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
The Pharisees went to Moses and claimed he, a servant
of God, led and inspired of God, did say it was lawful (verse
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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).
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....
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.
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
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. .
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
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
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.
When was circumcision introduced to the world?
At the time of Abraham - Genesis 17.
When was the Sabbath introduced to the world?
On the 7th day of creation week - Genesis 2.
To whom was circumcision given?
To Abraham and his seed - Genesis 17:9-14.
To whom was the Sabbath given?
To mankind - Mark 2:27.
Who spoke the ten commandments with His own voice to
God - Deuteronomy 5.
Was the law of circumcision included in those ten commandments?
No! See Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5.
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?
Yes indeed - see 2 Corinthians chapter 3.
Did this law show what sin was? How many have sinned?
What is sin's penalty? Was this the administration of
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.
Is there any scripture that says circumcision defines what
Not one verse in the entire Bible - search it and see for
What did Paul teach about physical circumcision in
comparison to the law and commandments of God?
"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
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."
Did Paul ever teach that people should not get
circumcised or have their children circumcised if they
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.
Did some in the Church of God teach that you had to be physically
circumcised to be saved?
Yes - Acts 15:1.
Did Paul disagree with their teaching on this matter?
Yes - Acts 15:2.
Did this matter of physical circumcision become a major issue in
Yes - see Galatians 2:1-5; 3:1-3; 5:1-6,11,12; 6:12-15.
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?
Yes - see Acts 15.
What was the outcome of the issue?
Physical circumcision was not required to be saved -
Is the keeping of the commandments of God required to be saved?
Read Matthew 19:16,17; 1 John 2:4; Revelation 22:14.
Was physical circumcision a big part of Israelite life?
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.
Was the observance of the Sabbath in the letter, a major
part of Israelite life?
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.
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?
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
Let us now study that which pertains to animal
sacrifices, the Sabbath and the New Covenant.
Was there any animal sacrificing before Moses?
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.
Can we find in God's word any instruction regarding a
detailed Priesthood/Sacrifice system, before the time of
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.
Is there any instructions about a systematic
priesthood/animal sacrifice law, in Exodus chapters 12 to
15, as Israel came out of Egypt?
No there is not!
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?
This law of the Sabbath is revealed to Israel
without any instructions regarding a laborious daily
sacrificial system by a set priesthood.
How important did God think His TEN commandments
was when He revealed them to the children of Israel?
So important that He SPOKE THEM WITH HIS OWN VOICE,
and the people of Israel HEARD THAT VOICE - see Deut.5.
Was it originally God's intention to give Israel a detailed daily
No it was not! See Jeremiah 7:21-24.
What did God want the Israelites to do?
They were to obey the Lord and walk in all His
ways that He commanded them.
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?
The TEN COMMANDMENTS!
Is the Sabbath command one of those Ten Commandments?
Yes, it is the 4th commandment
Did animal sacrifices FORGIVE sins?
No! Physical sacrifices never took away sins - see
What did animal sacrifices do?
They reminded the people how they were sinners.
If we look at animal sacrificing and look at obeying
God, which comes out on top in God's eyes?
Obeying and doing the will of the Lord - see Hebrews
Was it foretold which Jesus would do - animal sacrifices
plus the will of God, or the will of God without animal
Is found in Hebrews 10:1-5.
Did Jesus ever sin?
1 Peter 2:21,22.
Did Jesus set us an example to follow?
1 Peter 2:21.
Those who say Jesus is living in them are to walk in whose
1 John 2:6.
Did Jesus observe the 4th commandment, even in the
letter as is fitting in the eyes of God?
Read Luke 4:16 and the entire four gospels.
What is the new covenant definition of sin?
1 John 3:4; Romans 7:7; James 2:10-12.
What law contains "thou shalt not covet"; "Do not
kill"; "Do not commit adultery" ?
The ten commandment law as found in Exodus 20.
Did Jesus ever break that law?
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.
Is Jesus the same today as He was yesterday?
Hebrews 13:8. His obedient character towards the Father and His
commandments is the same today as when He walked this earth.
Did Jesus give a specific answer to the young rich man
who asked Him what he should do to inherit eternal life?
Yes, He got very specific in His answer - see Matthew
Which commandments was Jesus referring to?
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.
Did Jesus tell the young rich man that to inherit eternal
life he would also have to keep the animal sacrifice law?
No way! No such language can be found anywhere in the
words of Jesus
Did the Temple rituals/Priesthood/Sacrifices come to a
stop when Jesus died on the cross?
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
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?
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,?
Yes - see Hebrews 5 7:1 8 ; 8 :13; 1 0 : 9.
What does this same book of Hebrews say about the
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!
Is the Sabbath and animal sacrifices both referred to as
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
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."
Does am apple cast a shadow?
Does the statue of Liberty cast a shadow?
Yes they both cast shadows of themselves.
Would you classify an apple and the statue of Liberty
as being in the same category of things?
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
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
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
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
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
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"
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
He also made the seventh day of creation week a
BLESSED and SANCTIFIED day, set apart from all other
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
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
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
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"
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).
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
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
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
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
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.