Keith Hunt - Sabbath Arguments Answered #4 - Page Four   Restitution of All Things

  Home Previous Page Next Page

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

All articles and studies by Keith Hunt may be copied, published,
e-mailed, and distributed as led by the Spirit. Mr. Hunt trusts
nothing will be changed without his consent.



  Home Previous Page Top of Page Next Page

 
Navigation List:
 

 
Word Search:

PicoSearch
  Help