Chapter 7: Is Sunday Mentioned in the New Testament?

The word "Sunday" does not appear any place in the Bible.

The words, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday do not appear any place in the Bible either.

But the phrase "first day of the week" is found in the New Testament. It occurs in exactly eight places. So it will not take long to examine these eight texts employing this phrase.

Still a red-herring. If the Sabbath is not enjoined on Christians, why would we assume Sunday would be enjoined on them? And why didn't HWA provide evidence from the New Testament, when now he uses the New Testament to knock down his straw-man argument?

If the day was changed by Bible authority—if Christians are to find any Bible authority whatsoever for observing Sunday as the "Lord's Day" today—then we must find that authority in one of these eight texts!

Not that it matters, but what if there was a phrase in Scripture that said, "the day after the Sabbath?"

And if we are truly searching for truth, why are we limited to these eight texts to the exclusion of Scripture that supports the idea that no day is required?

Let us acknowledge at the outset, since the seventh day of the week is clearly established as the Bible Sabbath up until the time of the crucifixion, that there can be no Bible authority for Sunday observance unless we find it clearly and plainly stated in one of these eight New Testament passages.

It is interesting to note that when it came to finding evidence for Sabbath observance for Christians, evidence from the New Testament was extremely limited, but the entirety of Old Testament Scripture that related to Israel and the old covenant were cited. Now, for some reason, the rules change, and we are only going to examine the New Testament, and limit ourselves to but 8 passages of Scripture. Why wasn't the Sabbath question limited to the New Testament only also? Furthermore, the possibility of no day being binding has been dropped or conveniently ignored now. At the beginning of the booklet, the author claimed that this would be addressed.

It should be obvious by now that HWA has no intention of covering the possibility that no day is required in Christianity. If he can get people to buy into his "either/or" argument, then he's got them right where he wants them.

(1) Matthew 28:1: "In the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre." This is the first place in the Bible where "the first day of the week" is mentioned. Matthew wrote these words, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, six years after the New Testament Church came into being. The text says that after the Sabbath day it was drawing toward (Greek, into) the first day of the week. So this scripture, we must admit, tells us plainly that three days and three nights after all that was done away had been securely "nailed to the cross," the Sabbath was still the day before the first day of the week—still the seventh day of the week.

One point is here plainly proved. Many tell us that the Sabbath command was merely for "one day in seven" —that it did not have to be the seventh day of the week, but merely the seventh part of time. ....three days after all abolished things had been done away, the Sabbath still existed and that it was the seventh day of the week—the day before the first day of the week. 

What would one expect? That the seventh day would have disappeared from the calendar otherwise? And there was obviously much misunderstanding among the Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians about what they were supposed to do concerning Old Testament points of Law. (Acts 15) To have omitted that it was the Sabbath would have been a case of revisionist history. The author would have us believe here that if the Sabbath were done away, we would now have a six-day week?

(2) Mark 16:2: "And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun." This is merely Mark's version of the sunrise visit to the tomb. It was written ten years after the crucifixion. This first day of the week, also, was "after the Sabbath was past," according to verse 1. So this text proves the same thing as the one above—that the first day of the week was not at that time (three days after the crucifixion) the Sabbath, but the day after the Sabbath. The Sabbath, then, still was the seventh day of the week.

Correct. But to conclude as earlier that this proves the Church kept the Sabbath is to draw a conclusion without textual support.

(3) Mark 16:9: "Now when Jesus was risen, early the first day of the week he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils." This text speaks of Jesus' appearance to Mary Magdalene later the same day—the day after the Sabbath.

Nothing here calls the first day of the week the Christian Sabbath, we must admit. Nothing here calls it "The Lord's Day." Nothing here hallows Sunday or says God made it holy. Nothing here commands us to observe it. Nothing here sets it apart as a memorial of the resurrection, or for any purpose. No command or example of rest on this day—no authority for observing Sunday here.

Or for observing the Sabbath.

(4) Luke 24:1: Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them."

This text tells again the same event recorded by Matthew and Mark, and it shows that on the first day of the week these women came to do the work of a common weekday, after having rested the Sabbath day "according to the commandment." For we read, in the verse just before this, "And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment." Shall we say these women did not yet know the commandment was abolished? 

1. The narrative is relating the events that occurred prior to the establishment of the New Testament Church and grace, and:

2. It is obvious in reading Acts 15, that many of the Jewish Christians believed they were still bound by the old covenant. The author insists that the only other option to keeping the Sabbath and the Law is the abolishment of the Law, resulting in Christians being free to commit acts such as murder, which ignores the New Covenant spirit of the Law. The author of Hebrews uses the term, "a change in the law" (Hebrews 7:12) as opposed to saying an "abolishment" of the Law. He even goes so far as to say that the old covenant is "fading away." Once the temple was destroyed, Israel's house was "left desolate" as Jesus predicted, and with the temple worship and sacrifices ended, so ended the last vestiges of the old covenant.

How then does the historical account of the women resting on the Sabbath at that time prove that the Sabbath is binding on all Christians, when the debate was over Gentiles in Acts 15? If Luke were to have omitted the women had rested on the Sabbath, his readers may well have been confused as to why they did not go to the sepulcher the previous day. The Sabbath is mentioned here as a time reference and can hardly be used as proof the Sabbath was binding on Christians later, especially Gentile Christians. 

This text, then, establishes Sunday as a common workday, three days after the crucifixion, and it further establishes that at that time the command to rest on the Sabbath had not been abolished.

Was the narrative making the point that the Sabbath was not abolished, or is this a conclusion drawn out of context? What is the subject? The Sabbath?

Also, what happens to a covenant when either party to it dies? Paul explains this in Romans chapter 7. That covenant ends. Did Jesus, who was the God of the old covenant, die on the cross? Yes. Did the Jewish Christian die to the old covenant through baptism in order to be free to enter into the New Covenant with Christ? Yes. So that old covenant containing the Sabbath ended. Just because the people did not recognize this right away does not negate the fact of the matter.

(5) John 20:1: "The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre."

This, written sixty-three years after the crucifixion, is merely John's version, describing the same visit to the tomb. It confirms the facts above.

What facts above are established? The followers of Jesus continued keeping the Sabbath. The understanding through the Holy Spirit had not yet been imparted to them. The only facts established here is that these followers of Christ continued doing what they had always done concerning the Law. It takes quite an imagination to conclude they would have known beforehand every detail regarding Jesus and the New Covenant, and the role of Gentiles who were to later come into the church as a result of hearing the gospel, which does not include the requirement to keep the Law and the Sabbath in particular.

(6) John 20:19: "Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you." ...

Were they assembled to celebrate the resurrection, thus establishing Sunday as the Christian Sabbath in honor of the resurrection? The text says they were assembled "for fear of the Jews." .... They could not have assembled to celebrate the resurrection, for they did not believe Jesus was risen (Mark 16:14; Luke 24:37, 39, 41). 

(7) Acts 20:7: "And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight. And there were many lights in the upper chamber, where they were gathered together." ...

Notice the rendering of Today's English Version, correctly translated from the inspired Greek text: "On Saturday evening we gathered together for the fellowship meal. Paul spoke to the people, and kept on speaking until midnight, since he was going to leave the next day."

Regarding the Today's English Version, there is a footnote here that says this can be translated either Saturday or Sunday evening. Armstrong refers to the "inspired" Greek text, but does that mean this English version is inspired? The Greek text used for translating Scripture into English is actually a compilation of many manuscripts. Regardless, the Greek is not ambiguous. Sabbath is used in the context of meaning "week" and the Greek states that this was the first day of the week, and not the first day of the Sabbath. HWA had to go looking for a translation that could somehow agree with him, instead of him agreeing with Scripture.

Regardless, once the Sabbath has ended, and it is nighttime, it would then be the first day of the week, also known as Sunday. So Paul spoke to them on Sunday, didn't he?

"We sailed away from Philippi after the days of unleavened bread, and came unto them at Troas in five days; where we abode seven days. And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow." ...

Acts 20:6 does not absolutely prove they were keeping the days of unleavened bread. They may well have been observing the holy days, being Israelite, but it is still used as a time reference.

Jesus had introduced the "Lord's Supper" as part of the Passover, at the beginning of the annual "days of unleavened bread." No longer need they kill lambs or eat the roasted body of Passover lambs, after Christ, our Passover, had been once slain for us. The Passover was ordained forever (Ex. 12:42). At His last Passover supper, Jesus substituted the wine as the emblem of His blood, instead of the blood of the slain lamb. He substituted the unleavened bread for the roast body of the lamb as the symbol of His body, broken for us. The disciples continued to observe the Passover annually, now in the form of "the Lord's Supper" using only the bread and wine, as a memorial (I Cor. 11:24) of Christ's death (I Cor. 11:26), showing His death till He comes again. 

How is it that Jesus could change the symbols, or change the Passover at all, when HWA insisted that the interpretation of Matthew 5:17-18 was that the Law, which would include the Passover, could not be altered even down to the strokes of a letter of the Law? Yet here we see the law concerning the Passover being altered way beyond jots and tittles.

And if Jesus is our Passover, then why can't He be our Sabbath wherein we find spiritual rest as mentioned in Scripture, such as Hebrews chapters 3 and 4?

Remember what HWA cited earlier in regards to Jesus Christ being the same yesterday, today and for ever? So here we see HWA playing it both ways as long as it serves his purpose. Here, the physical requirements of the Law find their fulfillment in Christ, but not the Sabbath! Oh no, we can't have that now, can we? For it wouldn't take long for HWA's followers to figure out He altered the Law when it came to tithing then, demanding people tithe to him of their incomes instead of as the Law demanded from livestock and produce. No, HWA's purpose is realized by keeping people ignorant of the truth while constantly claiming he is teaching the truth.

This year they had observed the days of unleavened bread and the "Communion" service at Philippi, after which they came to Troas in five days, where they remained seven days.

The narrative does not state that they had a Communion service at Philippi.

(8) I Corinthians 16:2: "Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him." ...

So, once again, the last and final text in the Bible where we find "the first day of the week" mentioned, it is a workday—a day for gathering fruit and food out of the orchards and the fields and gardens, and storing it up. It was to be the first labor of the week, hence the first day of the week, as soon as the Sabbath was past!

The construct of the Greek here is nearly identical to the citation HWA uses to claim in Acts 20:7 that the Christians were meeting on a Sabbath and not on Sunday, with the use of "Sabbath" to mean "week." So if we took this to mean what HWA claims it says in Acts 20:7, this would be saying, Upon the Sabbath, let every one of you lay by him in store, as God has prospered him" ... So you see, HWA again plays it both ways with the same phrase, the only difference being the word "day" with the same root word in Greek, but with a slightly different ending that is usually attributed to matching the grammar of the rest of the phrase. It is, in essence, the same wording found in Acts 20:7.

But what if they had gathered for fellowship early Sunday? Would it then be a case of being told that as soon as they were finished there, to go home and gather these things? Again, the assumption is that either the Sabbath is being kept or Sunday is being kept, overlooking neither day is kept as holy, but as a time for fellowship.

So, finally, we find upon honest examination that not one of the texts speaking about "the first day of the week" sets it apart as a rest day. Not one makes it holy, calls it the Sabbath or by any other sacred title. In every case, the first day of the week was a common workday.

In none of them was there a religious meeting and preaching service being held on the hours we now call Sunday. In none of them can we find a single shred of Bible authority for Sunday observance! 

Paul preached/spoke Saturday night (i.e. Sunday) at Troas.

In the original commandment, in Exodus 20:10, we read: "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God." Not my day, or your day. Sunday is my day. So is Monday, and every other weekday, for my labor and my own needs. but the seventh day is not mine—it is the Lord's! It belongs to Him, and He made it holy, and commanded us to keep it that way. We have no right to use it for ourselves. It is His day!

"Us" would have to be those of Israel and the nation of Israel to be true. It was Israel that was commanded to keep the Sabbath. Anyone outside the nation of Israel is excluded from the covenant.

Notice which day Paul and Barnabas used for preaching to Gentiles:

(1) Acts 13:14-15, 42-44: "But when they departed from Perga, they came to Antioch in Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and sat down. And after the reading of the law and the prophets the rulers of the synagogue sent unto them, saying, Ye men and brethren, if ye have any word of exhortation for the people, say on." ...

And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath.

If Paul and Barnabas had showed up at the synagogue any other day, who would they have preached to? There wouldn't have been anyone there.

Now since Paul was preaching "the grace of God" (verse 43), here was his opportunity to straighten out these Gentiles, and explain that the Sabbath was done away. Why should he wait a whole week, in order to preach to the Gentiles on the next Sabbath? If the day had now been changed to Sunday, why did not Paul tell them they would not have to wait a week, but the very next day, Sunday, was the proper day for this service? 

Two things here. (1. The author goes out of his way to minimize the fact that Paul preached Christ to them, as he has claimed that to do so was to preach a false gospel about Christ and not the message; so he now plugs in "the grace of God." (2. IF Sunday were the day, then he might well have done that, but Paul had already had enough experience dealing with Jews claiming he was doing away with the Law to spring any such announcement on them up front before they might understand completely. A good analogy would be how the WCG's practice of not springing third tithe on people right away!

(2) Acts 15:1-2, 14-21: Study this whole passage carefully. Certain men had come down from Judaea to Antioch, teaching the Gentile converts they must be circumcised and keep the law of Moses to be saved. Quite a dissension arose between them and Paul and Barnabas. So it was decided Paul and Barnabas should go to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders about the question.

At the conference at Jerusalem, James gave the decision.

"Wherefore my sentence is," he pronounced (verses 19-20), "...that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood."

He did not say they should not keep the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments were not in question, which was an altogether different law. He merely mentioned four prohibitions, and otherwise they did not need to observe the law of Moses.

"He did not say they should not keep the Ten Commandments"? He also did not say they should keep the Ten Commandments! You cannot prove a negative! He didn't say here they should not practice circumcision either. So do we conclude from just this that they are to keep the Sabbath and circumcision? What was the issue that brought them together? Whether the Gentile converts were required to practice circumcision and keep the Law of Moses. The author attempted to claim the Sabbath was a separate covenant, or the Ten Commandments were a separate covenant, yet there was no proof of this. Why? Because, if you can't establish the Sabbath as a separate covenant, then the argument is over, because the Sabbath is a part of the Law of Moses. It was the book of the Law of Moses that was ratified and sprinkled with blood, and not the Ten Commandments on the tablets of stone. The book of the Law contained all of that covenant, including the Ten Commandments, and it is from the Book of the Law we derive what makes up part of the Bible today. 

If Gentiles are not required to be circumcised (which would bring them into the people and nation of Israel) and not required to keep the Law of Moses, then they are not required to keep the Sabbath. Does this mean that they could not assemble for fellowship and services on the Sabbath? No. Neither does it mean they could not assemble on any other day, such as a Sunday.

"...For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath day" (verse 21).

Do you see it? The law of Moses—the first five books of the Bible—was being taught in the synagogues every Sabbath day. They had heard God's law read and expounded every Sabbath in the synagogues and did not need further instructions. It shows that the Gentile converts had to start keeping the Sabbath day, and went to church on that day! And the apostles letter did not reprove them for this Sabbath-keeping.

What's the context? They were being instructed to avoid or abstain from "pollutions of idols, fornication, things strangled, and from blood." Having been taught from Moses would take care of the rest of proper behavior and conduct concerning their fellowship with the Christian Jews so as not to offend them. The issue, again, was about circumcision and keeping the Law of Moses. These other things were mentioned for an obvious reason. If they were not required to adhere to the Law of Moses, they might conclude it was alright to do these offensive things, so they were mentioned. These things were common practices among the Gentiles as a part of their former pagan worship and practices. The apostles and elders wished to prevent them from becoming ensnared by them by misconstruing what it meant to not be under the Law of Moses. It comes out in the writings of Paul that some Gentiles thought their Christian liberty meant they could indulge the flesh through fornication, and Paul corrects them over this elsewhere, as well as pointing out that meat sacrificed to an idol was nothing, but it could be a point of stumbling and offence for other Christians. 

Furthermore, Moses was read in the synagogues where Gentiles went, and it was not their job to continue in teaching Moses—those synagogues had done that! The Gentiles who had attended synagogues and heard Moses preached, who converted to Christianity, did not continue in fellowship with Jews in the synagogues, did they? Why would they? Or are we to believe now that both Christian Gentiles and Christian Jews continued attending synagogues so they could hear Moses and the Law expounded; they didn't have their own fellowship together?

This is very significant, since Gentiles had never kept the Sabbath. Therefore it is something these Gentiles had started doing after they were converted under the teaching of Paul and Barnabas!

The Gentiles heard Paul and Barnabas preach in a synagogue on the Sabbath. What were the Gentiles doing in a synagogue on the Sabbath, playing Bingo? And, can people gather for a service on a day without that day being a forced day of rest, but rather a day used for the purpose of assembly and fellowship and spiritual uplifting?

Acts 15:23-29 is the outline of the letter that was to be sent out to the Churches, especially those that had Gentile members. What is of most importance is what the Gentiles were told. Verse 24, "Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:..." They did not say, the Law, less the Sabbath. And if one does believe that the Sabbath stands as a separate law, nowhere in the N.T. Scriptures is the Law treated as anything other than a whole. All or nothing. Surely, if they were supposed to be keeping the Sabbath, they would have not worded it this way, so that there would be no misunderstanding. Gentiles were not required to practice circumcision or keep the Law. They were saved by faith (verse 9). Teaching that Gentiles were to keep the Law was subversive. Why? Because you cannot add anything to faith. If you do, you detract from faith. You dilute faith. People start focusing on the Law and not faith in the one who sanctifies them. Faith becomes subordinate to Law.

(3) Acts 16:12-15: Here we find Paul and Silas at Philippi. And "we were in that city abiding certain days. And on the Sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made, and we sat down, and spake unto the women which resorted thither. And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshiped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened...and...she was baptized."

Here again Paul and his companions waited until the Sabbath, and then went to a place of worship, and preached, and this woman, probably a Gentile, was converted. The passage indicates it was the custom to meet there on the Sabbath, and that it was custom for Paul and his companions to go to a place of prayer and worship when the Sabbath day came.

Strange that the narrative doesn't say regarding the Sabbath that he and the others did it according to the command, but because it was a custom. A custom is not a law. It is a habit. A practice that is not by command. But Paul was going to go to where He would find those that believed in God first (those of the circumcision). And why would he think this woman was a Gentile, seeing as it was a place for prayer on Sabbaths, when you consider that the author elsewhere claims that Gentiles were not keeping the Sabbath prior to the teachings of Paul and the church?

(4) Acts 18:1-11: "After these things Paul departed from Athens, and came to Corinth; and found a certain Jew named Aquila...with his wife Priscilla... and came unto them. And because he was of the same craft, he abode with them, and wrought: for by their occupation they were tent makers. And he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks."

If we could find one text in the New Testament giving as strong authority for Sunday observance as this one does for Sabbath-keeping, we should certainly have Bible authority for it! Here Paul worked weekdays, but went to church and taught Gentiles as well as Jews every Sabbath.

Does it say Paul "went to church?" or does it say he went into a synagogue—a place where Jews and devout Gentiles could be found—for the purpose of preaching Christ to them? Or was he going to church and preaching to Christians? And yet the author sees this as a proof positive that Paul not only kept the Sabbath day per the command, but taught Gentiles to do likewise, contrary to Acts 15 and his own writings concerning the deeds of the Law. Now if we did find a place in the New Testament writings where Paul had gone into some place to preach on Sunday or any other day, would it really be proof that we were to keep that day? Another point: Paul worked weekdays. If he was teaching tithing, would he not be supported by tithes and not need to work? Yet Paul made it plain that he would not accept support from many congregations (2 Cor. 11:7-9). Paul had to work during the rest of the week to support himself.

Now the commandment says: "Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work," just as much as it says "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy." There is just as much command to work six days as there is to rest the seventh. 

He preached Christ and the Gospel of the Kingdom. And when the Jews became offended and blasphemed, he turned away from the Jews altogether, and from then on preached to Gentiles only (verse 6), and he continued there a year and six months (verse 11)—working weekdays—preaching to Gentiles only—every Sabbath!

From verse 6 to 11, there is no mention of Paul preaching every Sabbath. What it does say is that Paul worked as a tentmaker and "reasoned" with Jews and Gentiles (Greeks) every Sabbath. Paul continued doing this; working the tent craft until Silas and Timothy arrived. Then Paul devoted himself exclusively to preaching. He no longer needed to work the rest of the week to take care of his needs. Silas and Timothy were there to help take care of that. Paul was now free to devote all of his time to preaching, not being limited to just the Sabbath day!

The author also implies that Paul refused to speak to the Jews any further, but the house he stayed at and taught from was right up against the synagogue, even sharing a wall with it, and the leader of the synagogue was a believer. If a Jew wanted to hear Paul, all he had to do was go next door. From there Paul went to Ephesus (verse 19) and what did Paul do? He went into a synagogue and reasoned with the Jews (verse 20). So much for Paul no longer preaching to Jews. One other thing: The author states, "He preached Christ and the Gospel of the Kingdom." All the narrative relates is the contention created by him teaching that Jesus was the Christ. No mention of the "Gospel of the Kingdom" being taught by Paul.

What more conclusive proof could we desire? What stronger Bible evidence than this, as to the true Sabbath of the New Testament? For a year and a half Paul continued working weekdays—six days—including Sundays—and preaching to Gentiles exclusively every Sabbath! Certainly it was his custom and manner! Certainly he could not have done this had the Sabbath been done away, or changed.

Why? Why could Paul not have used the Sabbath day for teaching and preaching if it were no longer a required day of rest? Those he spoke to and taught were accustomed to using the Sabbath for this purpose, along with being a day of rest. Also, Paul did not preach exclusively on the Sabbath, as pointed out earlier, and neither did he always work the other six days.

To these Gentile-born at Corinth, Paul commanded: "Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ" (I Cor. 11:1).

And Paul said, that to Gentiles, he became as a Gentile; and to Jews he was as a Jew. As one under the Law, he became as one under the Law. (I Cor. 9:20) He didn't say he was under the Law, therefore subject to the Sabbath command, but that he became like one under the Law in order to relate to him and convince him of the truth in Christ. This is also why Paul went into synagogues on the Sabbath day.

And Paul, as his manner, his custom, as we have seen by ample evidence showing a total of eighty-four different Sabbaths Paul is shown specifically to have kept.

No, they did not demonstrate that he specifically kept the Sabbath. He did use the Sabbath for preaching Christ to Jews and devout Gentiles.

Did he follow Jesus in this? Why, certainly! Jesus, "as his custom was... went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day" (Luke 4:16).

Could it be that the phrase "as his custom was" was for the purpose of showing that it was not because of the Sabbath command? What is really irrational here is that earlier the author shows that "breaking bread" does not mean a communion, but now "as his custom was" must mean he kept the Sabbath, and "commandments of God" must mean the Ten Commandments. 

Next to Chapter 8 of 8

Previous

Back to Introduction and Chapter 1

Back to Questioning HWA's Doctrines