ADAM'S CURSE STILL WITH US? #1,

 

Adam's Curse, is it with us Today? #1

Is the Curse put on the land because of the sin of Adam still with us today?

by

Keith Hunt

Some put forth that the special curse that was pronounced on Adam because of his sin in the Garden of Eden, has not been lifted and is still with us today, that mankind is still fighting a great battle with "thorns" and "thistles" every time he plants a garden, puts in a farming crop, just a sweating, a hard toiling, a difficult laboring, a constant fight against thorns and thistles that make working the land just about impossible, or very difficult. Is this really the case? Is all mankind, everywhere, in all nations, having to fight and battle the ground that is constantly putting forth thorns and thistles, as some perpetual curse from God, that makes trying to work the soil a constant sweating hardship? Let us be willing to look at this once upon a time popular teaching of many religious leaders and Bible commentators, let's look at it a little closer, within the Bible itself, and also from historical facts as some nations migrated over the last number of centuries into the new world to process and work some very rich and fertile land that they inherited. BIBLE COMMENTARIES Some well noted, if not famous Bible commentators over the last 400 years have espoused in their preaching and in their Bible Commentaries (still available today) that the curse put upon Adam for his sin, is a curse that was never lifted, and is still with us to this very day. Now, I have some Bible Commentaries in my library. I use, from time to time, the popular Bible Commentaries, but I use them VERY CAREFULLY, realizing that the writers of such works were merely human beings as I am, as you are. Often they were raised with pre-conceived religious ideas, from their parents or church or religious college they may have attended to earn their theological degree. I use and read these Bible commentators with the realization they do not all agree among themselves, and that in fact they are wrong in their teaching and comments MANY times. As a member of the Church of God, that observes the 7th day Sabbath and annual Festivals of the Lord as outlined in Lev.23, I must remember that nearly all these Bible commentators of popular Christianity, are from the Roman Catholic and Protestant religious faiths. And as such, we in the Church of God that observe the 7th day Sabbath, would immediately claim such Catholic and Protestant commentators are very wrong on some very fundamental doctrines of the Bible, hence their Bible Commentaries must be taken and used with great care. It should be held by all those who hold the Bible as their only foundation of truth, that NO DOCTRINE should be founded upon Bible Commentaries. The Bible can stand on its own two feet, or shall I say TWO COVENANTS, the Old and the New covenants, Genesis to Revelation. And that the Bible INTERPRETS ITSELF! Putting scripture with scripture, searching the Scriptures, studying to show ourselves approved unto God, together with the help from the Holy Spirit, will LEAD into all truth, just as Jesus promised. To be sure the Bible Commentaries can be a help at times, they do often give us some technical information on the meaning of Hebrew or Greek words, or some historical facts that help us understand a certain passage of the Scriptures. And that is the MAIN use and function they have. Once more let me state, the comments by the popular and well known Bible commentators, are just that, their comments. No doctrine should be based on their comments alone, sometimes they are correct and sometimes they are very incorrect. Use their books and their writings with CARE. LET'S BACK UP Adam was placed in a garden IN Eden, according to the first chapters of Genesis. Notice what is stated under inspiration, in chapter 2 and verse 15, "And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to DRESS it and to KEEP it." Now, I submit to you, that these words entail that Adam was to do some WORK! He was not just to sit around, put his feet up, lay in the sun, and watch the birds fly around all day. He was not in some holiday resort, having it all brought to him on a platter, just lazing away his time. God obviously created the garden in such a way as that it needed to be worked and tended, cared for, and looked after, otherwise it would run wild, not look like the Eternal intended it to look. Some WORK by Adam was needed to keep it looking good, as God created it and wanted it maintained. When later on, after Adam sinned, and a land curse was pronounced upon him, I think it should be clear to us that that curse was a special curse from God that meant his work in keeping the land he was to be given (outside Eden, as Adam and Eve were driven out, not able to return, as the narrative shows) was not going to be anywhere as easy work as the work of keeping the garden in Eden. But the fact remains some form of work was required while in Eden. God made man to do work. Life is full of work in one way or another. Keeping a garden does take some work. A farmer seeding and harvesting crops from off his land, a fruit tree grower caring for his trees and harvesting the fruit they produce, does take some work. Man was made to WORK! Now, go over and read Adam's curse in chapter 3. Oh, Adam was still going to have to work, but this time the ground was going to yield thorns and thistles, as never before. His work was going to be so hard, for all the work on the ground he would do, it would still bring forth thorns and thistles in a special way, a real battle indeed. This was a curse on the ground that would translate into the kind of work Adam could never have imagined. Many years ago, while living in southern Ontario, near Toronto, my wife and I rented a house at the edge of a town, a country house with land, that according to my landlord had never been used, virgin soil. I asked him if we could plant a garden. He had no objection at all, and so a section of this virgin land with its wild grass was rota-tilled and vegetable seeds and corn seeds were planted. The land contained no thorns and no thistles. I remember doing nothing at all to the corn patch, it just sprouted corn and grew and grew. Corn grows 5 or 6 feet or more and could care less about wild grass that may grow under its feet so to speak. Wow, that corn was the best and sweetest I've ever had. There really was very little work to do in order to produce that wonderful tasty corn, not much toiling, and no sweating, and no thorns or thistles. The vegetable garden was just about the same. Oh yes, a few weeds and wild grass to pull now and then, but no thorns or thistle fighting, they just were not there. A little more work in that garden compared to the corn patch garden, but certainly no sweating, really just some pleasant evening dressing and keeping of that garden, and only now and then at that, not every evening, only once and a while. In that and other garden experiences I've had over the years, I have never felt I was under Adam's curse of fighting a land that seemed to only want to produce thorns and thistles. Maybe I happened to live in areas where thorns and thistles did not live, I think there are tens of thousands of other families and farmers around the nations of the Western world, who have and are still experiencing what I so vividly experienced on that virgin soil in southern Ontario those many years ago. THREE CURSES ON THREE BEINGS The three curses pronounced on the Serpent, Eve, and Adam, were specific and only for them as individual beings, with the expansion of Adam's personal curse to extend to his offspring because the curse effected the LAND they all would work, to sweat upon as they struggled to produce food to eat among the thorns and thistles God said it would now produce. Let's look at each curse somewhat. The verses that cover the first curse are found in Genesis chapter 3:1, 14-15. From these verses many have taught (and it may be correct) that Satan used and talked through some kind of creature the Eternal had created, to tempt Eve to disobey the command of God not to eat from a certain tree in the garden. It would seem that Type and Anti-type slip back and forth in these verses. Whatever may be the case about the possibility that the serpent the Devil (Rev.12:9) used a physical creature to manifest himself to Eve, or used some other form to talk to her, we do find that the curse was on ONE being. Read verse 14. There is nothing in this curse to say MORE than one being, whatever it may have been, was given a curse. This curse was for this being, no more and no less. To say that "snakes" are from this curse, hence a curse still with us today, is purely of human conjecture, from the fancy ideas of the imagination of the human heart. Many other creatures move around on their belly besides snakes. And I do not know of any snake that eats dust, dirt, or sand, in order to live, or because they have some curse upon them. This curse was upon ONE being, and from the words "all the days of your life" the indication is that this being who was cursed, was a physical creature of some kind, that would eventually die, and in so dying the curse would also die. Nothing here to indicate that the curse of verse 14 was going to last all the way down to our time today. The second curse is found in verse 16. It was a curse upon the woman. Notice it, "And unto the WOMAN He (God) said....." Nothing in this verse to say ALL women from the time of Eve were under this curse. Oh, I know, I know, what has been taught by some preachers of the Bible, and some Bible commentators over the centuries, some still teaching it today. The teaching has been from many religious quarters that ALL women from Eve on, will have PAIN, physical pain in childbirth, and that they are under the THUMB of their husbands, as their mighty ruler. NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH! The pioneer of modern natural pain free childbirth, in the Western world, GRANTY DICK REID, in his book called CHILDBIRTH WITHOUT FEAR (out of print, but possibly your local Library will have it, very educational and informative), completely, scholastically, from the Hebrew words used in this verse, proves without a doubt this teaching, widely promulgated and believed in his day, is utterly FALSE. Of course the simple way that this teaching can be found to be an error, without a knowledge of the Hebrew (which Granty Dick Reid does carefully and technically expound in his above mentioned book) is the fact that MANY women have PAINLESS childbirths, maybe hard work (then again some do not even have much hard work even, I've known and talked to such women) but NO PHYSICAL PAIN. As Reid brings out in his famous book, many Oriental women, before the modern age, just went out into the field when it was time to bring forth their baby, squatted, pushed as if having a bowel movement, and gave birth, no hard work, and no pain. I have known a few ladies in my life that when close to their due date for childbirth, they thought nature was calling, and needed to go to the bathroom for a bowel movement, and....you guessed it, the bowel movement was their baby coming, no pain, no hard work. They never made it to the hospital needless to say, their baby was born in the bathroom. Many thousands of modern women today disprove the idea that God placed a curse on all women from the time of Eve, a curse that says all women will have physical pain during childbirth. It is not the intention of this study to expound all the truth concerning this verse. What I do want you again to notice is that this so-called curse is given to the woman, to Eve. Nothing is said here that what God told Eve He was going to give her was to be passed on to ALL women for ALL time, as long as women were giving birth to children. The third curse is found in verses 17-19. Like the above two curses, it is given to ONE being, in this case to Adam. Once more nothing is said that it will be passed on to ALL persons, ALL over the world, for ALL time, until the Kingdom of God is set up on the earth, at the glorious coming of the Messiah Christ. Now, this curse on the ground, was something OUTSIDE of Adam, that could and would effect others of his offspring, as they also had to work this same land. Adam lived close to a thousand years, so the effect was long and would have effected an eventual large population. I submit, these three curses were upon single BEINGS only, with Adam's curse or punishment being on the physical land, and hence so effecting numerous others that would come via Adam's offspring. I submit that nothing in these verses state the curses would forever continue on the earth as long as there were physical person on the earth, or for as long as the Messiah is yet to come to establish the literal Kingdom of God. THE SPECIFICS OF ADAM'S CURSE Genesis chapter 3 and verse 17 tells us that Adam's punishment for disobedience was that the ground would be cursed. The following verses get more specific and bring out the main details of this curse upon the ground and the resultant effect it would have on Adam. As we have noted, not only Adam would be effected in his manner of life from this ground curse but also those of his offspring. Here, we see that God was going to MAKE AND PERFORM A SPECIFIC circumstance on the ground that was not there in the beginning. It would be an intervention on God's part with what we call "nature." He would bring about certain phenomena as related in verse 18 (which we shall look at in detail shortly) that would make Adam's working of that land, a SORROW, or more specifically, a TOIL, as this Hebrew word would better be understood as meaning. It is number 6093 in Strong's Concordance for those who may want to research this word in more depth. It is used in chapter 5 and verse 29, where the context is clearly indicating that the WORK and TOIL mankind was now experiencing with producing food from the land was NOT A COMFORT, hence the work and toil not of the garden of Eden, of easy pleasure, but HARD SWEATING TOIL of DIS-comfort. Here is what MATTHEW HENRY says concerning this in his Bible Commentary: "Cursed is the ground for your sake; and the effect of that curse is, Thorns and thistles shall it bring forth unto thee. It is here intimated that his habitation should be changed; he should no longer dwell in a distinguished, blessed paradise, but should be removed to common ground, and that cursed........His business shall from henceforth become a toil to him, and he shall go on with it in the sweat of his face,v.19. His business before he sinned, was a constant pleasure to him; the garden was then dressed without any uneasy labor, and kept without any uneasy care; but now his labor shall be a weariness, and shall waste his body; his care shall be torment, and shall afflict his mind. The curse upon the ground, which made it barren, and produce thorns and thistles, made his employment about it much more difficult and toilsome....." ADAM CLARKE'S Bible commentary has this to say: " Cursed is the ground for thy sake - from henceforth its fertility shall be greatly impaired; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it, be in continual perplexity concerning the seed time and the harvest, the cold and the heat, the wet and the dry......" Once more notice the last words of verse 17, "....all the days of YOUR LIFE." A specific curse or punishment on ADAM for all the days of his life, and Adam lived, as some chronologers have worked out, to just BEFORE THE FLOOD, close to the time of NOAH, which we shall come to and study later on in this article. For now, keep in mind Genesis 5:29, and that the word Noah means, rest or comfort. This was a curse upon Adam, a single person, just as the other two previous curses were upon specific personal beings. Yet, Adam's curse or punishment was on the ground he would work, and so effect also his offspring, the rest of mankind that would come via the children Adam and Eve would produce. Certainly Adam would die before the curse ended. Before we study in-depth verse 18, I want you to re-read what I have written about verse 17 above. Now, I want you to meditate on the vast majority of households and farmers in the Western world. I will specifically meditate upon the lands I'm familiar with, England, Wales, Canada, and the USA. Most in those countries who plant gardens and who work the land in growing various grain crops (and I've lived in all the above countries, seen it all first hand, even been part of it at times, making my living in the agricultural/animal world) have been blessed with fertile soil, richly producing mountains of food stuffs that the rest of the world often envies. The land workers of those four countries, though often working long hours at times, do not call their work a discomfort, but in the most part a joyful pleasure, and they are not out in the fields constantly having to fight a running battle with thorns and thistles. The grain farmers of Western Canada and other parts who are organic farmers, some I have lived near, are not fighting a battle against thorns and thistles, and just a puffing, groaning, pulling and sweating in hard laborious toil as they work their land. I have known and talked to organic fruit orchard owners in the Okanagan Valley of B.C. where I lived for three years, and they told me they had to do a little more work to keep their fruit trees healthy by not using chemical sprays to ward off the bugs and the birds, but they were not fighting thorns and thistles, nor did any of them think or believe they were under some terrible hard sweating discomfort that made their life miserable. They thought is was a pleasure to have such a natural working relationship with the produce of the land. The punishment on Adam via the curse God would place on the land "all the days of his life" would be no such pleasure. God would specifically send thorns and thistles, a deliberate intervention in the land, on the soil, outside of the garden of Eden, Adam would be driven from, which would be a very real DIS-comfort, for all, until someone by the name of Noah would be born, and whom his father prophesied would COMFORT the land and people, which the Lord had cursed (chap.5:29). Now to the specifics of verse 18. The JAMIESON, FAUSSET, BROWN, Bible Commentary in three volumes, gives the GREEK word used for "thistle" in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament by 70 Jewish scholars around 200 B.C.) and then states: ".......the calthropy of botanists, a kind of thistle armed with long spines. This latter word is supposed to be derived from a root which signifies 'round,' in reference to its spherical form, or its being surrounded by a downy circlet, which makes it capable of easy and rapid revolution along the surface of the ground. The seed is furnished with means of quick and extensive dissemination, for it has a wing to waft it from place to place, and a hook by which it can fasten on any object that is in the way of its transit. Botanists have reckoned that a single seed of the common thistle will produce in the first crop 2,400 and 576,000,000 in the second, and so on, in the same extraordinary ratio of increase........ .......'The sweat of the face' was to be substituted for a light and pleasant pastime;'the herb of the field' for the delicious fruit trees of Eden......" ADAM CLARKE in his popular Bible Commentary has a long detailed factual comment on various thistles and thorns. I will quote most of it: " .......In the curse pronounced on the ground there is much more implied than generally appears. The amazing fertility of some of the most common thistles and thorns renders them the most proper instruments for the fulfilment of this sentence against man. Thistles multiply enormously; a species called Carolina sylvestris bears ordinarily from 20 to 40 heads, each containing from 100 to 150 seeds. Another species, called the Acanthum vulgare, produces about 100 heads, each containing 3 to 400 seeds. Suppose we say that these thistles produce at a medium only 80 heads, and that each contains only 300 seeds; the first crop from these would amount to 24,000. Let these be sown, and the crop will amount to 576 millions. Sow these, and their produce will be 13,824,000,000,000.......and a single crop from these, which is only the third year's growth, would amount to 331,776,000,000,000,000.......and the fourth year's growth will amount to 7,962,624,000,000,000,000,000.......A progeny more than sufficient to stock not only the surface of the whole world, but of all the planets of the solar system, so that no other plant or vegetable could possibly grow, allowing but a space of one square foot for each plant. The Carduus vulgatissimus viarum, or common hedge thistle, besides the almost infinite swarms of winged seeds it sends forth, spreads its roots around many yards,and throws up suckers everywhere, which not only produce seeds in their turn, but extend their roots, propagate like the parent plant, and stifle and destroy all vegetation but their own. As to THORNS, the bramble, which occurs so commonly, and is so mischievous, is a sufficient proof how well the means are calculated to secure the end. The genista,or spinosa vulgaris, called by some furze, by others whins, is allowed to be one of the most mischievous shrubs on the face of the earth. Scarcely anything can grow near it......It is very prolific; almost half the year it is covered with flowers which produce pods filled with seeds. Besides, it shoots out roots far and wide, from which suckers and young plants are continually springing up, which produce others in their turn......it is extremely difficult to clear the ground of its roots once it has got proper footing......" AAAHHH!! Such is the nature of many species of thorns and thistles. With such comments is the usefulness of Bible Commentaries, a lot of interesting facts and figures already studied and written for us. God was now going to punish Adam (and his offspring who would automatically reap the sweating hard toil by the curse on the land) for his sin, by lifting His hand, or shall we say planting with His hand, the choking, land grabbing THORNS AND THISTLES, that mankind would have to constantly battle against in the sweat of his brow. Adam, all the days of his life (verse 17) and until he returned unto the ground, and was once again dust(verse 19). Stop and think. If this curse was STILL on the earth and all mankind everywhere was still having to battle and fight this curse in the sweat of their brow, then when the white man discovered North America and the Indians (a part of the offspring of Adam), he should have discovered a land just FILLED with mile after mile, acre after acre, of nothing but thorns and thistles (given what Adam Clarke has revealed to us about the swift multiplication of the same), and only some acres that the Indians would have cleared and managed to keep under control, by the sweat of the brow. But the white man found no such overrun land of thorns and thistles, and there sure were not enough Indians in North America to have kept those nasty fellows in the deep blue sea of the Atlantic or Pacific, if God was still punishing man with Adam's curse on the land. This curse for Adam, put on the land, was very SPECIFIC......it was a curse of THORNS and THISTLES! It was not a curse of wild grasses, as found in many nations of the earth, such as North America when discovered, grasses that the abundance of wild life thrive upon. Adam's curse had very specific words within it. And PART of those words most have forgotten or most choose to ignore, but those words are also part of the whole total curse that was to be the punishment for Adam, until he returned to the dust, until "all the days of thy life." To be continued

THE AFRICAN CONTINENT-- MILLIONS OBSERVE 7TH DAY SABBATH

 NO LARGE BREAKTHROUGH IN  THE AFRICAN CONTINENT  FOR ME AS YET.

ONLY A FEW COUNTRIES LIKE SOUTH AFRICA.

BUT LET ME SHARE THIS WITH YOU.

A BLACK MINISTER OF THE SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH,  DID AN INVESTIGATION OF THE PEOPLE ON THE CONTINENT OF AFRICA, WHO OBSERVED THE 7TH DAY SABBATH.

HIS INVESTIGATION WAS DONE IN THE LAST HALF OF THE 1990s.

HE PUBLISHED A BOOK IN 1999 CALLED "THE AFRICAN CONNECTION."

RIGHT OFF THE BAT HE SAID HIS INVESTIGATION SHOWED THERE WERE 20 MILLION PEOPLE ON THE AFRICAN CONTINENT WHO OBSERVED THE 7TH DAY SABBATH, AND ONLY 2 MILLION WERE SEVENTH DAY ADVENTISTS.

THIS WAS IN 1999.

LOOK  AT THAT AGAIN.

20 MILLION PEOPLE  WERE OBSERVING THE 7TH DAY SABBATH AND ONLY 2 MILLION BELONGED TO THE SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH.

THAT MEANS 18 MILLION WERE NOT SEVENTH DAY ADVENTISTS.

THAT WAS BACK IN 1999.

SO WHERE DID ALL THOSE 18 MILLION BELONG?

YES  SOME THOUSANDS ONLY WOULD HAVE BEEN EVANGELIZED BY THE ONCE WORLDWIDE CHURCH OF GOD, AND THE VARIOUS 7TH DAY CHURCH OF GOD GROUPS.  

BUT THAT WOULD HAVE ONLY BEEN IN THE TENS OF THOUSANDS.

SO WHERE DID ALL THOSE MILLIONS COME FROM?

WELL YOU MIGHT REMEMBER READING IN THE BOOK OF ACTS ABOUT THE GUY FROM DOWN SOUTH, ETHIOPIA, BAPTIZED BY PHILLIP. YOU WILL FIND IT IN THE FIRST CHAPTERS OF THE BOOK OF ACTS.

YES THAT ETHIOPIAN FELLOW. YOU CAN BET YOUR BOTTOM DOLLAR HE WENT BACK TO ETHIOPIA AND SPREAD THE GOSPEL---- AND FROM THERE, NEARLY TWO THOUSAND YEARS LATER---- BY 1999 THERE WERE 18 MILLION 7TH DAY SABBATH OBSERVERS ON THE AFRICAN CONTINENT.

THE LORD WAS WORKING AWAY!

PRAISE TO GOD IN THE HIGHEST!

Keith Hunt

WAY TO SALVATION - BAPTISM - LAYING ON OF HANDS

 

ALL ABOUT WATER BAPTISM
(Section One, Part A)

HOW SHOULD IT BE DONE, BY SPRINKLING, POURING, SPLASHING? WHEN SHOULD IT BE DONE AND BY WHOM? WHERE SHOULD IT BE DONE? IS WATER BAPTISM NECESSARY FOR SALVATION? THESE AND OTHER QUESTIONS WILL BE ANSWERED AS WE LOOK AT THIS IMPORTANT DOCTRINE OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. by Keith Hunt Did you know that baptism is not just a New Testament(NT) doctrine? On one very specific and special occasion, thousands, if not a few million, were baptized, so says your NT (see 1 Cor.10:1-2). Israel was the "church in the wilderness" - the Old Testament(OT) church of God (Acts 7:38). It is written: "Moreover, brethren, I would not that you should be ignorant, how that our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea. And were all BAPTIZED unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea." IS BAPTISM NECESSARY FOR SALVATION? We are saved by Christ's LIFE - His Spirit in us (Rom.5:10; 8:9,11). How do we RECEIVE that Spirit of life? God inspired Peter to tell us: ".....REPENT and be BAPTIZED.....and you shall RECEIVE the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38). God is a God of principle and order. He lays down the rules. He is the one in charge of things and not ourselves. He says His thoughts and ways are not our thoughts and ways (Isa.55:8,9). He does require us to perform TWO basic things to be saved - 1) REPENT 2) BE BAPTIZED. Then He says He will give us the Spirit of LIFE that saves. John the Baptist knew Christ had no need to be baptized. But what did Jesus say? He said this: ".....Suffer it to be so now; for thus it becomes us to fulfil ALL RIGHTEOUSNESS" (Mat.3:15). You may ask: What is righteousness? The Bible answers: ".....ALL thy COMMANDMENTS are RIGHTEOUSNESS" (Psalm 119:172). Being BAPTIZED is RIGHTEOUSNESS! It is a COMMANDMENT of God. Peter was inspired by God on that day of Pentecost to TELL people WHAT TO DO when they asked him what they should do. Christ also set us an EXAMPLE that we should do as He did (1 Peter 2:21). Further, to the importance of this ordinance, we have more words from Peter. "Christ also has once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God; being put to death in the flesh, but quickened(made alive) by the Spirit......the LIKE FIGURE whereunto even BAPTISM does also NOW SAVE US.......by the RESURRECTION of Christ" (1 Peter 3:18-21). Baptism is a command of God. It is part of His righteousness. Christ will not save anyone that He cannot rule over! "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me" (Luke 19:27). Christ only gives His SAVING Spirit to those who will OBEY Him (Acts 5:32). Baptism then IS NECESSARY for salvation or to be saved. Not that the act itself saves you, for no literal physical work can save you, (as you are saved by grace through faith and not by works - Eph.2:8-10), but REBELLING at the will and wish and command of God earns for you DEATH (Rom.6:23). A heart and attitude of WILLFUL "no I will not do it God" puts you out of His grace and into willful sin, which if not repented of will eventually lead to the second death in the lake of fire. The question is then asked: What about the person who DIES or is KILLED in an accident etc. BEFORE he/she can be baptized. Are they then NOT saved? God looks upon the HEART, the attitude of mind. If an individual has be called of God, chosen by God, and is truly REPENTANT - understands what God basically requires of him, and WANTS to conform to the will and commands of God, wants to be BAPTIZED and REQUESTS(possibly they may even die before doing the literal requesting, but they do so intend to do) to be baptized, but before they are ACTUALLY baptized they die, God(who is the one in charge of all things, and has permitted the person to die) WILL NOT HOLD HIM GUILTY! The HEART and MIND of the individual concerned was RIGHT! They will be saved! BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, if an individual KNOWS what is the will of his Master - the Eternal God - and STUBBORNLY REFUSES to do His will, then that is REBELLION; that is SIN. For to him who knows to do good and does it not, to him it is sin (James 4:17). God will never save such a willful rebellious "snub your nose at God" sinner (Heb.10:26-31). BAPTISM - SPRINKLING, POURING, SPLASHING? What does the word "baptism" mean? Here is what Strong's Concordance of the Bible has to say: " 'Baptizo' from 'bapto' - a prim verb; to whelm - i.e., cover wholly with a fluid." Please take the time to look up this Greek word in other Greek Lexicons and Dictionaries. Now, does a few "sprinklings" or "dabbings" with water COVER WHOLLY? Let us look at the examples of the NT and see if we can find HOW people were baptized. "And Jesus, when He was baptized, went up straightway OUT OF the water......" (Mat.3:16). "John did baptize......and there went out unto him all the land of Judea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him IN the river Jordan......." (Mark 1:4,5). "And John also was baptizing in Aenon, near Salim, because there was MUCH WATER there......" (John 3:23). "And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went DOWN both INTO THE WATER, both Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him" (Acts 8:38). There is not one verse in the Bible that uses the words "sprinkling, pouring, splashing, dabbing" in connection with being baptized. But we do find phrases like "went up.....out of the water" "baptized....in the river" "much water there" "went down into the water." For a full in-depth technical study on this Greek word for baptism, I refer you to the SECOND section of this study. If baptism could be done merely by "splashing" a few drops of water over someone, you would not need "much water" and you would not need a river. The person doing the baptism in the river would not have to go "down into the river" nor would the one BEING baptized. A cup or less of water from someone's house, or well, or even the river, would do. But we CANNOT find any example, or indication, in God's word that baptism was done with only a few drops of water. The word "baptism" means to COVER WHOLLY. The examples in Scripture show us that people were fully IMMERSED in water when baptized. The THIRD section of this study will show you that for a number of CENTURIES after the start of the NT church of God, even the popular "Christianity" that became known as the Roman Catholic Church BAPTIZED by COMPLETE IMMERSION in water, AND ONLY MUCH LATER adopted their present practice of baptizing with a few drops of water. WHAT BAPTISM SYMBOLIZES Paul wrote in Col.2:12, "BURIED with Him in baptism, wherein also you are RISEN with Him through the faith of the operation of God, who has raised Him from the dead." Again Paul states: "Know you not, that so many of us that were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into His death......" (going down under the water is symbolic of our dying as Christ died. He died for our sins - the transgression of the law of God, see 1 John 3:4; Rom.7:7. We are saying that by going under the waters that we will die to sin, that sin will no longer rule us, and that we accept the death of Christ as our reconciliatory sacrifice with God, see Rom.5:10; 6:12,14) "Therefore, we are buried with Him by baptism into death....." (Rom.6:4). Yes, if we DID NOT come up out of the water we would drown - DIE! Baptism is AS IF we died - because in actual death we would be free from sin. We would not be able to sin. So our sins - past sins - sins committed up to the point of going under the water - are cleansed away, FORGIVEN. The slate is clean! Nothing now stops us from entering God's presence (Isa.59:8-9). And it is Christ's DEATH, His shed blood, that gives us JUSTIFICATION (Rom.5:9). But Paul does not STOP with Christ's death, and our going under the water to show we accept His sacrifice. He goes on to say, "That like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life....." (Coming up out of the watery grave symbolizes our acceptance that we will live a new life, where sin no longer reigns but where righteousness is our desire. Just as Christ was raised from the dead and is now completely free from even the temptation to sin, remember He did no sin, but was tempted as we are, see Heb.4:15. So our goal and desire is to live a sinless life) ".....for if we have been planted together in the likeness of His death, we shall be also in the likeness of His resurrection: 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......" (We are not to serve, obey the dictates of sin, the breaking of the law of God) ".....Likewise reckon you also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God......Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body......but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead......" (Rom.6:1-13). Romans chapter six is one of the main sections of the Scriptures that give us the MEANING of WATER BAPTISM. I recommend you read this chapter in some of the modern translations such as the Amplified Bible, Phillips, Living Bible, and others. WHEN SHOULD WE BE BAPTIZED? As baptism is the recognizing of sin - that we have broken God's law - that we are guilty before God - that we have incurred the death penalty (Rom.3:23; 6:23) and only Christ's death - His shed blood - can reconcile, justify us to God (Rom.3:19-25). As baptism is also declaring to God that you intend to put away sin - to change your life from a life of going the opposite to God's law - to a life of serving the Eternal in righteousness, which is the keeping of the law (Rom.6:11-13; Ps.119:172). As baptism means ALL OF THIS, it should be plain to see that baptism is NOT FOR SMALL CHILDREN OR INFANTS. Baptism is for people who KNOW exactly what it MEANS. Who can accept Christ as their PERSONAL Savior; who have COUNTED THE COST (Mat.10:37-38; 19:16-27; 7:21-27; 13-14; 6:24; 5:17-20; 18:3-4; Mark 4:14-20; 10:28-30; Luke 6:46-49; 14:25-35). God gives us no SPECIFIC AGE as to when baptism should be performed. There is NO scripture that says: You must not baptize anyone until age.....such and such. The examples we have in the NT are of ADULTS being baptized. It must be remembered that in Jewish culture you were an adult at the age of 12 years. Jesus at 12 was in the Temple doing "His Father's business" (as He told His mother Mary) when His mother came looking for Him, as He had not followed them to their home after observing the feast of the Passover (Luke 2). Jesus never sinned, so it is written. What He did on this occasion was not dis- honoring His physical parents. He was regarded in their culture to be an adult, as He was now 12 years old. To us this may seem very strange and may seem to be still very young, yet in a religious home as Jesus would have been raised, the amount of maturity for a twelve year old would have been considerably more than most average twelve year old youngsters in our Western cultures. Most marriages took place in Jewish societies during the middle teenage years. It was counted a family shame if a daughter was not married by the age of eighteen. So under certain situations it is quite possible that a teenager could be CALLED and CHOSEN by the Lord to His Spiritual family and Kingdom. Jeremiah was but a child (Jer.1:6-7) when called by God. The phrase is understood by some chronologists as Jeremiah being in his teens when called. In our Western Nations the average person does not reach maturity of mind until in their late teens or early 20's as a general rule of thumb, BUT like many other things there are exceptions to the rule. Each must be taken on an individual basis. Between Spirit filled parents(or parent if only one is baptized) and the Elders of the church, knowing the youth, studying the counting of the cost with the youth, praying and even fasting about the situation, the Spirit of the Lord will lead to ascertaining if this person is ready for baptism or not. After a person is brought by God to REPENTANCE (see 2 Tim.2:25; Acts 11:18), how long should they wait BEFORE they are baptized? The Ethiopian eunuch was brought to repentance and belief in Christ as personal Savior with one sermon(of course he was already a reader and observer of the word of God as best he understood, as the context makes clear) by Philip. And Philip baptized him IMMEDIATELY (Acts 8:26-39). Peter said: "....Repent, and be (then after be) baptized...." (Acts 2:38). Baptism should take place in the life of a mature adult, as soon as REAL REPENTANCE is clearly discernable by those who are going to perform the ceremony or are responsible for having others perform it (Paul he stated did not baptize very many but others baptized those God called through his teaching and preaching - see 1 Cor.1:14-17). The reader may want to request my in-depth study article on the subject of REAL REPENTANCE. It can be sent either via E-mail or regular Post Office mail. WHY SHOULD WE BE BAPTIZED? Peter was inspired to say on the Day of Pentecost (the day that God poured out His Holy Spirit on the NT church - Acts 2:1-4), "......Repent and be baptized every one of you......and YOU shall receive the GIFT of the HOLY SPIRIT" (Acts 2:38). God is a God of ORDER. He is not a God of CONFUSION (1 Cor.14:33). He told the church in the wilderness (Acts 7:38) DO THIS, and I will DO THIS for YOU! Obey Him and He told them He would BLESS them! If they DISOBEYED then they would NOT be blessed, but would have CURSES! (Deut.28:1-68). God tells us through Peter - REPENT and be BAPTIZED, and THEN I will give you the Holy Spirit. THAT'S THE ORDER friends. I did not write it. It's been in your Bible for nearly 2,000 years. Those are the TWO basic and general CONDITIONS that God lays down to receive His GIFT. It is a one, two, three, general process. God does not leave it up to us to decide how we shall receive His Spirit. He PLAINLY TELLS us HOW! All we can do is either obey or not obey. But He even tells us that He gives His Spirit ONLY to those who have the heart and mind attitude of OBEYING Him (Acts 5:32). Why do we need God's Spirit? Paul answers: ".....Now if any man HAS NOT the Spirit of Christ, he is NONE OF HIS.......If the Spirit of Him that raised up Jesus from the dead DWELL IN YOU, He that raised up Christ from the dead shall also QUICKEN(make alive) your mortal bodies by His Spirit that DWELLS IN YOU" (Rom.8:9-11). Unless we have God's Spirit IN us we CANNOT be saved, for we are saved by His LIFE (Rom.5:10). God's Spirit is Christ IN US (living His life again within us - His mind in us - Phil.2:5; Gal.2:20). It is the POWER of God to enable us to do His will (Acts 1:8). It is God's LOVE flowing from Himself and Christ into us. It enables us to keep His commandments (Rom.5:5; 1 John 5:3). God's Spirit LEADS to TRUTH (John 16:13). WE NEED TO BE BAPTIZED IN ORDER TO RECEIVE GOD'S SPIRIT, AND SO BE SAVED (see also Acts 19:1-6). A GOOD QUESTION Someone is bound to say: But what about Cornelius and the Gentiles; did they not receive God's Spirit BEFORE being baptized? Yes, they did! But let's read the whole context and understand the circumstances. It will become plain to see that God was telling Peter and the Jews that the Holy Spirit was now available to EVERYONE - Jew and Gentile! Remember, the way of God, His covenants, promises, were ONLY given to Israel under the OT (Rom.9:4). A Gentile could become (under the old covenant law) an Israelite by being circumcised, adopting the religion of Israel and living among the nation of Israel. The Gentile nations as a whole, were NOT GIVEN God's truth or ways or His Spirit(Eph.2:11-12), even in Israel, it was only the few that were given God's Spirit (see Num.11). God was here, showing the Jews and the NT church that His Spirit and Gospel was NOW to go to all the world (Acts 11:1-18; Luke 24:46-47). He told them this by sending down His Spirit on those Gentiles in a somewhat similar manner as when He poured it out upon the disciples on the day of Pentecost. This was a SPECIAL TIME in history. It was a FIRST! It had to be SHOWN in a SPECIAL WAY. Or shall I say, God chose to show it in a special way. God wanted Peter and the other Jews to CLEARLY UNDERSTAND God's PLAN and purpose! Notice! After the Lord poured His Holy Spirit on those Gentiles, Peter STILL said they should be BAPTIZED! (verses 47-48). If God did, for a SPECIAL reason, (or for no special reason but that He is God and can make exceptions to the norm if He chooses), give His Spirit to an individual PRIOR to baptism - that individual would STILL be commanded to be BAPTIZED. That is the CLEAR teaching in this example. If he refused, it would be proof that he really never did have God's Spirit in the first place, but some other spirit from another spiritual power, that is in REBELLION to the will and ways of the true Almighty God. For as we have before proved, those with the Spirit of God will OBEY that God, just as Jesus did, who was baptized when He had no need to be baptized, but He would as He said, fulfil all righteousness. God's OVERALL teaching is - 99.9% of the time - a ONE, TWO, THREE step! REPENT, BE BAPTIZED, THEN receive the Holy Spirit! Now, there is also a difference between God's Spirit LEADING a person and God's Spirit being IN a person. Everyone whom the Lord calls to repentance and His truth is being LED by the Spirit (1 Cor.2:11,14; 2 Tim.2:25). But AFTER baptism God's Spirit is IN (UNITED WITH, AS AN EGG AND SPERM BECOME UNITED IN HUMAN REPRODUCTION) THAT PERSON (Rom.8:11). The person is BEGOTTEN again (James 1:18; 1 Peter 1:3) by the resurrection and LIFE of Christ. This is, as I have stated, the OVERALL way of the Lord, BUT as He is God, He can make EXCEPTIONS to the rule of things, or the norm. But in this we must be careful that we do not make the exception the rule, or the rule will become the exception, and we will have turned black into white, and put the cart before the horse. We need to be baptized in order to receive the Spirit of God that is the LIFE of God, that IN us will give us the gift of Eternal life in the Kingdom and family of our heavenly Father. BY WHOM SHOULD WE BE BAPTIZED? Jesus Christ did not baptize one single soul!! "The Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John (though Jesus Himself baptized NOT, but His disciples)" (John 4:1-2). Paul only baptized a relatively few!! ".....for Christ sent me NOT TO BAPTIZE, but to preach the Gospel" (1 Cor.1:17). When Christ's disciples were baptizing they were doing it by His authority. They were His agents, acting on His behalf. They were students of Christ - His followers - His servants. It was yes, a different situation then, than now, for at that time the Holy Spirit had not come to fill them. They were technically unconverted in one sense of the word (Luke 22:31-32; John 16:7-13; Acts 1:4-5; 2:1-4). Yet they were in heart and attitude committed to the Lord(all except Judas who betrayed Him). The IMPORTANT thing for us to see from all this is that the person DOING the baptizing represents God to the very best of their knowledge and understanding at the time. That they DO IT in the name of or by the authority of, Jesus Christ. That they, and the one being baptized, realize it is really Jesus doing the baptizing but through a human person. And of course that the one baptizing does it in the basic CORRECT way, as we have seen, by complete IMMERSION in water. The BAPTISM itself is the MAIN issue and not so much as to which sincere Spirit filled(coming now to the present, after the day of Pentecost of Acts 2) person actually performs the rite on the one desiring to be baptized. This then should answer a lot of questions such as: It the person who baptized me should loose their faith, is my baptism valid? Quite frankly no human can know what another human may do 5, 10, 20 etc. years from now. God only knows such things. Your repentance, conversion, and baptism is NOT dependant on any human individual. It only is dependant on the Eternal, and we need to be ever thankful that that is the truth of the matter. The person doing the baptism is not to be looked at in some special way as being tied to your person relationship with God in heaven. It is God and Christ that you need ALWAYS to look at from the beginning to the end, and that will then include your baptism. The age of the person doing the baptizing, their height, their physical looks, their color of hair, the color of their skin, and whatever else about them is physical, is NOT important. What IS important is REPENTANCE in the heart of the one being baptized, and that they are being baptized as an outward sign to God that they are willing to die to sin and live to righteousness, as they accept the sacrifice of Christ Jesus. IN WHOSE NAME IS BAPTISM DONE? Should you be baptized in God the Father's name only? Or should it only be in Christ's name? Maybe some would argue it should be in only the Holy Spirit's name (although I've never met any such persons). Or should baptism be performed with a combination of the above three names? Some of the scriptures on this are: ".....Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ......" (Acts 2:38). "......And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord" (Acts 10:48). "When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus" (Acts 19:5). There are to be sure a number of such scriptures as the above in the NT. Then there is: "Go you therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (Mat.28:19). Those words were spoken by Jesus, personally. The debate and arguing in the churches of God over the years concerning this question of "in whose name" has been long and vociferous at times. Some want to pit one set of scriptures against others. Some want to say Matthew 28:19 was not in the original Greek. Still others want to take the majority of verses, so Matthew 28:19 is relegated to the trash pile. I have found the harmonizing of all the verses not really that difficult. It is quite simple to retain them all and come up with a basic baptism formula that covers all the bases. Here is what I will say(after I have possibly said other things) to the person being baptized, if I'm officiating the ceremony. "As you have confessed that you repent of your sins. As you have confessed that you have accepted Christ as your personal Savior, confessed that His shed blood cleanses you of sin. As you have confessed that you desire to die to sin and live to righteousness, to follow in the steps of Jesus, I now baptize you in the name of, which is by the authority of, Jesus Christ, into the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit." THE LAYING ON OF HANDS After the disciples were scattered abroad, Philip went down to Samaria and preached Christ unto them. Many indeed BELIEVED and were baptized (Acts 8:4-12). Yet when Peter and John came from Jerusalem to them, they discovered that the Holy Spirit had not come upon any of them. Notice what is written in verses 15-17. "Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Spirit (for as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in name of the Lord Jesus). Then LAID THEY THEIR HANDS UPON THEM; and they received the Holy Spirit." Here we have people being baptized, correctly I might add, for not one word is said about it not being performed incorrectly up to a certain point. Then we are told that when Peter and John prayed and laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit came into them. Another example is found in Acts 19:1-6. ".....Paul.....finding certain disciples, said unto them: Have you received the Holy Spirit since you believed? And they said unto him: We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Spirit. And he said to them: Unto what then were you baptized? And they said: Unto John's baptism. Then said Paul: John truly baptized with the baptism unto repentance, saying unto the people that they should believe on Him which should come after him; that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul HAD LAID HIS HANDS UPON THEM, the Holy Spirit came on them......." I see no other reason than that these examples as given to us so that we might know that a very important part of the baptism ceremony and rite, is that after those being put under the water have come up from the grave(in type), prayers and the laying on of the hands of those who have gone before and in whom dwells the Spirit, is also to be performed, for the receiving of the Holy Spirit. WHERE SHOULD A PERSON BE BAPTIZED? Baptism is the complete cover of the person being baptized by water. This is the important thing; not WHERE it takes place! The COLOR of the water is not important. The TEMPERATURE of the water is not important(unless it must be a certain temperature for health reasons). It does not matter to God if a person is baptized in the sea, in a lake, in a swimming pool, in a deep bathtub, or in a 50 gallon drum, as long as they are completely immersed in the water for a few seconds. The PLACE and the CONTAINER of water is unimportant to God. ARE SOME BAPTISMS VALID BEFORE COMING INTO THE SABBATH KEEPING CHURCHES OF GOD? This can be a large topic, covering many points, and it is not the purpose of this article to go into detail answering all the ramifications that could be argued. I think we can condense the answer to a few sentences. God is the one who calls a person to Himself and to His truths. He is looking for a heart attitude in the main. A heart attitude of humility and repentance, one that says I want to do all your will Lord. I want to be led by your Spirit, I want to obey your commandments, I desire to put away sin, and to live and follow after righteousness. I desire to grow in grace and knowledge, to be taught and to be corrected. This is what God is looking for. Then He will lead and teach and correct error AS HE SEES FIT AND WHEN HE SEES FIT. There is no one who can claim 100% knowledge and truth of God's WAY and PERFECTNESS upon their baptism(outside of course Jesus Christ when He was human). No one! We must all GROW in spiritual knowledge as we are led by the Spirit into all truth. Can God call someone say in the Sunday observing churches, who sincerely believes Sunday is the 7th day, or is the NT Sabbath, and observes it accordingly, thinking they are obeying the 4th commandment. Can God call them, see their attitude of mind is correct, given them His Holy Spirit upon correctly being baptized, and leave them for A TIME in their blindness to the Sabbath truth, only to reveal it at a later date to them? Yes, I believe God can! Well, God of course can do anything, for nothing is impossible for Him, as it is written. So we should say, has God done such a thing at times? I think He has! There are, as I've stated before, EXCEPTIONS to the rule. Could the question I pose and the answer I've given be an exception to the general rule? I believe so. Please do not misunderstand. The Lord will never leave someone He has called and chosen and given His Spirit to, in sin as concerning His TEN Commandment law. He will at some point REVEAL to them their error, so they can do as the Scriptures admonish, and that is "become you therefore perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect" and "grow in grace and knowledge of your Lord and Savior Christ Jesus." Each of these previous baptisms of persons must be taken and judged on an individual basis. Time, prayer, meditation, seeking God's direction and answer to such questions, will net the desired result for each person coming from that background. Some, may only need the laying on of hands(it may never have been done at their baptism). SELF-RIGHTEOUSNESS AND BAPTISM The young person or adult who was raised in an environment of righteousness (in a God-fearing family or church) sometimes has more trouble coming to deep repentance than those who came up in the "dirt and mire" as we say. They have been "good people" have they not? So what does real repentance mean to them, or how do they understand what it is? The life of Job will I think help us here. Immediately, in the very first verse it is said that Job was BLAMELESS and UPRIGHT, someone who FEARED God and SHUNNED EVIL! Wow, now that is righteousness for you! In verse eight God even said to Satan that Job was blameless. No other man alive was like him. Satan answered that it PAID Job to be so - he had nothing but good things. If those "things" were taken away Satan said, then Job would curse God. So the Lord allowed the Devil to strip Job of most of his physical goods, Ah, Job did not do what Satan expected him to do. And God still called Job blameless in chapter 2:3. Then the Devil was allowed to inflict physical pain on Job; but he still did not sin with his lips (verses 4-10). Job's three friends finally came along and tried to accuse Job of being a sinner, of clandestinely keeping a great sin hidden somewhere in his closet. They wanted him to pull it out and confess it to the whole world, but Job answered them one by one and showed he was not practicing some secret sin (chapters 4-31). Just look at the righteousness of Job. He would put most Christians of today to utter shame if they tried to compare themselves against his standards and righteousness. Job never took a bribe (chap.6:22). He never committed violence (16:17). His prayers were pure (16:17). Job obeyed all of God's commandments (23:11-12). He never lied or was deceitful (27:4). His heart was clean - it never condemned him (27:6). Job helped the poor and fatherless (29:12). He helped the widows, the blind, the lame, etc. (29:13-15). Job never lusted after a woman (31:1) More of Job's righteousness is listed in chapter 31. He was in human terms indeed blameless! God never once said Job lied or was wrong in claiming to be righteous. Job was probably the most perfectly righteous person, next to Christ, who ever lived. Now, you who have been raised in a God fearing manner, can anyone say they have NEVER lied, or spoken untruth, never been angry without cause, never been disobedient or rebellious against their parents, never been deceitful, never lusted in their mind, never broken the Sabbath day? Can you say your heart has never condemned you? Have you always been kind, polite, thoughtful, self-controlled, thankful, giving and serving? Can you say you have NEVER had jealousies, resentment, and revenge in your mind and heart against someone? Can you really say with Job, you are BLAMELESS? I think maybe not! If you are honest with yourself you will have to admit you are not even close to being what Job was, let alone the perfect Christ. And good old Job, well he was not perfect either. For within and among all his wonderful righteousness he had never really seen the TRUE PERFECT ALMIGHTY GOD of this universe. A fourth friend of Job's finally spoke up and hit the nail on the head, took the two by four plank and struck him between the eyes with it. He showed Job how GREAT GOD WAS and how little, weak, puny, and insignificant was Job and all mankind when compared with the Eternal God (chapters 32-37). Afterwards, God Himself stepped in and really laid it on Job (chap.38-41). The Lord with His Spirit HUMBLED Job; brought him to DEEP REPENTANCE! God helped him come to really SEE with spiritual insight the AWESOMENESS and PERFECT HOLINESS of the one who created all things. Job came to see very clearly that all HIS personal righteousness was nothing but FILTHY RAGS when placed next to the PERFECT POWER, MIGHT, GRACE, WISDOM, and JUSTNESS of the God of heaven. Job came to the point, as we all must do(if we want to be saved), where he could say: "I have heard of you (only) by the hearing of the ear; BUT NOW my (spiritual) eye SEES YOU. Therefore, I LOATHE (my words) and ABHOR myself, and REPENT in dust and ashes" (Job 42:5,6 Amplified Bible). When you get to that point. When God has given you REAL REPENTANCE, then you are ready to be BAPTIZED! .......................................................... Part B follows next THE LAYING ON OF HANDS  One of the principle foundation doctrines of Christ is the doctrine of "the laying on of hands" (Heb.6:2). In this study we shall only concern ourselves with the laying on of hands as it relates to the receiving of the Holy Spirit in the ordinance of Baptism. There are only THREE clear passages in the NT that connects the laying on of hands with the receiving of the Holy Spirit, They are: ACTS 8:14-19; 9:10-18; 19:1-7. It is debatable whether the passage in 2 Tim.1:6-7 is referring to receiving the Holy Spirit or the special gift given to Timothy through the Eldership (see the Bible Commentaries). Let us look at the THREE passages in the book of Acts. ACTS 8:14-19 Philip had recently been set apart by the multitude of the disciples and 12 apostles as one of the "diakonos" (Acts 6:1-7). After the persecution in Jerusalem and the scattering of the church there, he went down to Samaria and preached Christ to them. Many believed and were baptized. The apostles sent Peter and John to serve and help. Coming, they found that the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon these newly baptized persons. How they knew this is not related to us. Why had they not yet received the Holy Spirit? They had been baptized in the name of Jesus! From the context of what happened, it would seem that Philip did not understand that he should have laid his hands on them. Notice verse 17, "Then LAID THEY THEIR HANDS UPON THEM, and they RECEIVED the Holy Spirit." It would seem Philip's understanding was limited at this time. He knew HOW to baptize and WHY to baptize, but he did not know about the laying on of hands. Surely, this specific incident is recorded for OUR INSTRUCTION today, so we might see that the "laying on of hands" is a PART of the baptism ceremony to receive the Holy Spirit. ACTS 9:10-18 Ananias is sent by God to restore the sight to Paul or Saul and to BAPTIZE him. He is shown by God in a vision to "put his hands on him" so Saul might receive his sight again (verse 12). But notice verse 17 and what else is added to this "putting his hands on him" - the receiving or being filled with the Holy Spirit! A second example recorded for us of the "laying on of hands" in connection with being filled with God's Spirit. ACTS 19:1-7 Paul came to Ephesus and found disciples who had not even heard about the Holy Spirit. They had been baptized under John the baptist's ministry. Paul revealed to them the baptism of Jesus Christ as the true Christian baptism; and they were baptized accordingly. Verse six says, "And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them." The above three recorded examples should be enough for God's children to realize and understand that the doctrine of the "laying on of hands" is an important part of baptism and the receiving of the Spirit of God. WHEN SHOULD HANDS BE LAID ON? Should the laying on of hands be done BEFORE or AFTER baptism? In Acts, chapter 8 and 19, the example given is that of the laying on of hands AFTER baptism. In Acts 9 Ananias laid hands on Paul BEFORE baptism. But it is plain to see that in this case the laying on of hands had a dual purpose. It was also to restore Saul's sight. It would be much easier to baptize a person with his vision than as a blind man. Of course he may have laid hands on Paul again after baptizing him, but the record does not inform us of this. Two out of three of these examples are AFTER baptism........yet, these three examples do show us that God is FLEXIBLE. He is not bound by strict RITUALISTIC service in certain special circumstances. WILL THE HOLY SPIRIT BE GIVEN WITHOUT THE LAYING ON OF HANDS? In Acts 8 the people of Samaria did BELIEVE. They had REPENTED and they had accepted Jesus Christ. God's Spirit had worked WITH them - opened up their minds, given them repentance (2 Peter 3:9; Rom.2:4). It had led them to the truth about salvation and Christ (John 16:13; 6:44,65; 16:7-8). They were baptized CORRECTLY! But until they had HANDS LAID ON THEM the Holy Spirit did not unite with their minds(verse 17). It was still WITH them but not IN them. That is the only way this passage in Acts can be understood, for it plainly says that they received NOT (as a begettal) the Holy Spirit until they had had the laying on of hands. But Cornelius and others received the Holy Spirit BEFORE baptism and the laying on of hands (Acts 10:44-48), some will say.......and yes, indeed that is so! What this shows is that God is NOT BOUND BY STRICT RITUAL. He is FLEXIBLE! When He decides, for whatever reason He decides! This was SPECIAL - Cornelius was the FIRST Gentile to receive the Holy Spirit. There CAN BE EXCEPTIONS to the general rule. God is in charge of His plan of Salvation, not mankind. So, exceptions yes, but the overall rule and instruction stays as is: 1) Repent 2) be Baptized (which includes the laying on of hands) 3) YOU SHALL RECEIVE THE HOLY SPIRIT (Acts 2:38). Question: If the person doing the baptism does not lay hands on the one being baptized, and if the one being baptized does not know about the doctrine of the laying on of hands, but has repented and accepted Jesus as their personal savior, will God withhold begetting them with His Spirit, uniting the Spirit with their minds? Answer: That question cannot with any firmness (by the examples recorded) be answered in the positive or the negative. GOD MAKES THAT DECISION! Yet, anyone coming LATER to the truth about the "laying on of hands" should take Peter's admonition to Cornelius and the others in Acts 10:4 and re-phrase it something like this: "Can any man forbid that these should not have the laying on of hands as we did?" WHO CAN PERFORM BAPTISM AND THE LAYING ON OF HANDS? Is it only SPECIAL people, or only those "ordained" to the Eldership or Deaconship, who can baptize and lay hands upon someone to receive the Holy Spirit? I may SHOCK some of you reading this, but I will challenge anyone to find the NT scripture that gives plain instructions that it is only an "ordained" person who can baptize and lay hands on another to receive the Holy Spirit. Get looking for it, search the scriptures daily, see if you can find any such teaching or instruction. Paul sure had lots of space to write such dogma in his 14 epistles, but he never wrote one word about it being ONLY ordained persons that could baptize and lay hands on people to receive the Holy Spirit. And none of the other writers of the NT did either ! Philip, in Acts 8, did not lay hands upon those people he baptized not because he was not qualified, but because he DID NOT KNOW he should do so! That knowledge had not been made known to him until Peter and John came down from Jerusalem to explain it to him and to those he had baptized. Philip went on after this experience and explanation to BAPTIZE the Ethiopian eunuch and, now knowing what he knew, he would have also laid his hands on him (Acts 8:26-39). Philip was a servant of God. He had the gift of God's Spirit. Was he qualified to pass on that gift to someone else? The eunuch went on his way back to Ethiopia as a baptized Spirit filled child of God. Philip was qualified as a true child of God to pass on that gift of God's Holy Spirit! But some may say: Philip was ordained to the "diakonos" (Acts 6:1-7) and so could perform the laying on of hands and baptism to receive the Holy Spirit. What about the eunuch then? Are we to suppose he never shared his faith with anyone in Ethiopia? Are we to suppose that God never used him in that part of the world to bring others to Christ? Hardly now, it certainly would not seem logical to so reason. It is I submit more logical to believe that God had Philip taken to this eunuch to baptize him (and so receive the Holy Spirit) so that God could use him to bring others to repentance and salvation in Ethiopia and other parts of the African continent. It is again unrealistic to think that those brought to baptism in Ethiopia would have to wait for the laying on of hands by the ordained ministry in Jerusalem. It is far more realistic to view this eunuch as a chosen vessel in the hands of the Lord to spread the Gospel in Ethiopia, to baptize and lay hands on those whom God would call to receive His Spirit. This is all SPECULATION, someone will shout. Well, let me show you an example that is part of God's word - no speculation! We have referred to this passage already - Acts 8:10-18, but many MISS an important teaching and lesson from this example, concerning WHO can baptize and pass on the gift of the Holy Spirit. Notice.........Paul was indeed baptized and received the gift of the Spirit of God (verses 17,18). WHO baptized and laid hands upon him? Why, it was ANANIAS. Now, WHO was Ananias? Look in your Bible Dictionaries or Bible Hand books. VERY little is known about him! Was he called an "apostle" ? No! Was he called an "evangelist"? No! Was he called a "prophet"? No! Was he called a "deacon"? No! What was he called then? Verse 10, "And there was a certain DISCIPLE at Damascus." Ananias is mentioned ONLY as a "disciple." He was a FOLLOWER of Christ; a child of God. The Greek word here used for "disciple" is the SAME one used EVERYWHERE in the NT for "disciple" and means, literally: "a learner (from "manthano" to learn, from a root "math" - indicating thought accompanied by endeavor). Hence, it denotes one who follows one's teaching, as the disciples of John, Mat.9:14; of the Pharisees, Mat.22:16; of Moses, John 9:28. It is used of the disciples of Jesus" (Vine's Dictionary of NT Words, page 308). Now, an apostle is a disciple of Jesus, as is any of the ordained Ministry or Eldership. But as NO OTHER DISTINGUISHING remark is made of Ananias other than that he was a "disciple" in Damascus, the FIRST and most important logical understanding is that he was a FOLLOWER - a baptized Spirit filled child of God, who held no other function or ordained position in the church of God. It was he whom the Lord chose to baptize and lay hands upon Paul, a man whom the Eternal would greatly use to do His work. Summary: A person that has himself been baptized, had the laying on of hands, and is filled with the Spirit of God is qualified, and can be used by that same God to pass on His gift of the Holy Spirit to other repentant believers. ........................................................... First written in 1983. Re-written and revised in June 1997.

NO SABBATH - ARGUMENTS ANSWERED #4,

 

Sabbath Arguments Answered #4

The Worldwide Church of God has abolished the Sabbath commandment - I answer their arguments

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." Dr. Sam's address is: Bible Perspectives, 4569 Lisa Lane, Berrien Springs, Michigan 49103, USA. 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 six, 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 tothe 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 "Sabbathkeepi ng , 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 old 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 scripture. 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