice of a stranger. It
would take some EFFORT and some STRIVING to enter in by the
straight or NARROW gate, Christ said.
To understand WHAT laws, commandments, statutes, and precepts,
found in the Old, are still for us to live by today, would take
some humble but wise fear of the Lord study, along with the
New Covenant words (i .e. New Covenant words show physical
circumcision is not required to be saved).
How important is the Old law and the Old prophets? Let
Jesus Himself answer.
THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS UNTO REPENTANCE
Turn to Luke the sixteenth chapter - read verses 19 to 31. We
are not here concerned with the parable and all its meaning,
but with the CLEAR LESSON of the last number of verses.
The rich man who is representing the unrepentant sinner, the lost
soul who will face the lake of fire and eternal death, is here,
for the purpose of the lesson, pictured as pleading with Abraham
(who is in the Kingdom having inherited eternal life) that
someone from the dead - a great miracle - should go and preach to
his brothers the truths of God, so they would REPENT and not come
into condemnation. This rich man wanted his brothers to repent
and thought the best way was for a great miracle to be performed
- some saved saint coming from the dead to preach to them.
Ah, did you see how Abraham answered? "They have MOSES AND THE
PROPHETS; let them HEAR THEM" (verse 29).
Jesus uses Abraham in this parable to preach to this
unrepentant rich man, that his brothers could come to
REPENTANCE by reading the OLD COVENANT!!
Repentance my friend leads to SALVATION and ETERNAL LIFE!
The rich man wanted some outward sign, some outward miracle,
like a person from the dead preaching to them. Wooww, he
thought, that would really do it, that would bring them to see
God.
Then Jesus sums it all up by having Abraham answer: "If
they HEAR NOT MOSES and the PROPHETS, neither will they
be persuaded, though one rose from the dead" (verse 31).
Jesus was here clearly teaching that the Old covenant was not as
a packaged box with ALL its contents, "done away" with,
but was emphasizing its unchanging relevance in leading to
REPENTANCE and SALVATION.
Of course Christ knew this truth, He was the one who would
later inspire the apostle Paul to proclaim that having Jesus and
only the OLD Covenant scriptures WOULD LEAD YOU TO SALVATION!
2 TIMOTHY 3:15
"And that from a child thou hast known the HOLY SCRIPTURES,
which are ABLE TO MAKE THEE WISE UNTO SALVATION THROUGH FAITH
WHICH IS IN CHRIST JESUS."
The ONLY written Scriptures that Timothy had when growing up -
the only God breathed inspired Scriptures - were the Scriptures
of the LAW, the PROPHETS, and the WRITINGS (Luke 24:27,44). The
WHOLE OLD COVENANT as we call it today - the Holy Scriptures from
Genesis to Malachi.
These Scriptures Paul said to Timothy were able to make him WISE
UNTO SALVATION THROUGH FAITH WHICH IS IN CHRIST JESUS.
If someone found themselves with only the OLD TESTAMENT and
Jesus, they could find SALVATION!
Physical circumcision, Temple priests, rites, ceremonies,
and sacrifices, NEVER DID give salvation or eternal life to
those who partook of them, as we have previously proved. But
the acknowledgment of sin, the repentant heart, and a humble
attitude of willingness to obey the commandments of the Lord, was
required to obtain MERCY, the HOLY SPIRIT, and SALVATION, for
those called and chosen to eternal life under the Old Covenant.
OLD AND NEW COVENANT - HOW THEY INTERTWINE
There is an attitude, a belief, a doctrine even, that many people
have, which is this: The phrase "law of Moses" is not the same
as the "law of God." They have a neat little box in their
mind about what they think is the law of Moses, and a neat little
box about what they think is the law of God. To them they are
NOT THE SAME, nothing can overlap for them, so with a shrug of
the shoulder they can cast away all laws that they consider part
of the law of Moses, and go happily humming their tune down the
pathway of their lovely rose garden.
The problem is they do not see the LION waiting to devour them
behind the mulberry bush.
They have not read their Bible carefully enough to see that
there is no real distinction between the law of Moses and the
law of God.
Clear proof of this is found in Luke 2:22-24.
"And when the days of her purification ACCORDING TO THE LAW OF
MOSES were accomplished, they brought Him to Jerusalem, to
present Him to the Lord. (As it is written in THE LAW OF THE
LORD, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to
the Lord;) And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is
said in the LAW OF THE LORD. A pair of turtledoves, or two young
pigeons."
Do you see that friend? Read it again! Mark it with a colored
pen. Sacrificial laws of the law of Moses are also called THE
LAW OF THE LORD!
And why not? ALL THE LAWS given to ancient Israel were FROM THE
LORD, given from God through the mediator Moses. It was not
Moses who invented them, made them up, asked for God's approval
on them, no not at all. It was the Eternal God who TOLD MOSES
WHAT THE LAWS WOULD BE FOR THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL TO FOLLOW
UNDER THE OLD COVENANT! Read Exodus chapter 24, and note
verses 3, 4, 7, 12. Now turn to Deuteronomy chapter one and
read verses 1 and 2. Then go over to chapter five,
read all of it, taking note especially of verses 22 to 33.
It should be clear from the above sections of scripture (let
alone many others) that the law of Moses is also the law of God.
They were laws of God given to Israel through Moses the man
mediator.
You want a little more proof?
Many would say the Feast of Unleavened Bread that ancient Israel
was to observe in the first month of the year for seven days, was
a law of Moses' laws. Well, turn to Exodus chapter thirteen,
read verses 1 to 8.
Now notice what is written in verse 9, "And it (this feast of 7
days of Unleavened Bread) shall be for a sign unto thee upon
thine hand, and for a memorial between thine eyes, THAT THE
LORD'S LAW may be in thy mouth.
Did the New Testament Apostolic Church of God believe and teach
that ALL THE LAWS in the Old Covenant - law of Moses - were "done
away" at the cross of Christ?
Let's go again to Acts 15 and see some very revealing verses.
This ministerial conference of Apostles, Elders, and Church
Members, were led by the Spirit of God and the Words of
Scripture, to see that physical circumcision of the Old Covenant
(law of Moses/law of God) was NOT REQUIRED to be saved. Did this
mean to them that ALL the laws of Moses were "abolished"? Well,
in writing to the Gentiles in the Church, and giving them some
specific on things that Gentiles practiced as a common way
of life, they gave them instructions to obey things right
out of THE LAWS OF MOSES!
Look at verse 20. Mark this one well also.
"But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions
of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled,
and from blood."
Now fornication some could argue is from the Ten Commandments,
but POLLUTIONS OF IDOLS, THINGS STRANGLED, and BLOOD? They are
certainly not from the Ten Commandments, but they are from
the LAW OF MOSES!
Was this all that the Gentiles were to heed from the law of the
Lord, or were they to read Moses and learn how to live by
every word of God?
The answer is found in verse 21.
"For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach
him, being read in the synagogues EVERY SABBATH DAY."
The Gentiles were expected to attend the synagogue on the
Sabbath and learn the ways of the Lord - learn how to live by
God's word - through the reading of the books of Moses -
the law of Moses - the LAW OF GOD!
Certain saints of the Church were in need of physical help at
one point of time. Paul in chapters 8 and 9 of his second letter
to the Corinthians, encourages them to GIVE of their substance
to meet the needs of these saints. This was to be a "love
offering" as we might call it today, it was to be a freewill
offering, given with cheerfulness (chapter 9: 7). Paul was
also trying his best to get them to give GENEROUSLY, and to
accomplish that he had no hesitation to quote principles given by
and inspired by God, from the OLD Covenant - verse 6 of
chapter nine is from PROVERBS 11:24, and verse 9 from PSALMS
112:9, verse 10 from ISAIAH 55:10 plus HOSEA 10:12.
Paul did not believe the Old Covenant as a package, with all it's
laws, commandments, statutes, precepts, and principles, was
"nailed to the cross" and thrown out on the garbage pile along
with physical circumcision and animal sacrifices. He used it
many times to uphold a LAW OF THE LORD and stir brethren up to
perform THE WAY of the Lord.
The question arose with the brethren at Corinth about whether
Paul and Barnabas had the authority to be full time, paid
ministers, living off the funds of the Church. Paul answers this
question for them in chapter nine of 1 Corinthians.
He answers them by stating the ministers of the gospel do have
the authority to be full time and live off the physical funds of
the Church. He first proves this by a few examples of logic
taken from the society of the world, then he hits them between
the eyes with quotations taken from THE LAW OF MOSES (verse 9).
He quotes not from the Ten commandments, but from a part of the
books of Moses - the law of Moses - the law of the Lord! He
quotes from DEUTERONOMY 25: 4.
Paul then went on to say to them, was this law given JUST for the
oxen, or was it not given for a much DEEPER reason? Was it just
for those under the Old Covenant? NOT AT ALL! Paul said this
law of Moses was given FOR US , "For OUR SAKES, no doubt this is
written..."(verse 10).
Paul looks into this part of the law of Moses and pulls it out to
prove his point, states it was written for US TODAY under the New
Covenant!
This part of the law of Moses was not "done away with" in Paul's
mind, it was quite relevant to the New Covenant. It proved to
Paul that the law of God's ministers living off the physical
substance of those they served, was still in full force and
effect under the present New Covenant age of grace.
Paul used the books of Moses. He quoted from the law of Moses to
uphold the truth and doctrine that women in the Church cannot be
ordained teachers and preachers - see 1 Cor.14:34; 1Tim.2:11-14.
Paul quoted from the OLD Covenant - the law of Moses - the law of
the Lord. Over and over again to prove his point, to uphold and
establish laws for the New Covenant. He practiced what Jesus
told us to do. Paul lived by EVERY WORD OF GOD!
Paul knew that the OLD and the NEW covenants were INTERTWINED.
PAUL AND HIS BIBLE
From the book"Paul's Use of the Old Testament" by E.Earle Ellis,
chapter one, are these pertinent sentences.
Quote:
The writings of the apostle Paul reveal a person immersed in the
content and teachings of the OT. H.A.A.Kennedy, after a study of
Paul's religious terminology, found that practically every
leading conception in this field of Paul's thought had its roots
definitely laid in OT soil.
Whether he is giving a dogmatic proof, an analogy, or an
illustration, or merely using language with which to clothe his
own thoughts, the OT appears frequently throughout the
Pauline epistles....... The Pauline use of the OT appears in
three distinct forms: quotations proper, intentional and casual
allusion, and dialectic and theological themes. The task of
defining 'quotation' in the Pauline literature is rather
difficult, and the decision in the end is somewhat arbitrary.
The apostle probably did not have our concept of quotation marks;
he certainly did not give to it the sanctity which characterises
our literary usage. Some references which are introduced with an
explicit citation formula echo only the tenor of the passage;
others, not given even the dignity of an introductory
conjunction, follow the OT text verbatim ac litteratim. The
gradation from quotation to allusion is so imperceptible that it
is almost impossible to draw any certain line.......
Paul quotes the OT ninety-three times.......Although the
quotations are drawn from sixteen OT books, three-fourths of them
are from the Pentateuch (thirty-three), Isaiah (twenty-five), and
the Psalms (nineteen).
The citations appear both singly and in combination .......
Paul's use of the OT cannot be understood apart from his attitude
towards it. To him the Scriptures are holy and prophetic; they
constitute the very oracles of God, and they "were written... for
our learning."
Paul's phrase "God-breathed" could hardly be improved upon. In
his view of the OT the apostle is in agreement not only with
Christ and the NT writers, but also with the whole of
Judaism and the early Church.
The essential difference between Paul and the Jews in their
employment of Scripture was an interpretive one....... In Paul's
eyes the Jews stood on the Scripture; though they extolled it,
they erred because they did not know it.......In First and Second
Corinthians Paul teaches expressly that a correct understanding
of Scripture is impossible without the Holy Spirit.......
The place of the Spirit does not lesson the authority of the OT
for Paul; nor is there any antithesis between the Scripture and
the Spirit.......
Besides the Scripture there are several other authorities to
which Paul appeals to support his assertions. There are the law
of nature, the conscience of the individual, his own revelation
from Christ or the Holy Spirit, and the teaching of Christ as
received through oral or written apostolic tradition.......
This appeal to different authorities is at times found in close
combination though there seems to be no consistent pattern of
association. For example, in 1 Cor.9:7-14 Paul proceeds from
the analogy of nature to the witness of the OT; immediately he
returns to another analogy, the practice of the temple, and
clinches the whole argument citing the command of Christ directly
bearing on the subject. 1 Cor.15:3-11 is even more noteworthy:
Christ's resurrection is grounded in the OT, the apostolic
tradition, and Paul's personal revelation.......
But the OT was not one of those things which Paul counted loss
for the sake of Christ; indeed, it could be understood only in
the light of Christ.......
For Paul, Jesus was above all, the Christ; to divorce the Messiah
from the "book-religion" of the OT was hardly a task for a Jew -
even one converted through personal revelation.......
End quote ..................................
Written in 1995
LET ME FINISH WITH REMINDING YOU OF HOW THE JEWS WANTED TO DESTROY PAUL, AS WE READ IN THE LAST CHAPTERS OF ACTS. IN HIS DEFENCE HE TELLS HOW THEY WANTED TO BLOW HIM AWAY, BUT COULD FIND NO FAULT IN HIM AND HIS JEWISH RELIGION. IF PAUL WAS EVER PREACHING AGAINST SABBATH OBSERVANCE IN THE LETTER, THE PROSECUTING JEWS WOULD CERTAINLY HAVE USED IT TO DESTROY HIM AND HIS NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY. PAUL SAID HE FOLLOWED CHRIST, AND TOLD OTHERS TO FOLLOW HIM AS HE FOLLOWED CHRIST. I HAVE ANSWERED THE ARGUMENTS OF THE WCG IN THEIR NOW PROTESTANT THEOLOGY. THERE ARGUMENTS ARE NOT NEW. THEY ARE OLD BUT NEW ARGUMENTS, DEVISED BY FUNDAMENTAL PROTESTANTS THAT CAME AFTER THE OLD PROTESTANTS OF ALBERT BARNES, ADAM CLARKE, MATTHEW HENRY, WHO UPHELD THE 4TH COMMANDMENT OF THE SABBATH, THOUGH THEY TAUGHT IT WAS NOW SUNDAY. WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT THE TRUTH I HAVE GIVEN YOU. YES YOUR VERY SALVATION WILL DEPEND ON WHAT YOU DO, AND HOW YOU LIVE. Keith Hunt
All articles and studies by Keith Hunt may be copied, published,
e-mailed, and distributed as led by the Spirit. Mr.Hunt trusts
nothing will be changed without his consent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment