Now notice another eye-opening reason why only the true Sabbath day can be the day for assembled Christian fellowship.

Jesus Christ said, in John 15, "I am the vine, ye are the branches" (verse 5). We are told to abide in Him (verse 4), or, spiritually, we can do nothing. A grape branch cannot produce grapes unless joined to the vine.

All too often false teachers try to associate their church with the vine. The true Vine is Jesus Christ, not a church.

Next, notice the basis of Christian fellowship, in I John 1:

"That which we have seen and heard and declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ... If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness [that is, disobey His commands], we lie, and do not the truth: But if we walk in the light [live by every word of the Bible as our way of life, being doers of His law, not hearers only—being obedient], as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin" (I John 1:3, 6-7).

The author quotes the Scripture above and takes great liberty with it, drawing conclusions from it, inserting words from other books of the Bible, and implying that "walking in the light" means keeping the Ten Commandments. How can man have fellowship with a holy God? Fellowship with Him was not mentioned under the old covenant. Fellowship with God in the N.T. is made possible by grace. If walking in darkness refers to living in sin, does sin mean not keeping the Mosaic Law? 

Doesn't I John 3:4 tell us what sin is?

Are Christians bound then to a covenant law that the Gentile Christians were never a party to, and a covenant that ended upon the death of Christ on the cross? It is impossible.

Now what joins the many branches of that vine to one another? When people meet on their own human-appointed day, trying to join themselves together in a church group, Christ is not present with them in that fellowship. He never put His presence in that day! They are like a lot of grape branches, cut off from the vine, trying to join themselves together!

So therefore, even if a Sabbath-keeping group of "true" Christians decided to fellowship together on some other day of the week, Jesus does not honor them, because they assembled together on another day for whatever reason? What did Christ say? "For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." (Matt. 18:20) And again in Matt. 28:20 He says: "...lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." Does it look like Christ mentions some time restraint here that this would only apply on the Sabbath?

When people assemble on Sunday, Christ's presence is not in that day! You may argue to have your own way, rather than surrender to this truth, but this is truth which will judge you when you face Christ in the Judgment!

HWA throws out another threat to those who dare question him and not believe him.

When Paul spoke to the members at Troas after the Sabbath was over, did Jesus' presence leave? If so, then how was the young man who fell from the third floor brought back to life if Jesus had left? Paul, by his own power and spirit brought the man back to life?

Then what about public or church-group worship in a weekly service on Sunday—or Friday?

Listen and Heed! Your Bible says: "God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in Truth" (John 4:24).

The context here is when Jesus was talking to a Samaritan woman who brought up the old controversy regarding where people should pray—Jerusalem or there where Mt. Ebal and Mt. Gerazim were in close proximity. Jesus then makes the statement HWA cites regarding worshiping God in spirit and truth, and no longer in relation to a location. But then HWA insists our worship be in relation to a physical day! Talk about a contradiction!

How then can worshiping in spirit be constrained by something physical, such as a day? This verse shows that it is irrelevant where or when you worship God.

To worship God in spirit and in Truth is to worship Him how, and when (so far as congregational assembly is concerned) He says in His Word, which is Truth!

This is the same as saying that in order to worship in spirit, one must do so by heeding a physical day, in this case a specified period of time. This is taking the spiritual and subordinating it to something physical. Only Christ can reveal how to worship the invisible God. John 1:17-18: "...grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."

God Himself set apart the one and only day that identifies Him as the Creator! 

If God were to reveal Himself to you, and you asked how could you know He were truly the Creator God—and He replied, "Why, I’m the God who created the Sabbath!" You’d be convinced, right?

And the day on which we cease from our business or labors, He set apart as "an holy convocation" (Lev. 23:2-3), which means a commanded assembly, at which our presence is commanded. 

Whose presence is commanded? Israel’s; not ours.

No other day can fulfill that great and glorious purpose!

In other words, the spiritual is reliant on the physical space of time known as the Sabbath. Does this really make sense?

Those who assemble to worship God and the Lord Jesus Christ in any way contrary to the way, or the time God’s Word commands are not worshiping Him in spirit and in Truth. God will not accept their worship.

Isn’t worshiping in spirit and truth more to do with attitude than the time of week? The Sabbath is a physical day, not a spiritual day, so wouldn't insisting on worshiping on a particular day NOT be worshiping in spirit and truth?

Did you realize that Christ Himself said you can not only profess His name and call yourself a Christian, but you may actually worship Him—and do it in vain? Still totally "unsaved"?

Didn’t the apostle Paul make this same observation, saying that those that believed they had to keep the Law had fallen from grace, seeing as they thought they had to supplement faith with Law-keeping? (Gal. 5:4) Paul said that the "only" thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love. 

Listen to the very words of Christ: "Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men...ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition" (Mark 7:7-9).

In the passage quoted the author again leaves out the rest of the text which says: "...ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do." Jesus was talking to the religious leaders of his day who had made their religion one of rules and rituals, yet their hearts were far from God. (See also Matt. 15:9-14) Did these rulers keep the Sabbath day? Yes, and fanatically. The context shows that they oft times skirted around some commands in order to keep a tradition. Yet with the Sabbath, they had gone overboard the other way. This is what made their "worship in vain." Isaiah had described this centuries before: "Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:" (Isaiah 29:13)

Jesus Christ says, "The Sabbath was made for man"—for all mankind! Remember? It was made when man was made—at the time of Adam! There were no Jewish people then! God Almighty does not have one standard for Jewish people and another for Gentiles. 

1) The context concerning the statement, "Sabbath made for man" was in response to the Jewish religious leaders making it over into such a burden that men "served the Sabbath."

Claiming from this that the Sabbath was made for all mankind is to treat the text eisegetically.

2) God did not establish the recurring Sabbath day rest until Israel at Sinai, where it was made to be a sign between God and Israel, and not God and all mankind. (Exodus 31:16-17)

No Gentile can become a Christian until he becomes an Israelite—read Ephesians 2:11-22. God says, through the Apostle Paul to Gentiles: "There is neither Jew nor Greek...for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye [Gentiles] be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed [children], and heirs according to the promise" (Gal. 3:28-29).

In order for a Gentile to become an Israelite, he had to undergo circumcision, which Ephesians 2 does not support. The full text for Galatians 3:28-29 reads: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." It is talking about a spiritual condition, not a physical one as the author points out above, "There is neither Jew nor Greek...in Christ." Or, there is neither Gentile or Israelite. If there is neither, then how can he claim a Gentile must become an Israelite? The absurdity of the argument is demonstrated when we consider there is neither male or female. The author's logic would have us believe that either males must become females, or vice-versa. The text shows that there is neither Jew nor Greek—neither exists in Christ. Therefore the Sabbath cannot apply to an "Israelite" Christian because by strict definition there is no such thing as an "Israelite" Christian, a "Gentile" Christian, a "Jewish" Christian, a "free" Christian, or a "slave" Christian. A Christian exists outside these physical categories or divisions. 

Gentiles are "heirs according to the promise" (Gal. 3:29) because Christ was Abraham's Seed  (vs. 16,19) and Gentiles in Christ are part of the spiritual seed of Abraham. Verse 12-13 of Ephesians 2 points out that Gentiles become a part of the covenants of promise. These are different than the covenant of Law. (Romans 9:4; Gal. 3:21) There is no more spiritual enmity between Jews and Gentiles. (Vs. 14)

You cannot find any such term as "the Jewish Sabbath" anywhere in the Bible! That is a derisive, scornful, contemptuous epithet. It came from non-Christian "wolves in sheep's clothing" as against the Truth of God. It is the slurring, discrediting, misleading language and terminology employed by deceivers, false prophets, and upholders of pagan doctrines and customs contrary to God's Word.

If the term "Jewish Sabbath" is contemptible, then wouldn’t the term "feast of the Jews" also be contemptible, seeing as the author taught that the feasts were to be kept by Christians also? John appears to label these feasts—annual Sabbaths—in a rather contemptuous manner: "After this there was a feast of the Jews" (John 5:1); "And the passover, a feast of the Jews, was nigh" (John 6:4); "Now the Jews' feast of tabernacles was at hand" (John 7:2).

Read again Ephesians 2:11-22. You have to become an Israelite to be saved! You have heard a lot of false and anti-Scriptural teaching leading you to suppose salvation is for Gentiles. It is not!

Verses 11-12: "Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:" Does this say Christians become Israelites? It might be implied, but the only way the uncircumcised could become a citizen of Israel was to be circumcised. But here we see them still called the "uncircumcised" and therefore still excluded from Israel as a citizen. But as a Christian, even though uncircumcised and therefore still not a citizen of Israel, they are drawn to Christ and the covenants of "promise," which covenants are not the Law, as already explained, and would only apply if they became circumcised, which they do not.

Acts 15:7-9: "And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith."

Salvation is for the Gentiles.

All the promises were given to Israel. Why?

The promises were made to Abraham and to his descendents, and his descendents were not all Israel. Gentile Christians, due to their faith, have Abraham as their father now, who is the father of the faithful (Rom: 4:16), and as such, Christian Gentiles become a party to the covenants of promise, not Law.

In such a God-rejecting world, God raised up, from the children of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in the days of Moses, a special nation to be His nation—to be a light to the non-believing Gentiles. 

And what kind of example; what kind of light was Israel to the Gentile nations? Romans 2:23-24 "Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God? For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written."

God gave this special called-out nation His right ways of life—and to them were given the promises which include salvation (Romans 9;4). But, when a Gentile-born person repents, accepts Christ and receives God’s holy Spirit, then he becomes, spiritually, an Israelite, a child of Abraham, and an heir of the promises (Gal. 3:28-29.)

Romans 9:4 does not mention salvation as being included. Again the author makes a case for calling Gentile converts "Israelites," even if spiritually, but the Scripture he quotes (Gal. 3:28-29) does not support this; but only that "in Christ" there is neither free nor slave, etc. Verse 29 only relates to being of Abraham’s seed; not Israel’s, and heirs according to the promise made to Abraham—not Israel. Paul seems to go out of his way to not equate Christians with Israelites, whereas the author tries to make this connection at every opportunity.

You can have no salvation unless you become, spiritually, a Jew! (Rom. 2:28-29.) Of course, through disobedience, all natural-born Israelites have been cut off from the promises and God’s salvation—but they may receive it, like all others, through Christ! 

All "natural-born" Israelites have not been cut off from the promises made to Abraham. These promises were unconditional. And again, they could not be cut off from God's salvation seeing as they never had it in the first place. They, as well as all others, can receive these things though through faith in and of Christ, and not by any other way or method, such as adherence to the Law or Sabbath.

So the true Christian will put out of his heart that prejudice and hatred against Jews.

Christ taught that Israel should demonstrate God's love even to her enemies. (Matt. 5:44) But this gives an example of what I have referred to a couple of times; if you are made to key in on the physical things of the Law, you overlook and outright ignore the spiritual things. At best, they are given a secondary role, when they should be primary. Prejudice and hatred against Jews shouldn’t even be an issue to a true Christian.

HWA continually tries to equate one's refusal to keep the Sabbath as being a case of anti-semitism. In other words, if you are refusing to keep the Sabbath, it is because you hate Jews. This sort of behavior is worthy of a false prophet and deceiver who resorts to accusations and redefining the issues.

Once again, does it make any difference which day, or whether we keep it?

The Bible definition of a Christian is one who has received the gift of God’s Holy Spirit, and is being led by the Spirit of God. In other words, Christ in you is your hope of Glory! (Col. 1:27.)

This brings up a very important question: What if a Gentile is given God’s Spirit, but he is not keeping the Sabbath? Or God’s Spirit is given to someone who does not begin to keep the Sabbath? Does God take away His Spirit from that person? What of Cornelius the Roman Centurion? Do you think he was keeping the Law? Do you think a high-ranking officer in the Roman Army and Government could keep the Sabbath if ordered to do some task on the Sabbath? A soldier is constantly "on duty" —ready for any situation that comes up at any time.

The Holy Spirit in you puts in you not only the love, the power, the faith, and the life of the Ever-Living Christ--but also the mind of Christ (Phil. 2:5).

Remember that the Christian Pharisees had the mind of Christ also, but still thought Gentiles should be circumcised and made to keep the Law of Moses.

Now If Jesus Christ is in you (and you are not a truly converted Christian unless He is!), will He, in you, profane His Holy Day, and observe a pagan day?

Would Christ in you, require you to subordinate your faith with physical days, and physical requirements, pagan or otherwise? The author takes a big jump here by declaring that converted Christians keep the Law, such as the Sabbath. What he is also saying is this: "If you do not keep the Sabbath, you are not a Christian. Your faith in Christ is counted as nothing, for you do not keep what I have concluded you must do besides faith."

Jesus Christ has always put His Presence in His own Holy Day! If Christ is in you—He, in you, can keep no other day now! And if you, having read the truth in this booklet, now make excuse, or rebel, and refuse to keep holy Christ’s Holy Day, then on His infallible authority, I say to you that He is not in you!

The author now stands on Christ's infallible authority and makes the claim for the Sabbath being binding on Christians. But what is he claiming by doing this? That the author's authority is infallible also? Can the author make the claim that Christ is not in you if you do not keep the Sabbath? Does he truly have that authority? Or has he now made an accusation or a condemnation not based in fact? What did Jesus say concerning those that would judge others unjustly? "Judge not lest you be judged, for with what condemnation you condemn others you will be judged." The author has stepped over the line here. It is up to God to decide who receives His Spirit and not man. By making this claim the author actually judges himself and shows himself to be devoid of God's Spirit!

God gives His Holy Spirit only to them that obey Him! (Acts 5:32.) The conditions to receiving the Holy Spirit as God’s gift are: repent, and be baptized (Acts 2:38).

This comment demonstrates what is common among those who put the physical before or above the spiritual. Jesus, in order to demonstrate that it is not so, went to great measures with Peter to show this. The example of Cornelius in Acts chapter 10. Does it say Cornelius and his household repented? Does it say Cornelius and his household met the conditions above before receiving the Holy Spirit? Which comes first; the spirit or physical things such as baptism? At what point did God’s Spirit come upon Cornelius and his household? When they heard and believed that Jesus was the Christ, and that in Him we receive remission of sins. It wasn’t belief in the Sabbath, or any other tenet of Law. It was belief in Christ; it was a matter of believing the gospel! Peter got the message and understood. Furthermore, Paul stated that he was not sent to baptize (I Cor. 1:17) and that we receive God's spirit as a result of faith and not works. Read: Do We Only Receive the Holy Spirit As a Result of Baptism?

Sin is the transgression of God’s law (I John 3:4). That law is a spiritual Law (Rom. 7:14). 

This was all covered earlier, but seeing as the author likes to reiterate, I will also:

1. "Sin" in I John 3:4 is from the Greek word anomia and means "lawlessness" or "iniquity." John is not specifically addressing the Ten Commandments. Before the Law, sin was in the world. It was still lawlessness even when this particular Law did not exist. This Law (the old covenant) was added "because" of or "for the sake of" sin. (Gal. 3:19). But the text says it was added "until" the Seed (Christ) should come.

2. The Law is spiritual (Rom. 7:14). But the Rock that was Christ was also called spiritual. (1 Cor. 10:4) One needs to read the context. Paul begins by showing that Christians are not subject to the Law even as a woman whose husband had died is not subject to the law of marriage. Likewise a Christian has died to the Law. Even if one concludes that the law of commandments is spiritual, do Christians keep it in the letter or in the spirit? The spirit? Then Christians don't keep it in the letter—which would be keeping the physical day! What then would be the spiritual Sabbath? The rest found in Christ, wouldn't it? A spiritual rest—or a rest from the psychological traumas that afflict mankind who have no hope—who go about to get and acquire what they can, all in vain, caught up in physical work?

3. The apostle Paul brings out in Romans chapter 7 that the law that is spiritual for Christians is the law of faith (Rom. 3:27) In Romans 7, Paul contrasts this spiritual law of faith with the law of the letter; the old covenant, which he also describes as being the law of sin and death; the ministration of death and condemnation ( II Cor. 3)

There are no loopholes! There is no escape, for those who disobey! God’s laws are enforced automatically! God needs no human policemen to catch you! There will be no human court trial with a jury of 12 fallible and easily misled human jurors.

So which comes first? Faith or obedience? This is, however, an unfair question to those who believe the Sabbath and other O.T. points of Law must be kept for salvation. Obedience to a law does not demonstrate faith. I can train a dog to be obedient. A dog is incapable of faith.

No, there will be no escape! This is the Almighty God you are dealing with, on this question!

He is saying, do not depend upon faith! Faith can deceive you! The Almighty God of Love and Compassion is out to trip you up on legalism, especially the Sabbath! The God of Love and Compassion will not consider faith in His Son when it comes to judging you for all eternity. It doesn’t matter whether you understand fully or not. Play it safe and keep the Sabbath—do not rely upon faith! That is the crux here. If you are not sure, then you would default to keeping the Sabbath, and therefore it is not an act of faith! If however you truly believe you must keep the Sabbath, then by all means, keep the Sabbath. And while you’re at it, better keep all of the Law, as Paul stated. For if you believe you have to keep even one point, you are obligated to keep all of it! (Gal. 3:10) And if you feel you must keep the Law, you are fallen from grace. Gal. 5:4: "Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace." 

But you say, "I am not keeping the Sabbath or the Law for justification, but out of obedience." Very well then, what happens to you if you don't keep the Sabbath? You are condemned, right? You get eternal death, right? So in order to have eternal life, you believe you must keep the Sabbath. You must be justified through the Law for salvation! You believe you must keep the Sabbath in order to maintain the condition of being justified by God. But you died to that Law. Gal. 2:19: "For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God." You are no longer able to be condemned by that Law. Why do you then wish to be brought under it again? This is the point Paul makes in Galatians 4 and 5, and elsewhere.

God is love! God loves mankind. God loves you! God made His Sabbath holy for a purpose—to keep you in His fellowship! His Law is love. It takes love to fulfill it! It requires a spiritual love to fulfill the spiritual Law. You were not born with that love. God freely offers it to you—His own love, "shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit" (Rom. 5:5). When you surrender, repent, believe, God promises His Holy Spirit. His Spirit imparts to you the spiritual love to fulfill His law!

The author goes from fear tactics to talking about the love of God. Yet the Bible says there is "no fear in love." (I John 4:18) Love is the fulfilling of the Law; or the fulfillment of the Law. (Rom. 13:10) If you have love, which is a fruit of the Spirit, then does this not take care of the Sabbath question? Or is love not enough? If it isn’t, then love is not the fulfillment of the Law! 

It is truly wonderful!

It is truly amazing to think keeping the Sabbath fulfills the law of love.

It keeps you in Christ’s fellowship—in close contact. It bestows upon you His security, peace of mind, happiness, abundant living!

Did the first century Christians enjoy these things, or were they persecuted and killed? Did not Jesus say that in the world we would have tribulation? (John 16:33). Israel in the O.T. was promised material blessings. Under grace there is promised an abundance of spiritual resources, but we are not promised to be shielded from poverty, pain or persecution. (Eph. 1:3) 

"But," one may still object, "how could I live, if I can't kindle a fire on the Sabbath, or even eat any food?"

Let's understand! The prohibition against "picking up sticks," or "kindling a fire" on the Sabbath was part of the added civil and ritualistic or ceremonial law of Moses—no part of the Ten Commandment Spiritual law!

The author already made a case for the Sabbath existing and therefore being a separate covenant, before the giving of the Law at Sinai. It was wrong for them to go out and gather manna on the Sabbath—wouldn't it be just as wrong to gather sticks? In Numbers 15:32-36 a man is found gathering sticks on the Sabbath. God commanded Moses that the man was to be stoned to death. You can't possibly conclude this situation dealt with other parts of the Law, being civil or ritualistic or ceremonial. In any event, Scripture makes no such distinctions. It is all "the Law."

Because of transgressions—that is, because the spiritual Law was being broken—God added, 430 years after Abraham, through Moses, a material and physical law of rituals and ceremonies (Gal. 3:16-19). That law was a physical law, including animal sacrifices. It was a substitute for Christ’s sacrifice and the Holy Spirit, which was not given to Old Testament Israelites. The Holy Spirit gives us, now, power to obey. These rituals and sacrifices consisted of physical labor—things to do morning, noon, and night—to instill in them the habit of obedience. Why? Because they had been disobeying! The physical rituals were to teach them obedience! Therefore they were a "schoolmaster" lasting only until Christ came (Gal. 3:24).

1. Where does it say the Ten Commandments were given to Abraham, and the rest of the Law was given to Moses? Galatians 3:16-19: "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise. Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator."

If the Law—the Ten Commandments were given to Abraham, then there is a big problem, for Paul is saying the promises with Abraham had nothing to do with Law, or the promises wouldn’t be promises!

What was the promise and what was Abraham’s covenant? Were the Ten Commandments a part of Abraham’s covenant? No. Does the Law that was given 430 years later contain the Ten Commandments? Yes. Could the Ten Commandments have been a part of Abraham’s covenant? No. Deut. 5:3 says it was not given to the Fathers. The Ten Commandments deal with the nation Israel whereas Abraham’s covenant dealt with him and his immediate family and those who would be his descendants. God fulfilled that promise. To claim therefore that Abraham had the commandments, and under Moses the rest of the Law (ceremonial, ritual, material, "physical") is patently false. The Bible makes no such divisions or distinctions. These are man’s divisions and distinctions that had to be created in order to make the case for keeping some of the Law as opposed to some of the Law that obviously is impossible for Christians to keep, as these things are obviously physical and are the shadows of Christ. But circumcision was given to Abraham. Did God give Abraham the "spiritual law" and Moses the physical law of sacrifices, etc.? Then wouldn’t circumcision by this reasoning be spiritual, and therefore necessary for Christians? The Christian Pharisees thought so.

2. The Holy Spirit isn’t about giving Christians the power to obey the Law; it’s about living by faith and walking in the Spirit.  

3. The author claims above, the physical rituals were for the purpose of teaching them obedience because they were being disobedient. This is circular reasoning; i.e., the Law of commandments supposedly was given to Abraham, but when Israel comes around, they are given the physical ritual laws because they were disobedient before they were even given the Law! But never mind the lack of logic. So, where does it say in Scripture that the rituals were added because Israel was disobedient? To answer, the author cites Galatians 3:24, but only applies the Law to mean the artificial divisions of ceremonial, ritual, and physical laws. Theological sleight of hand. But what does the context of Galatians 3 have to say concerning the Law? Verse 10. "For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them." Paul is talking about the whole of the Law—not some artificial divisions of the Law, thereby omitting some of the Law. 

Further proof is found in verses 8-9. "And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham." Those of other nations who did not have the Law, being justified without the Law, but only by faith.

When the reality came (Christ—and the gift of the Holy Spirit), the substitute ended.

Another way to word this, from a Biblical perspective, is that once you have the reality, you no longer participate in the shadow. But the author doesn't want to use the term "shadow" to describe such things, even though it is the way the Bible explains them. Why? Colossians 2:17 "Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body [the reality, the substance, the solid fact of what is foreshadowed] is of Christ." What are these things that are a shadow? Those things mentioned before this verse. Verse 16 "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come..." More effort has gone into this Scripture than nearly any other in order to get it to say something other than what it plainly says. These things, along with Sabbaths, are shadows. If they are shadows, then something else is the reality. Why would we want to embrace the shadow, when the reality (Christ) is here. To make the claim that they are shadows of "things to come" which have not yet come, thereby claiming they are to be kept in the meantime, ignores they are still shadows, and that the author claims the Sabbath is an eternal, or everlasting Law. You can't have it both ways.

Could you explain Colossians 2:16-17? (Q&A)

The Sabbath command is a Spiritual command. It has to do with our fellowship, assembly, and worship of God. It forbids our regular weekday work or labor by which we earn a living—our job, or business.

The Sabbath is a spiritual command? How much spirituality does it take to cease working for 24 hours? How does having your animals rest on the Sabbath per the command impart spirituality to them? How does obeying the command, you shall not murder, impart some spirituality when it does not address what Jesus brought out as the spiritual aspect being hatred? You can refrain from killing someone but still hate them, and this is far from a spiritual condition.

But the Sabbath was made for man—as a blessing to man! It was made to be enjoyed—to spiritually refresh, in blessed fellowship and communion with Christ!

Does Christ mysteriously disappear from us the other six days? Are we incapable of being spiritually refreshed at any other time? Are we incapable of fellowship with Christ and with others on any other day?

Jesus Christ kept the Sabbath while He lived as a human on earth. And whole chapters in the four Gospel books are devoted to recording how He taught us to keep the Sabbath.

Like the time the Pharisees caught Jesus' disciples picking grain on a Sabbath and eating it, and accused them of "working." His example concerning the Sabbath was that He did many things that the Jewish religious leaders said was breaking the Sabbath in order to demonstrate that there was more to the situation than just "keeping the Sabbath." If anything, the theology of the WCG/PCG, etc. has been closer to the understanding and behavior of the Jewish religious leaders than it has been to Jesus and how He treated the Sabbath. If whole chapters are devoted to Jesus teaching Sabbath observance, then why hasn't the author cited them as further proof?

The Pharisees of Jesus' day observed some 65 stern regulations of "do's and don'ts" which the human rabbis had instituted to make the Sabbath observance a "yoke of bondage." Jesus Christ swept those human regulations aside.

The WCG (and other controlling offshoots) had quite a list of "do’s and don'ts" concerning the Sabbath also. Regarding the phrase "yoke of bondage" it is found in Galatians 5:1. The context shows that Paul is talking about the contrast between the two covenants, and how the first was a yoke of bondage, and this included the whole Law. (verse 3) One might try to claim that the issue is circumcision, but both of Abraham’s sons were circumcised. Circumcision was practiced on the son of promise, and Paul shows that to do even this means the person then is required to keep the whole Law—all of it; commandments, rituals, sacrifices, new moons, etc.

Acts 15:9-10 "And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?" The dispute was whether the Gentiles were required to be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses. I hope we can all agree that circumcision was not required of the Gentiles. Now how about the Law of Moses? If we conclude as the author has claimed, that the Law of Moses is that which was added later, being the sacrificial laws, for example, then we have a big problem. This would mean that the Jewish Christians were still practicing those things. All the sacrifices, for example, as though they did not understand by this time that these things were fulfilled by Christ and no longer necessary either. Can this be true? No way! It therefore has to be referring to the Law of commandments as well as the rest of the Law! And the context of chapter 15 only supports this. Lastly, the author calls the sacrifices, rituals, and ceremonial parts of the Law "human regulations." Who gave Israel these regulations? God? Then, by his own logic, they are God’s regulations.

On one Sabbath He and His disciples were going through a corn-field. The disciples plucked ears of corn to eat. The Pharisees complained. But Jesus rebuked them—showed it is right to do minor work to gather or prepare food to eat on the Sabbath. That was the very experience that caused Him to say, "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath," and to proclaim that He is Lord of the Sabbath—and therefore the Sabbath is the Lord’s day!

Why was it alright for Jesus and his disciples to gather food on the Sabbath, but it was not alright for Israel to gather manna on the Sabbath? (not that there was any to gather, but those that went out to gather were seen as transgressors) Why does the author not mention Jesus’ immediate reply to the Pharisees? Because it goes against his theology. Notice also that the author does not even reference the Scripture this comes from. Most always elsewhere he does so. Unfortunately, the author does not see what is really happening here. Was it Jesus’ intent to act and behave contrary to the will of God? Those of Israel who went out on the Sabbath to collect manna did so in direct violation of what they were commanded. But there is nothing wrong with eating on the Sabbath. And whether the disciples went and got the grain from a basket somewhere or pulled it off the plant, the end result is the same! There was no intent to be disobedient or rebellious toward God and the command. Intent is where sin begins, not the act. Yet both the Pharisees and the WCG looked upon the literal letter of the Law as being the criteria.

Jesus healed the sick on the Sabbath. This was not doing business or labor by which He earned a living. It was an act of mercy—and of Love. Jesus said it is right to do good on the Sabbath day.

Yet John shows that the Pharisees, because of their added traditions to the Law, interpreted what Jesus' disciples were doing as "working on the Sabbath." And now, using a method used elsewhere to get around the plain statements of Scripture, another artificial division is made. Now classifications or divisions of work are made. "Breaking the Sabbath" according to the author only refers to doing those things that relate to making or earning a living. Do not ministers labor on the Sabbath in order to earn a living? To quote loosely from the author, "Does God have two laws, one for the lay member and one for the minister? God is no respecter of persons." Now we must make yet another division or category or classification: That of ministers being exempt from keeping the Sabbath, but only regarding preaching. If they do any other work for profit, then it is banned work. What we really see here is a law that is not an absolute such as "do no murder." There is never a time when it is alright to murder (an act of hatred) yet there are several examples of "breaking the Sabbath," yet being blameless! Why? It has to do with intent (a spiritual aspect or quality). Jesus was trying to point to the spiritual. But Sabbatarians, like many others, insist on pointing to the physical, which they think is spiritual, but is not. The author tries to treat the Sabbath in the New Testament as an absolute law, like murder. It is not and never was. If a Gentile does not keep the Sabbath, whether it is required or not (for the sake of argument), is he then guilty regardless of his ignorance, his intent? What was his intent? Rebellion, disbelief, disobedience, as HWA keeps claiming it is? No! Whether one keeps the Sabbath because he believes he should, or whether one does not keep the Sabbath because he does not believe he should, does not affect intent! Yet we are led to believe that if one, full of faith, does not keep the Sabbath, his faith is "vain." No wonder Paul was so vehement on the subject. Faith cannot be subordinated to Law, or it is no longer faith! The spiritual is abandoned for legalism (the Law), despite all attempts to claim the commandments are spiritual.

He showed it is even right to pull an ox out of a ditch on the Sabbath—but too many today would throw the poor ox in the ditch on Friday, so they could have an excuse to pull it out on the Sabbath! Jesus expected us to use wisdom and judgment—and be honest!

Jesus did not show it is right to pull an ox out of a ditch. The Jews already knew that and Jesus was merely at that point reminding them of what they already knew! He was trying to expand their understanding beyond that example! But unless the situation was something specifically addressed by their religious leaders (in that case the rabbis over time), or today by religious leaders such as Herbert Armstrong, the individual won’t see it. He has become too accustomed to letting the religious leader make the decisions for him, again negating faith in favor of following what someone else has determined is right or wrong for the individual. Paul said it was up to the individual to determine whether it was alright to eat only vegetables or meat; or to keep one day to the Lord or not keep a day to the Lord. Each has to be convinced in his own mind, not leave the decision up to someone else. (Rom. 14:5-6)

Many, having read this far, will say—"But I can't keep the Sabbath. I'd lose my job."

And I could ask, "Would a loving, compassionate God wish for me to lose a job whereby I support my family?" We are instructed in the Scriptures that if one doesn't provide for his family, he is worse than an unbeliever! I Tim. 5:8: "But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel [unbeliever]." And I have known many who have suffered, and their families have suffered over this. Yet this is what the author calls being in receipt of the blessings and abundant living that comes through obedience. But instead of accepting the obvious, what were the followers of the WCG taught? That it was the individual’s fault, due to (usually) a lack of faith on their part!

Let me tell you something! I have known hundreds of such cases! It takes living faith to obey God! Can you trust Him, even with your job? Unless you can, I wouldn’t give you a counterfeit penny for your chances of escaping the Lake of Fire!

It takes living faith to believe God. It takes no faith to obey Him. Only a willingness to comply—and in this case, solely through fear.

Out of hundreds of experiences, I have found that nine in ten do not lose their jobs! If you first pray, and ask God sincerely to give you grace and favor in your employer’s eyes, and then tell him firmly but politely and kindly, it makes it pretty hard for an employer to interfere with your religion!

Nine in ten have not lost their jobs, as they probably expected they would. And the one in ten who did? Nearly always, the few who did lose their jobs soon found better ones.

But we won't talk about those that not only could not find a better job, but couldn't find any job, and so were branded as "lacking in faith."

This is where you have to mix living faith with obedience!

Faith stands alone. Obedience comes about as a result of faith, and this obedience is not about the Law.

Finally, remember once again, God has decided what is sin—He compels you to decide whether to sin, or to obey!

And God is the One to tell you what is sin, and not anyone else. Read your own Bible.

I have given you God’s word faithfully. It is not popular. It is not what the popular majority tell you.

I am reminded of a statement often made by the author, and he is quite correct concerning such matters: A person can be sincere in their belief, but be sincerely wrong.

You must make your own choice. Rebellion means eternal punishment of everlasting death. God will save no person He does not rule.

That’s what this all leads to. Having the rule over others. The author always perceived of the Kingdom of God being the "government of God"; and like other governments, a government ruled by laws. The ministers are perceived as the administrators of those laws and having rule under Christ. It’s about power, and being subjugated by that power. Yet Jesus said the opposite was to characterize his servants. (Matt. 20:25-27) Where is the freedom—the liberty that is in Christ? It is seen as restrained—liberty within boundaries—which is no liberty at all. Jesus is not seen as an elder brother. He is not seen as Savior as much as He is seen as a harsh task master. Law is the defining point, not faith. You must obey! Or you will be exterminated!

You must choose between God’s ways, and man’s ways he falsely calls "Christian."

How does God define a false Christian? Does God/Christ or any apostle equate a false Christian directly with not keeping the Sabbath? Is this "way of God" which is mentioned presented in the New Testament as keeping the Sabbath, or does it refer to preaching Jesus Christ and believing through grace? Acts 18:26-28: "And he [a Jew named Apollos] began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly. And when he was disposed to pass into Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him: who, when he was come, helped them much which had believed through grace: For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publicly, showing by the Scriptures that Jesus was Christ."

My responsibility ends with telling you. I have cried aloud. I have lifted up my voice. I have told you your sin in this regard. God calls you to repentance. But He will not force you. You must make your own decision, and what you sow you shall reap.

And the author has taught legalism: "Keep the Law if you wish to be saved, especially the Sabbath." "Don't keep the Law, especially the Sabbath, and be condemned for all eternity like some mass murderer." The author is like those the apostle Paul spoke of in I Timothy 1: 5-7: "Now the end of the commandment is charity [love] out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned: From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling; Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm." He does not say "the commandments" but "the commandment", being one, which was expressed by Jesus to His followers that they should have love for one another. (John 13:34) But some have turned from this command, to what Paul says is "vain jangling" and these same desire to be teachers of the Law, showing that they don't know what they are talking about. Those that taught the Law did not understand what they were talking about or the things concerning the Law they affirmed as being true and necessary. They were mistaken to teach the Law.

You shall be saved by Grace, but God does lay down conditions. You can comply, and receive glorious Grace—or you can rebel, and pay the death penalty—for eternity!

Grace implies unmerited favor of God—unconditional. But the author claims grace is conditional. And he also states salvation is future tense; i.e., "you are not now saved." But we can have eternal life now through faith: "He that hath the Son HATH LIFE; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye MAY KNOW THAT YE HAVE ETERNAL LIFE, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God." (1 John 5:12-13) [emp. mine] We are now the children of God: "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:" (Rom. 8:16) "For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus." (Gal. 3:26) It has been said over and over again that you cannot earn salvation, yet this is a case of earning it.

Often, when people learn about the Sabbath, they seek some religious group to assemble with. But it is not enough to meet with just any religious body because it may accept the "Sabbath argument." This does not necessarily mean it is the true Church of God.

So, if the Sabbath isn’t the true sign of the true church after all, seeing as there are several Sabbath-keeping churches, then what IS the true sign or indicator of the "true" church or body of Christ? Most all of this booklet dealt with the "fact" that true Christians kept the Sabbath. If false Christians can keep the Sabbath, then how can it be the sign?

God commands us to seek the body—the Work—which is empowered by God.

So it is the work a church does, that proves them to be the true church, and not the Sabbath. Or are we now dealing with a checklist church, using a process of elimination. Do they keep the Sabbath? If no, they are false. If yes, they may be false. Ask question number two. Then question number 3. 

Did Christ say we would know who His true followers would be based upon the work they do, or something else? John 13:35: "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another."

There is only one such Church!

But didn't the author claim that the Sardis church and the Philadelphia church and Laodicean overlapped? Are they not, in his theology, churches of God? Of course, this all ignores the definition of "church" being the called out ones, despite the organization they attend.

It is doing the Work of God. 

Did not Jesus say that the work of God was to believe on Him whom God sent? (John 6:29) And that Jesus finished God's work? (John 4:34)

It is, as Jesus said it would be, a "little flock," persecuted, despised by the world. 

Nowhere in Scripture does Jesus say that Christians would be a "little flock." He does say they will suffer persecutions. Does this sound like the abundant living the author spoke about concerning true believers?

By William Hohmann (former WCG member and graduate of Ambassador College)
Updated March 13, 2008

Also read William Hohmann's critical review of Mystery of the Ages

Comments by ESN:

Several times in his booklet Herbert Armstrong uses the words "professing Christians" to make the reader think that those not keeping the Sabbath day couldn't be genuine believers. Yet throughout, nothing is taught of the heart of the true gospel which is Christ Jesus. Nothing is revealed about how Christians can come into the presence of the Father because of what Christ has willingly done for them in His atoning sacrifice. 

"But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name." ~ John 1:12

Only by faith can we see the true Lord Jesus Christ, the One who saves us by His grace, and whom the entire Bible speaks of. Today our rest is in Him, not a day.

Recommended articles:

Should the Sabbath be Observed Today? (excellent study)

Is it essential that we keep the Sabbath? (Q&A)

Must We Keep the Law for Salvation? (answers many questions)

How is the Term Israel Used in the New Testament? (Shows how the church is not "spiritual Israel") (also covers Gal 6:16) [offsite link]

Recommended books:

Seventh Day Adventism Renounced by D. M. Canright. A classic book which not only shows the errors of Adventism (a group that HWA received and plagiarized much of his teaching from), but goes in depth concerning why the Sabbath was abolished. Important chapters are XI: "Did the Pope Change the Sabbath?" and Chapter XXI: "Forty-Seven Prominent Texts Used by Sabbatarians Examined."  Very thorough, as it covers many verses that Sabbath keepers use to say we must keep the Law. Colossians 2 is covered in chapter 15. [book is also available through Amazon]

The Lord's Day From Neither Catholics nor Pagans: An Answer to Seventh-Day Adventism on this Subject by D. M. Canright. This online book is very thorough in its research and testimonies; confronts the varied and many assertions of Sabbath keepers)

Scripture Twisting: 20 Ways the Cults Misread the Bible by James W. Sire
Twenty separate kinds of reading errors are isolated, which are characteristically made by cultists as they interpret the Bible. Sire also handles twisted translation, overspecification, virtue by association, ignoring the context and other subjects.