What God commanded to remember, rebellious men will resort to every argument of human reason to justify forgetting!

The just shall live by faith—but some rebellious ones want men to live by the Law.

Consequently, many have used the argument... that the Ten Commandments were abolished at the cross. Of course they never stop to realize that, if there is no law, there is no transgression—as Paul plainly states in Romans 4:15—and no one has sinned since the cross—and therefore we should not need a Saviour!

Notice HWA provides a flawed rationalization instead of any Scriptural evidence to support his view. Also, why doesn't he quote the full verse which reads: "Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression." The Law results in wrath, not life, because it demands perfection. This doesn't mean sin didn't exist, but that it isn't reckoned or counted as a transgression if there is no Law. Romans 5:13 "For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law." Sin was in the world before the Law, therefore there was another law or other ways to sin. Adam broke a command of God's, but it wasn't the breaking of one of the Ten Commandments. "Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression..." (Verse 14) People sinned from Adam to Moses without this Law that included the Sabbath command.

HWA also ignores what Paul wrote concerning the Law being added because of transgressions (Gal. 3:19).

For God made of the Sabbath a special and separate covenant, binding forever!

Even when that time is to come when there is no more night? (Rev. 21:25; 22:5)

You will remember that to the Ten Commandment Law, God added no more (Deut. 5:22). Any other law, or Covenant, coming later, is no part of it, but a separate law or Covenant. Paul makes this plain: "Though it be but a man’s covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto" (Gal. 3:15).

So now we have two covenants that address the Sabbath? But let's not forget—every covenant has principles: that is, the participants mentioned in the covenant. To "add to" this covenant therefore is impossible, unless Christians first become a part of Israel through circumcision.

Later, after both the Ten Commandments and the Old Covenant had been made complete, ratified, put in force and effect, God made another totally separate and eternally binding covenant with His people.

One more time: Who were God’s people? Who were the participants in the covenant? Can anyone else enter into a covenant after it has been made complete and ratified? Yet the author would have us to believe this is possible by introducing Christians; specifically Gentile Christians, into the covenant. In order to do this, they would have to be circumcised and then and only then could they become a part of the nation of Israel in Israel, and come under the old covenant, with or without the Ten Commandments, or whether they are a separate covenant or not, which they are not. But Israel, for the most part, had already violated the terms of this covenant (which was conditional) and suffered the penalty mentioned therein. They were evicted from the land.

God never does anything in vain—that is, to no good and useful purpose. When God does anything, or makes anything, there is a reason—an important purpose.

Shouldn’t this sentence have said, "God never does anything in vain—that is, to no bad and useless purpose?"

God created man and put him here on earth. But mankind has lost knowledge of His purpose. God had an important reason. You were put here for a very important purpose.

Mankind has lost knowledge of His purpose? If God wanted mankind to have known down through history his purpose, don't you suppose He could have done it? If He could reveal it to Israel, He could reveal it to anyone. Remember what the author said; "God is no respecter of persons."

God, through "The Word" (John 1:1-3) who became Jesus Christ, made the Sabbath. He made it for man.

The context of the Sabbath being "made for man" was that the religious leaders had, over time, added so much to the Sabbath restriction that those that had the Sabbath ended up being slaves to the Sabbath instead of what it was originally intended to be.

The Special Sabbath Covenant

There is no covenant found in the Bible called "the Sabbath covenant."

Notice again! He said: "My Sabbaths ye shall keep." In Exodus 20:8 we saw that He commanded to "keep it holy" —God made it holy time, and commanded us to keep it holy—not to profane what is holy to God.

And notice again, and again, and again, ... who is God talking to? Israel. Who are the principles of the covenant? God and Israel. Who is it a sign between? God and Israel.

God commanded His people to keep His Sabbath as a sign. It is a sign between God’s people and God—" ...a sign between me and you," the Commandment says. It is a badge or token of identity. It advertises, or announces, or proclaims certain identifying knowledge. But what knowledge? God answers: "...that ye may know that I am the Lord that doth sanctify you."

Do Christians who do not keep the Sabbath know who their Lord is? Or are they unaware, because they do not keep the Sabbath?

Note those words carefully!! It is the sign that identifies to them who is their God! It is the sign by which we may know that He is the Lord!! It identifies God!

Why then did none of the apostles, when preaching to the Gentiles, for example, ever mention that the Sabbath was the way whereby they would know that Jesus was God? Why did Jesus himself—seeing He was the God referenced as the Old Testament God, say that the sign of a true Christian was that they would have love for one another, and not the Sabbath? (John 13:35)

This world has a god—a false god—Satan the devil! He pretends to be "an angel of light" (II Cor. 11:14). He has his religious organizations. Not all are Buddhists, Shintoists, Taoists, Confucianists.

Satan will influence those he can to ignore spiritual matters by getting their attention on physical things, and thereby ignore love and spiritual things by insisting on judging others by how well they conform to physical laws and how to observe and not observe them, as an example, a "religious" day.

Satan succeeds by having mankind under condemnation, and in this regard, the Law serves perfectly, seeing as all the Law could do was condemn the one who tried to live by it. Paul called that Law the ministration of death and condemnation (2 Corinthians 3:7, 9).

Many have appropriated the very name "Christian." whose ministers, says your Bible, actually are Satan’s ministers: "And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness" (II Cor. 11:14-15).

Righteousness comes by faith, not the Law. (Rom. 3:22) So what would you conclude about a church that insists on the observing the Law; performing the deeds of the Law, in order to produce and maintain righteousness? 

God gave man His Sabbath, for the purpose of keeping mankind in the true knowledge and true worship of the True God.

But Israel soon turned from God. They rebelled even though they had the Sabbath. To borrow from the circumcision argument put forth by Paul—If a Gentile is not rebellious to God, then would his non-Sabbath keeping be better than the Israelites' Sabbath keeping?

So God took the most enduring, lasting imperishable thing man can know—a recurring space of time—the only day that is a memorial of the act of creating. 

Couldn't the most enduring, lasting imperishable thing we can know be Jesus the Christ?

And God set that particular day apart from others as His day—God made that particular day sacred and holy to Him—designating it as the very day on which He commands His people to assemble for worship—the day man is commanded to rest from his own work and physical pleasure—and to be refreshed by assembling with other obedient worshipers in spiritual fellowship!

Where did Jesus or his apostles command worship services on Sabbaths?

So here we find a Great purpose in the Sabbath. It identifies God! The very day which God set aside for assembly and worship points as the memorial to whom we are to worship—the Creator-Ruler of all that is!

When the apostle Paul was in Athens, and saw the memorial to "the unknown God," why did he not use the Sabbath as a means for making known the True God, if this was to be the way to identify God?

The Sabbath also was given as a sign which identifies who are the people of God and who are not!

This logic mandates that a false Christian could not possibly keep the Sabbath.

But how does the Sabbath set them apart—separate them—from those who are not God's own true people? Well, if you have begun to keep God's Sabbath holy, as He commands, you have found the answer already, by actual experience. If you haven't just started keeping God's Sabbath holy as He commands you—and you'll soon learn that you are automatically set apart from all other people! Yes, sir!

Of course, this goes contrary to the wheat and tares parable and analogy, which states that a Christian and non-Christian may look alike, but the difference comes by the fruit borne from God's Spirit of love, not law-keeping. Think! A false Christian could keep the Sabbath also, couldn't he? And, if you were a member of a church that kept, say, Wednesday, that would also set you apart!

The very word Lord means ruler, master, boss—the one you obey! Jesus exclaimed: "And why call ye me, LORD, LORD, and do not the things which I say? (Luke 6:46.) If they did not obey Him, then He was not their Lord! So why did they call Him LORD, when He was not their Lord?

Is Jesus just Lord? Is He not also Saviour? (2 Pet. 1:11; 3:18) And the firstborn of many brethren—an older brother? (Rom. 8:29) And note also that the author in quoting the word "Lord" as "LORD," which is the Old Testament LORD, that has a different meaning than "Lord" in the context here in Luke. They imply a different meaning, not supported in the text.

Then again, Jesus said: "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my father which is in heaven" (Matt. 7:21). Only they who obey God can be His children, and enter His Kingdom! God is the one you obey!

Did the Scripture quoted say, "those who obey" enter His Kingdom, or those who "do God’s will" enter the Kingdom? Is it God’s will that we obey a set of laws that were not given to Christians as they were to Israel by covenant, or is it His will that we come to Christ? Those that did not believe Jesus was the Messiah or Christ did so because they relied on the Law, especially the religious leaders of the time. They put such importance in the Law that they unwittingly placed the Law ahead of—before God. They could not see that the Law was to point them to Christ. Gal. 3:24: "Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith."

The Sabbath command is the only one of the ten which is a sign identifying who are the real and true Christians today! It is the real test Command! The people of the world are willing to acknowledge the other nine Commandments—but the Sabbath Command is the one they positively rebel against! It is the one that is the crucial test of obedience!

A jump to conclusions has been made again with the old covenant applying to Christians. Again, Jesus never said it would be a sign of a true Christian. Partaking of the sacrifices commanded in the Old Testament would be obedience also, but it is amply demonstrated that God wanted something else. (Psalms 40:6; 51:16-17) God isn't nearly as interested in someone going through a religious ritual as he is in the inward heart. Prov. 21:3: "To do justice and judgment is more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice."

It identifies those who have surrendered their wills to God—who obey God, regardless of persecution or cost!

It has already been pointed out that a false Christian could keep the Sabbath in order to appear a true Christian, therefore it cannot be a sign of a true Christian.

Oh, it sets you apart, all right!

And if you believed you were required to practice the sacrifices today, that would set you apart also!

God's sign is one you accept voluntarily—of your own volition, or not at all. ...But the "Beast" (symbol of the coming resurrected, so-called "Holy" Roman Empire in Europe) has a mark, which is soon going to be branded on, by physical force! ... Yes, this is the test command—the one on which your very salvation and eternity depends.

Salvation depends on faith, not Law. (Rom. 4:5-6) Concerning the "mark of the Beast," if the people are deceived, they would take the mark without complaint. It wouldn't be forced. Also, it is only assumed this mark is physical. But if one is convinced of a false way, then the mark could refer to their mental state of being deceived and misled and not necessarily mean a physical mark.

I have said that God made the Sabbath a separate, eternal, and perpetual covenant, entirely separate and apart from what we term "the Old Covenant" made at Mt. Sinai.

The author doesn't quote the entire verse. Exodus 31:16: "Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant." It shows who the Sabbath was given to—the children of Israel.

How, then is it a covenant?

Let's define the word "covenant." Webster defines a covenant as: "An agreement between persons or parties. A solemn compact." A covenant is a contract, or agreement, by which one party promises certain rewards or payments, in return for certain stipulated performancy by the other party.

What kind of Biblical scholarship is this when he resorts to citing secular sources in order to make a theological point? This definition serves poorly in defining the covenants God makes. There are different kinds of covenants in the Bible, the rainbow (or Noahic) covenant, the Palestinian covenant, etc. There were conditional covenants and unconditional covenants. The unconditional covenant made with Abraham was due to his obedience prior to the covenant and extends out to his seed, regardless of their actions. A conditional covenant, such as the Mosaic covenant, depends on the people's response. Exodus 19:5 "Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then..." God can break conditional covenants. Zech. 11:10-11a: "And I took my staff, even Beauty, and cut it asunder, that I might break my covenant which I had made with all the people. And it was broken in that day:..." If however we insist on the author’s definition, then wouldn’t the old covenant have been ended with the dissolution of the nation of Israel when they were taken away captive out of their land, because of their unfaithfulness to God?

We do not come to the making of this special eternal Sabbath covenant until seven chapters later. It is, therefore, no part of the Old Covenant!

This seems to be a strange declaration. Just because what is described here is seven chapters later means it cannot be the same covenant? Didn't Moses reiterate the covenant in two different books, Exodus and Deuteronomy? Are they therefore two different covenants there also?

"Perpetual" means continuous, and unbroken. But was it to last forever? Read the following verse: "It is a sign between me and the children of Israel forever."

The parties of the covenant are: 1) God and 2) the children of Israel. No other parties can become a part of this covenant after it is signed and ratified. Therefore, how can a Christian be required to keep the Law and specifically the Sabbath if the Christian is not of the children of Israel and therefore not a part of the covenant? The Christian would have to become a part of the children of Israel. How does the covenant allow one who is not of the children of Israel to become a part of Israel? Only through circumcision. This is the only method permitted in the covenant. There is no other clause in the covenant allowing any other method. If therefore a Christian does not undergo circumcision, he is not a part of the children of Israel, and if he is not a part of Israel, he is not a partaker of the covenant relationship concerning the Law and the Sabbath. Why then are so many insistent on circumventing the covenant in order to bring people into the covenant?

This forever clause in relation to Israel was necessary, otherwise the covenant would have ended upon the death of the last one who was alive when the covenant was ratified. Circumcision was also to be for ever. Are we to conclude now that Paul was wrong, and we should start practicing circumcision also?

Genesis 17:13: "He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant."

Now what is the condition to be performed? The keeping holy of the Sabbath! ... There it is! God promises to sanctify them—He will set them apart as holy—as His holy people! Can you ask for a bigger promise?

How about eternal salvation?

This covenant is binding "throughout your generations" (verse 13); "a perpetual covenant" (verse 16), and "forever" (verse 17).

By the author's own admission, once a contract has been ratified, it cannot be altered or added to. Yet the author attempts to add Christians to the covenant! Is there any Scripture that states or implies that Christians become Israelites through baptism or any other means? And there is no mention here of this supposed separate covenant being ratified. If anything, it is a clarification of that part of the covenant. The conclusion of the chapter mentions that after this, God presents Moses with the two tablets of stone upon which the covenant was written that includes the other commandments. Did God then make two covenants with Israel that were essentially the same covenant? Does that make sense to anyone? Are we to believe that the old covenant contained the Sabbath command and on top of this there was a separate covenant just addressing the Sabbath command? If, after this "second" covenant, God presents Moses with the two tablets of stone containing the Law, and they were placed in the ark "of the covenant" then how can this second one be in the ark with the rest? This has to be a reiteration and or clarification, which would not be unusual in a contract/covenant, where terms are later defined in a contract or in the codification of Law. And as far as being a perpetual covenant; so was circumcision to be a perpetual covenant. Therefore by the same reasoning, Christians should be circumcising their sons on the 8th day after birth.

"Yes," says the rebellious one, who would argue his way out of obedience, "but it is between God and the children of Israel. It is throughout Israel's generations; it is between God and the Israelites forever."

Why is one who would question this issue constantly referred to as rebellious? Again, are we not to prove all things, or are we rebellious if we do so? Am I rebellious because I choose to question Sabbath-keeping? What else might I question or study and be branded rebellious? It would appear that we are told on the one hand to prove all things, but that our conclusions better match the author's conclusions.

And the reader should take note how often HWA has labeled those who don't keep the Sabbath as rebellious. This is verbal persecution against those who refuse to come under the conditions of the old covenant. This sort of behavior is pointed out by Paul in Galatians chapter 4 where he writes about those of the old covenant persecuting those who are of the New Covenant. Those of the New Covenant are instructed to cast out those of the old covenant persuasion, and not allow themselves into being brought back under the old covenant. What we see here is one of the old covenant persuasion who went and started his own church, and now seeks to bring people under its bondage and his control.

Oh—then you admit it is binding forever on Israelites—and throughout their generations? There are two answers to that argument that will condemn you, if you so argue, into the lake of fire!

If this "forever" means literally "for all time," then what happens at that time in the future when there are no physical humans (therefore no Israelites) and there is a "new heaven and new earth" that is not physical and where there is "no night." (Rev. 21:25; 22:5) Again though, if this logic is correct, then we would be required to keep circumcision which also was a covenant for all time. (Gen. 17:11; Acts 15:5) Yet Paul said they no longer needed to do so. Acts 21:21: "And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs."

1) No one can deny that this absolutely binds the people of Israel to keep the Sabbath forever, and throughout their generations perpetually. Their generations are still going on. Therefore it is binding on them today.

Descendants of Israel surely still exist, but not as the nation of Israel. The Covenant was between the nation (children) of Israel and God, and related to the land they would possess. And if circumcision, which is also an everlasting covenant can be raised to the spiritual plane representing conversion (Deut. 30:6; Rom. 2:29), why can't the same be true for the Sabbath? This concept though is ignored in favor of the physical day, thereby ignoring the spiritual.

Also you have to admit that salvation and Christianity are open to Jews and all Israelites. The Gospel is the power of God "unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek" (Rom. 1:16)

Believeth what? That the Sabbath is binding and believes the Sabbath must be kept? Romans 1:16 says it is those who BELIEVE the gospel of Christ. Did Christ, in his Gospel declare that those that followed him were to keep the Sabbath? Read verses 1-4 "Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,... [and what is this gospel of God?] ...(Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy Scriptures,) CONCERNING HIS SON Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead;..." [emp. mine]

So, then the Jew can be a converted Christian! Indeed, the Church at the beginning was nearly altogether Jewish! So the Jew, even though a Christian, in God's church, is bound to keep God's Sabbath as a perpetual covenant, throughout his generations, forever!

There are problems with this line of reasoning. Paul demonstrates quite well how Christ was the mediator of a better covenant, the New Covenant. (Heb. 8:6)  As a Christian, the Jew would come under this New Covenant, not continue in the old—as for him, he had "died" to the Law through baptism. (Rom. 7:4; Gal. 2:19) The Jewish Christians also made the same mistake the author makes, which is why they insisted that the Gentile converts be required to undergo circumcision, and keep the Law of Moses. (Acts 15) Paul also points out that a Christian dies (through baptism) to the Law, and is raised anew (Rom. 6:4; 7:4). One who has died is no longer accountable to a contract or covenant. The covenant containing the Sabbath was for Israel. A Christian is described as one who shares in Jesus’ death through baptism and is raised a new creation (Col. 2:12), that is to say, there is no longer any difference between a physical Jew or Israelite, or even a Gentile. (Rom. 10:12; Gal 3:28; Col. 3:11) One could make an argument here then that a Christian cannot come under the Sabbath and the covenant because he is no longer an Israelite.

Now, does God have two kinds of Christians? Is it sin for a Jewish Christian to break the Sabbath, and sin for all others to keep it? 

If a Jewish Christian wishes to keep the Sabbath, he is free to do so. If a Gentile Christian chooses to keep the Sabbath, he is free to do so. But keeping the Sabbath does not affect one's salvation any more than believing one must be circumcised for the purpose of salvation. 

So, since the Sabbath is binding today on the Jewish part of God's Church, and there is no difference—we are all one in Christ—it is also binding on Gentiles!

Then wouldn't Gentiles be required to keep the rest of the Law? If not, then why wasn't the Sabbath brought up in the conference of Acts 15 as something the Gentiles were to do or keep? The Sabbath is in the Law of Moses (Mosaic Covenant). If the Sabbath was indeed a separate covenant, (which was shown to not be the case after all), then it was the best kept secret in the early N.T. church. It is never mentioned. Surely it would have come up somewhere. Also, read Galatians 2:14 if you believe that Jewish and Gentile Christians are supposed to be the same in this manner: "But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?"

But there is another answer to this argument: The peoples of the United States, the British Commonwealth nations, and the nations of Northwestern Europe are, in fact, the peoples of the Ten Tribes of the House of Israel. The Jewish people are the House of Judah.

Are all Americans Israel? Are all the British Israel? Are all northwestern Europeans Israel? They would all have to be in order to even remotely make this argument work, which it does not. The covenant was with Israel and related to the land wherein they lived as a nation. The consequences of not obeying the covenant was that they (among other things) would be cast out of the land. They would cease to be a nation with this covenant.

Also, modern DNA tests and comparisons with Jewish people has eliminated Europeans and the British as being made up of Israelites. We need to also consider what God inspired to be written in Scripture:

"For, lo, I will command, and I will sift the house of Israel among all nations, like as corn is sifted in a sieve, yet shall not the least grain fall upon the earth" (Amos 9:9).

All nations, and not just parts of Europe, and the U.S.

Now, in the light of this Sabbath truth, more than ever, it is important that you read, study, and check the proof of this identity in our free book, The United States and Britain in Prophecy. It is a staggering revelation! And it is true! Yes, the Sabbath is binding on us today!

By now this claim should be obvious to all, but it is evident that no matter how much of the facts you present to people, there will always be those who will reject the truth of the gospel, because of fear or because of conditioning. The same thing happened at the time of Jesus. Many were afraid to disagree with the Pharisees and Sadducees who administered the Law, than to listen to Jesus instead. Under Sabbath keeping, you see the same circumstances. Moses and the Law, especially the Sabbath, is more important to them than what the Law pointed to. 

Here are facts, hidden for centuries, more intriguing than a mystery novel! Why is the Sabbath called, disrespectfully, sneeringly, "the Jewish Sabbath"? Why does the world think all Israelites are Jews, and that the Jews are all of the Israelites?

Why would John, a Jew, use the "disrespectful" term, "After this there was a feast of the Jews..." (Jn. 5:1) And again: "Now the Passover, a feast of the Jews, was near." (Jn. 6:4) Didn't John know these feasts belonged to Israel and not just the Jews?

But the tribe of Judah dissented. ... They formed a separate kingdom, called the kingdom of Judah. The tribe of Benjamin went with them. They became known as the Jews—nickname for Judah.

So did Levi, by the way. One could claim that Israel ceded from Judah instead.

Now why did they come to be known as the "Lost Ten Tribes"?

They had lost their national identifying sign!

Not exactly. They violated the covenant with God, and suffered the fate God said they would by being driven out of the land just as the previous inhabitants had been. (Deut. 8:20 with 9:4) The tribes of Israel undoubtedly mixed with the tribe of Judah after the captivity when they returned to the land. Today they are scattered throughout the world.

Note: Read: British-Israelism - True or False? and our research article, Where Are the Tribes of Israel Located? for more info.

All of Israel’s kings followed the practice of Sabbath breaking, as well as idolatry. ... But in Assyria they were no longer a nation with their own government and their own king. They were mere slaves. They took up with the language of the Assyrians as succeeding generations grew up. They lost the Hebrew language. They lost all national identity.

Israel did much more than break the Sabbath and practice idolatry. If they took on the language of the Assyrians, and grew up with the Assyrians, wouldn’t they have migrated with the Assyrians? If not, and they migrated separately, then how can he claim they lost all national identity?

After several generations, the tribe of Joseph divided into the two tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh which today are the British and American people.

Joseph was two tribes, Ephraim and Manasseh, long before this time. Israel in his old age basically declared both "his" in the same manner as the rest, so they were considered separate tribes of Israel instead of the tribe of "Joseph." The author is claiming they were created as separate tribes long after they were treated as separate tribes. 

The Ten Tribes, known as the House of Israel, lost their identifying tag—God’s Sabbath. That is why they lost their national identity!

And for no other reason? They had violated the covenant; not just the Sabbath. In many places in the Bible it speaks of their idols and other abominations. (Ezek. 14:3,5; 44:7) Also, Jeremiah 11:10: "They are turned back to the iniquities of their forefathers, which refused to hear my words; and they went after other gods to serve them: the house of Israel and the house of Judah have broken my covenant which I made with their fathers."  

But Judah kept the Sabbath! They did not continue long to keep it holy, or to keep it God’s way—but they did maintain it, to this day, as the day of rest, they acknowledge and observe.

In 1 Kings chapter 11:31-39 it is brought out that Judah was to remain with Rehoboam for the sake of King David. All Israel had strayed, including Judah.