CONSIDERING THE COVENANTS

by Richard Burkard



For many people who left the Worldwide Church of God during the 1990's, the "last straw" was a lengthy message and doctrinal article on the covenants at the end of 1994. WCG leaders said it was an area which was never properly addressed. People who left considered it a step too far toward the churches of the world, downright unbiblical - and a few felt it was the work of Satan.

Yet it took 12 years for the United Church of God to compile its own understanding of the covenants into book form. The New Covenant was published early in 2007 - and it was so complete that the 159 pages of text are followed by a 12-page general index.

For someone struggling to make sense of the various arguments about what the New Covenant means, it's a detailed and complete read. In fact, it took me nearly a year to study through all the Scriptures mentioned in the book. But just because something is detailed and complete, that does not necessarily mean it's accurate. We found some well-put good points - but also some which aren't, when the entire Bible is reviewed.

This article focuses on the questions which came to us, as we studied The New Covenant - much of that study done on our knees. We asked God for wisdom to know where His word really stands, and what His truth really is. We sought a Bible-based truth independent of any denominational spin, whether it agrees with that group or not. The subtitle of the book asks of the New Covenant: "Does It Abolish God's Law?" Let's dive in deep, and try to find out....

(NOTE: There's admittedly a lot of information here. So if there's a particular Bible passage or topic which interests you, we suggest doing a CTL-F search within this article to find a keyword or phrase.)



PG. 4: "Why is divine intervention essential in receiving that change of heart? It's really very simple. We were created incomplete!"

"Very good" is how Genesis 1:31 describes all God made at creation. It's noteworthy that "very good" is not the same as perfect. Why would a God who is described as perfect (Mt. 5:48) make a less-than-perfect creation?



PG. 5: "At his crucifixion, Jesus, through His death, implemented the New Covenant.... 'This cup is [figuratively speaking] the new covenant in my blood, which is shed for you' (Lk. 22:20)."

Is this covenant spiritual? II Corinthians 3:6 indicates it is -- "not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life." And Hebrews 8:6 calls it "superior to the old one.... founded on better promises."

(An interesting side note: Paul writes in II Corinthians that God "has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant...." The "us" seems to be the entire Corinthian church, along with "saints throughout Achaia" based on 1:1. So why have COG's had problems over the years with the idea of the entire membership being ministers?)



PG. 6: "The promised New Covenant - the basis of Christ's gospel...."

Is it?! The only time Jesus says the word "covenant" at all in the gospels (or "testament" in the King James Version) is in the context of the Lord's Supper, noted above. You'd think a Church of God following Herbert Armstrong's teachings would say the real basis is the Kingdom of God -- but then, UCG has detached itself from several of those teachings.



PGS. 6-7: "God summarized what He intends to accomplish through Jesus Christ: 'I will make an everlasting covenant with them....'" (Jer. 32:40)

Is it everlasting?! Consider Genesis 17:13-14, where circumcision is called a "covenant in your flesh.... to be an everlasting covenant." Yet in the New Testament, it's declared "nothing.... what counts is a new creation." (I Cor. 7:19, KJV) Another article on this web site looks into the matter of what "forever" means in the Bible.



PG. 8 first introduces a key verse in the entire debate - Hebrews 8:8-10. We'll excerpt the key words: "The time is coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant.... I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts."

Are these laws changed -- and have they already been changed at some point? That's a core issue in the covenant arguments. Many pages to come will develop the UCG viewpoint.



PG. 9: "....covenant rituals are not the same as covenant commitments and obligations.... The real value is in the substance of the commitments made!"

What about circumcision? It's called "the sign of the covenant" by God in Genesis 17:11 - yet we noted Paul's comment that it's "nothing." UCG attempts to explain this in an entire chapter: "Circumcision vs. a 'New Creation' in Christ." But that's ahead, on page 63.



"Two covenants, the Sinai or Old Covenant and the New Covenant.... are based on God's earlier covenant with Abraham that promises the inheritance of a global kingdom to Abraham's special 'seed' or descendant - Jesus Christ (Romans 4:13, Galatians 3:16)."

Examine Romans 4:13 in this regard. "It was not through law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith." It was not through law - yet many in the Churches of God would say it was, since they define "righteousness" solely as commandment-keeping (Psm. 119:172).

How can this be? UCG tries to explain this on pages 79 and 97. We'll quote from page 97 here: "So Paul explains how Abraham's faith should be viewed as the basis of his obedience, rather than his obedience being the basis of his faith (Romans 4:13; compare James 2:18-24)." This seems to be a balanced approach - yet often COG's blur this line, such as in the salvation process.



PGS. 11-12: "To Abraham God promised.... (Genesis 12:2-3).... His intention to offer salvation not only to the physical descendants of Abraham but also to 'all the families of the earth.'"

Are we being presumptuous by saying this is an offer of salvation? The "blessing" mentioned here never is specifically detailed.



PG. 12: "Abraham.... understood and faithfully obeyed God's laws as a result of his faith (Genesis 26:5)."

Which laws? A sidebox on page 13 notes four different Hebrew words are used in this verse for "requirements.... commands.... decrees.... laws." Many religious groups (COG or otherwise) tend to lump these all together, but there could be important points of difference here.

The Strongest NIV Exhaustive Concordance notes the Hebrew word for "laws" here is tora - which could be any law or regulation, but is "often referring to the five books of Moses in whole and in part...." (Goodrick and Kohlenberger, 1999 ed., pg. 1507) Sabbath-keeping groups would jump in there and declare Moses kept the Ten Commandments, including the Sabbath. But if that's so, why did the Levites in prayer mention the Sabbath separately from tora in Nehemiah 9:13-14? Is a Sabbath "made known" different from a command to keep it?

Let's consider the other things Abraham kept:

* "Requirements" means "watch," according to Strong's Exhaustive Concordance (based on the KJV word "charge") - as in a sentry at a post. The original Hebrew mismeret is used by Moses in the context of sexual rules (Lev. 18:30).

* "Decrees" (Hebrew huqqa) appears in the KJV as "statutes." meaning an enactment or appointment. We might call them lasting "house rules" for God's people and church -- everything from priestly conduct (Ex. 27:21) and handling of inheritances (Numbers 27) to how the Atonement fast works (Lev. 16:29-34).

* "Commands" are special orders from God -- such as the rules for collecting manna in the wilderness (Ex. 16:28), which were uttered before the law was given at Sinai. This Hebrew word miswa also is used to sum up everything "the Lord gave Moses on Mount Sinai for the Israelites" (Lev. 27:34), as well as during their wandering in the wilderness (Num. 36:13).

Commands of God were taken down from the mountain by Moses, according to Exodus 24:12. They were separate from the law (tora), but still written by God. We should stop here to note this verse seems to refute a claim made by some Seventh-Day Adventist ministers -- that only the Ten Commandments were written with God's hand, so are eternally binding. Everything in chapters 20-23 appears to be included as well!

But lest the Church of God groups feel too victorious, we must note Psalm 119:172: "all your commands are righteous." This is not tora. This is not dabar, a Hebrew word used specifically with the phrase "Ten Commandments" (Ex. 34:28/Deut. 4:13). The word is miswa, or "command" -- so a favorite "proof-text" for claiming the Ten Commandments defines righteousness is NOT exactly so!



PG. 13/SIDEBOX: "...the symbolic tabernacle ceremonies and rituals and Israel's national administrative laws were not applicable in Abraham's day. Nor are they necessary for individual Christians today, because a physical temple is no longer the center of our worship as it was in the ancient nation of Israel (John 4:19-21; Hebrews 9:9-10)."

Was worship limited in location long ago? The texts cited indicate that was the case in Jesus's day. Yet Joshua fell face-down and "did worship" (KJV) someone calling himself "the commander of the Lord's army" - and Joshua was away from a tabernacle, "near Jericho" at the time (Josh. 5:13-15). And David wrote in Psalm 5:7 about reverently bowing down "toward your holy temple" - not in it.



PG. 14: "God promises that David's dynasty will last forever.... God declares that this covenant will be irrevocable.... (Jeremiah 33:20-21)."

The verses cited indicate David always would have a descendant to sit on the throne of Israel -- and the genealogies of Matthew 1 and Luke 3 both connect David to Jesus Christ. But wasn't the throne line broken between David and Jesus, when Israel was taken into captivity?



PG. 16/SIDEBOX: "God's Ten Commandments.... can be obeyed, at least in the outward letter of the law, by ordinary people even if they have not received God's Holy Spirit."

Some COG ministers disagree! The one who baptized me in WCG did during the 1980's. He used the tenth commandment about coveting as evidence that the law is spiritual (Rom. 7:14) - arguing you cannot physically covet a house, spouse, animal or belonging.



PG. 17/SIDEBOX: "We need to recognize that His laws are wonderful and endure forever (Psalm 119:129, 160)."

Which ones endure forever? That's obviously a big question in the whole discussion - and the Hebrew word for "laws" in verse 160 only adds to our challenge in sorting things out. That word is mispat, referring to areas of justice and judgment. That's how the KJV uses it in Exodus 21:1: "Now these are the judgments which you shall set before them...." It does not refer back to the commandments of chapter 20, but to instructions which follow - everything from slave releases to fights which result in miscarriages.



PG. 18/SIDEBOX: "....the Israelites pleaded with Moses.... 'do not let God speak to us, or we will die' (Exodus 20:18-19, NRSV). God accepted their request...."

There were exceptions -- even in the books of Moses. The Lord spoke directly to Aaron about wine inside the Tent of Meeting, not Moses (Lev. 10:9). He corrected Aaron and Miriam, as they stood alongside Moses in Numbers 12. God even spoke directly to Balaam in Numbers 22:9.



PG. 21: "The prophets became God's spokesmen.... The same authority was later given to Christ's apostles (Acts 4:29-31)."

Apostles only?! Were not ALL servants of God "filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God boldly," according to verse 31? The context of verse 23 shows Peter and John "went back to their own people" - not necessarily a team of ministers. This is important, because it indicates God does NOT use a hierarchical approach today to preaching the gospel. It means anyone filled with Holy Spirit can do it!



PG. 23: "Exceptions [in the Old Testament] were made for those servants and prophets of God who were given the Holy Spirit during that time. This is confirmed by Peter.... 'the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow (I Peter 1:10-11, KJV).'"

Glory for whom? For the servants and prophets - or "sufferings and subsequent glory that were destined for Christ...."? "It is a forced interpretation to take this as a reference to Christian prophets of the NT age," says The New Bible Commentary: Revised (1970 ed., pg. 1240).

This also raises a question about another statement UCG makes on this page: "eternal life was not offered to the people in that [Sinai] covenant, with the exception of those special servants who led and taught the people in God's ways." Did they really understand the promise of living in eternal glory?



PG. 25: "As Hebrews 9:9-10 explains, the ritualism of the covenant at Sinai 'was symbolic for the present time.... concerned only with food and drinks, various washings, and fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation."

Does this mean the "clean and unclean" rules are "ritualism" - and no longer applying today? My NIV Bible has a cross-reference from Hebrews 9:10 to Leviticus 11, where those rules are stated. Yet UCG elsewhere debunks such thinking, based in part on the pre-Sinai division of animals entering Noah's ark into clean and unclean sets. We'll explore that more deeply when the book brings it up.



PG. 26/SIDEBOX: "Justification -- being legally declared free from guilt -- does not instantly make one perfectly righteous."

What about other factors? Paul mentions some of them in Romans 3 -- how we're "justified freely by his [God's] grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.... a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law." (3:24, 28)

Paul notes before this: "by the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified in his sight...." (3:20, KJV; see also Gal. 3:24) And he adds a few verses later: "to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness." (4:5) Other key verses along this line are Galatians 2:16-17, 5:4; and Titus 3:7.

(Perhaps the key word here is "perfectly" - and no one is perfectly righteous until God's Kingdom comes.)



PG. 27/SIDEBOX: "To remain justified after being forgiven, one must behave in a righteous or just manner from that time forward.... faith required to be justified must be confirmed in one's actions."

James 2:21-24 is then quoted in the book, to verify this view of "faith + works." But what kind of work is described in this verses? Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his only son in death (Gen. 22:9-12). Was this a "work of the law?" NO - because no law called for it! Abraham simply obeyed the command of God.

Remember, "a man is not justified by observing the law...." (Gal. 2:16) And Paul implies Abraham was NOT justified by works in Romans 4:2 -- a verse the UCG booklet never mentions.

James follows that with the works of "Rahab the prostitute," who professed her belief in the real God and assisted the Israelite spies (Josh. 2:8-16). We could say Rahab obeyed the first commandment - but that's not what James emphasizes: "....she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction...." (James 2:25) In fact, Rahab lied at one point to help in their escape (Josh. 2:4-6) -- and the commandments also condemn false witness.

Romans 2:13 would seem to confirm the UCG thinking - that "the doers of the law shall be justified." But what about 3:20? ""Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight...." (KJV) And then there's Romans 5:1: "Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ...."

How do we explain this? Notice how the King James Versions put Romans 2:13-15 in parenthesis. This is admittedly a translator's addition; NIV begins the parenthesis at verse 14, while the NASB and CEV show none at all. But the marks indicate a side thought by Paul to his main point - one of those areas where Peter might point out Paul can be hard to understand (II Pet. 3:15-16).

The 18th century British pastor and theologian John Gill gave the best explanation I've found for Romans 2:13 in his Exposition of the Bible (online at Crosswalk.com). Note especially what we've emphasized:

....for the law is spiritual, and regards the inward as well as the outward man, and requires internal holiness, as well as external obedience.... There never was but one since Adam, and that is Christ, who has fulfilled, or could perfectly fulfil the law; the thing is impossible and impracticable for fallen man: hence these words must be understood either hypothetically, thus, not the hearers of the law, but if there were any perfect doers of it, they would be justified before God; or else of such persons who are considered in Christ, by whom the whole perfect righteousness of the law is fulfilled in them, and who may be reckoned as perfect doers of it in him, their substitute, surety, and representative."

So justification requires "doing the law," based on Romans 2:13 - but we can't do it, because we're still imperfect! So this verse could be understood as a "what-if" verse, with only faith in Christ making us truly justified. Note what Paul adds in Galatians 3:11-12: "'The righteous will live by faith.' The law is not based on faith...."

Galatians 3:24 simplifies it this way: the law leads you to Jesus, then you're justified by faith. UCG contends you are ultimately justified by law-keeping -- but using James 2 to make that argument is a bit of a stretch, since the works there aren't specifically law-keeping.



PG. 28/SIDEBOX: "God's word defines sin as 'the transgression of the law' (I John 3:4, KJV)...."

Only that definition?! In a different article on this web site, we explain how misleading such a statement is from a "whole-Bible" viewpoint. Yes, it's a definition - but not the definition. (This issue also comes up on page 60 and in a sidebox on page 89.)



"In Exodus 16:4.... His test involved whether they would rest on the seventh-day Sabbath as He commanded in the Fourth Commandment of that law -- with which they were at least partly familiar."

In this verse?! Verse 4 is about daily manna gathering. The first hint of a Sabbath test (very indirectly) comes in verse 5, and the word "Sabbath" doesn't appear until verse 23.



PG. 29/SIDEBOX: "The seventh day had been hallowed -- set aside as holy by God -- from the time of Adam and Eve...."

Is the law eternal? Many Sabbath-keeping preachers make statements similar to that quote, yet they claim Lucifer broke God's law when he sinned and rebelled (Ezek. 28:15-16). We're not sure from the Bible exactly when that revolt happened - but if it came before earth's creation, does that mean a Sabbath was kept in eternity past? Could a seventh-day rest be enforced, in a "time" when time did not exist?



"God's reaction to their disobedience....(Ex. 16:28) God speaks of both His 'commandments and.... laws' as already existing...."

Which ones? The two Hebrew words used here are miswa and tora. Was everything given to Moses at Sinai "settled law" at this point - not only the Ten Commandments, but other rules such as the dedication of firstborn sons and cattle? (22:29-30)



"In Leviticus 18:21 and 27.... What was their sin? Among other things, idolatry (the worship of false gods) and human sacrifice, which violated the First, Second and Sixth Commandments."

The "other things" in this chapter include a series of sex-related sins (vs. 6-20, 22-23). Where are these in the Ten Commandments?



"The Bible shows that the Ten Commandments did not originate with Moses or in his time."

ALL Ten?! What about the third one - taking God's name in vain (Ex. 20:7)? All the Bibles I have show no earlier cross-references concerning this.



PG. 31: "But as Hebrews 8:10-13 clearly tells us, the spiritual laws that God had included in the Sinai Covenant were not disbanded."

Which ones? Given what we've seen about what God gave to Moses, does this go beyond the Ten Commandments - for instance, to not cursing national rulers or holding back offerings? (Ex. 22:28-29)



PG. 33: "Under the New Covenant the spirit or intent of the law is to be inscribed in the hearts of those who are converted by receiving the Holy Spirit. This required a change in the law as to who would hold the office of high priest...."

Note that. There has to be a "change in the law" - a law given by what Churches of God love to emphasize as an unchanging God, based on Malachi 3:6! A God whose law supposedly is perfect (Psm. 19:7, tora), as UCG notes later in this chapter on page 38! There may be more here than a few memory Scriptures can answer.



PG. 35: "Scripture shows that Paul, when visiting various cities, went to the Jews first, then to the Gentiles...."

And other tribes?! Where do the "lost ten tribes" of Israel stand in all this? Are Judah's brothers now considered Gentiles, in the New Testament understanding -- and perhaps a lower class of brother at that?



"Hebrews 7 explains another change from the Sinai Covenant to the New Covenant."

"A change of the LAW" is how all translations we checked put it in 7:12. It's noteworthy that the Contemporary English Version capitalizes Law, to emphasize which one is being changed.

But we should stop here and analyze this Greek usage of "law." It's originally nomos - and The Strongest concordance admits it has "a broad range of meanings and referents, ranging from law as a principle revealed in nature or reason, to the OT Scriptures as a body, the first five books of the Scriptures, or any single command of the Scriptures...." (pg. 1573). So the word has to be used with care, considering the context of the verse.



PG. 37: "The author of Hebrews does not say that the laws of God defining righteousness were changed or abolished by the New Covenant or that they were only temporary."

Maybe so, BUT what about Hebrews 10:1? It calls the law "only a shadow of the good things that are coming - not the realities themselves." Consider this in relation to Romans 3:20-22, which says observing the law does not get someone declared righteous - and that there's "a righteousness from God, apart from law.... from God through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe." (And if Paul is the author of Hebrews, as many COG ministers contend....)



PG. 39: "Jesus is very specific. The Old Testament is to remain unaltered, with a new understanding...."

Matthew 5:17-18 is quoted to justify this statement -- the verses with perhaps the single word which most divided the Worldwide Church of God in the 1990's: "fulfill." Even attempts to define the word stir this division.

Vine's Expositors' Dictionary says the word "denotes (I) to make full, to fill to the full; in the Passive Voice, to be filled, made full.... (II) to accomplish, complete, fulfill." (1997 ed., pg. 426) UCG and similar groups commonly use this definition to say Jesus broadened the application and understanding of the Law -- and that all is not fulfilled in the Law until Jesus returns. But today's WCG says Jesus already completed everything, noting His crucifixion declaration: "It is finished." (Jhn. 19:30)

We reviewed all the mentions of "fulfill" in the New Testament -- and each side in the argument could line up many verses to support its claim:

UCG et. al. could turn to Col. 1:25, Phil. 2:2, Mt. 3:15, Gal. 5:14, Lk. 24:44, Jhn. 17:13, Eph. 1:10, Rom. 8:4 and 13:8, as well as II Cor. 10:6.

Today's WCG could turn to Col. 4:17, Mt. 21:3-5 and 26:54-56, Lk. 4:21, John 3:29 and 18:32, as well as Rev. 6:11.

But note two statements of Jesus that the UCG side tends to overlook. In Luke 18:31, He said about His approach to Jerusalem, "everything that is written by the prophets about the Son of Man will be fulfilled." He then seems to explain what He means in the next two verses -- culminating in the resurrection.

Jesus goes on to say at the end of the Lord's Supper: "Yes, what it written about me is reaching its fulfillment." (Luke 22:37) We quote here from the NIV (confirmed in Moffatt), and admittedly the Greek word in both verses is different from the word in Matthew 5 - but the meaning essentially is the same as definition II above: "to finish, complete, fulfill."

(And also note Luke 7:1:" When Jesus finished saying all this...." Finished is the same Greek word as "fulfill" from Matthew 5. Would UCG say Jesus really had NOT finished speaking to the people?)



"But the entire Old Testament -- every word and character -- is to be preserved and used by Christians."

Does UCG do this? Does any WCG spinoff group really do this? One obvious area where most do not involves the celebration of new moon festivals, or the "beginning of months" (see Num. 10:10). We posted a separate article on that topic, as we read through this book.



PG. 40: "Most symbolic aspects of Old Testament instructions are not now required."

What about Acts 15? Did it "do away" with much more than that -- considering only four key requirements were given to the Gentiles in verses 28-29? The book is coming to that.



PG. 43: "[Hebrews 7] Verses 18 and 19 explain why Old Testament regulations for the appointment of a high priest had to be modified.... 'for the law [requiring high priests to be appointed from Aaron's descendants] made nothing perfect....'"

Note verse 11: "If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the law was given to the people), why was there still need for another priest to come...." This indicates the law was presented based on the priesthood, according to NIV/NASB/Moffatt. But the King James merely says the law was received under that particular priesthood. And the N.B.C. says the implication is that "the existing Levitical order has failed to achieve its intended end" - not really the law.



"God promised that the Messiah would be seated at His right hand before returning to earth as the King of Kings.... (Psm. 110:1) This prophecy also confirmed with an oath that the Messiah (Jesus) would be the new, permanent High Priest.... (verse 4)."

Why an oath? If God in heaven made an oath in this case, why are Christians in the Churches of God discouraged from making one - for instance, by "affirming" in a court of law?



PGS. 45-48: "God especially gives His true and faithful ministers, through the power of His Spirit, the understanding they need to properly discern the intent of the law under legitimate New Covenant contexts (compare Matthew 18:18; Acts 15:1-29)."

"Binding and loosing" is the principle in Matthew 18 - but it leads to the question of what limits such ministers can impose. This has been used in the COG's to set dress codes for services and other church activities. But some UCG Pastors have declared even a variety of TV shows wrong to watch, from The Simpsons to Deal or No Deal.

(But is the real context of that verse referring to matters of sinful members, from verses 15-17?)

The book will look in detail at Acts 15 later on - but keep in mind our question about verses 28-29.



PG. 49: "A spiritually capable, teaching ministry is essential to our spiritual health and personal growth in the Church...."

Some New Testament congregations seemed to have that. But what about Hebrews 8:11 - which describes a New Covenant time when "no longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' because they will all know me...."? If this covenant is in effect now, why isn't this aspect also in effect now?

(Note also I John 2:27, which says the anointing of God means "you do not need anyone to teach you.... his anointing teaches you about all things.... it has taught you....")



PG. 50: "Therefore, we must be careful to seek spiritual advice only from ministers who faithfully believe 'every word of God' (Luke 4:4)...."

Compare translations, and you'll find that phrase is only in the King James. It's not in the NIV/NASB/Moffatt/CEV/ESV. If the book had quoted Matthew 4:4, it would have all those translations in agreement.

(But we must repeat the question asked above at pg. 39. If COG ministers "faithfully believe every word of God," how many practice it?)



PG. 54-55: "Therefore, His Kingdom was not prophesied to be established at His first coming."

It wasn't?! What about Matthew 12:28, where Jesus says, "If I drive out demons by the Spirit of God, then the Kingdom of God has come upon you." This was in response to a miraculous healing in verse 22.

Then there's Jesus's declaration to His apostles at the Lord's Supper: "I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me...." (Lk. 22:29) Verse 30 shows a future aspect to this, as in Revelation 5:10 - but can there not also be a present aspect, as Revelation 1:6 suggests?



PG. 55/SIDEBOX: "(I John 3:4, NIV) If there is no law to break, there is no such thing as sin."

Yet Lucifer sinned before God, apparently before most of the events of Genesis 1 unfolded (Ezek 28:16). How much "law" was in effect in eternity past - whether the Sabbath is included or not? (See also our note on pg. 29.)





PG. 57: "....you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God's word [the Hebrew Scriptures] all over again.... (Hebrews 5:12-13, NIV)"

The Old Testament?! The writer of Hebrews goes on to explain what he means in 6:1-2: "Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings about Christ..." such as "instruction about baptisms...."

It's curious that UCG suddenly changes translations to the NRSV for chapter 6, and quotes only, "Therefore let us go on to perfection...." leaving out the next phrase. "leaving behind the basic teaching about Christ...." But this is in keeping with the traditional COG viewpoint that ministers should preach the gospel of Christ (which is how King James has it) -- not about Him.



"This act of blessing Abraham [Gen. 14:18-19] confirmed that Melchizedek was greater than Abraham."

Is that always so? Later in Genesis, the chief servant of Abraham "bowed down my head, and worshipped the Lord, and blessed the Lord God of my master Abraham...." (24:48, KJV) Surely UCG wouldn't claim that servant was greater than God. (See also I Chr. 29:10 in KJV.)



PG. 59: "None of the ceremonial aspects of the Sinai Covenant could define righteousness in respect to the people's hearts, minds and actions."

Wouldn't UCG conclude the commandments are supposed to do that, anyway - based on Psalm 119:172? (See note on pg. 9 above.)



PG. 60: "That 'time of reformation' [Heb. 9:10, KJV] began with Jesus Christ's first appearance as the Messiah."

Was it then? When WCG announced its new understanding of the covenants in the 1990's, its date for the change seemed to be 70 A.D. - once the temple in Jerusalem was overturned. And as I finalized this article, a blogger posted an old WCG article which claimed the New Covenant would not take effect until Jesus's second coming.



[From Hebrews 10:1] "Just as an approaching shadow reveals the form and outline of what is coming, so did the Sinai Covenant ritual system reveal only a partial representation of Jesus Christ's role as the one great sacrificial offering...."

More than one?! Later on this page, UCG declares the author of Hebrews is "traditionally and most likely Paul." Assuming that's true, can we not compare this passage with what we know Paul wrote about a shadow in Colossians?

We're referring to the pivotal verses of Colossians 2:16-17 - in which Paul says food, drink, religious festivals, New Moon celebrations and Sabbaths "are a shadow of the things that were to come." NIV then says, "the reality, however, is found in Christ." UCG probably would argue for the King James Version, which implies the Church judges such things instead of the world. But almost all the other translations we checked (including New King James) are similar to NIV's translation.

The book will deal with this passage in more depth later. But if Paul (presumed) said in Hebrews that Jesus superceded the ritual system, why cannot he also mean in Colossians that food rules and holy days are superceded by Christ as well?



"Paul writes in Romans 3:20 that it is 'through the law that we become conscious of sin' (NIV)."

Read the rest! The New Covenant never mentions the first part of this verse: "Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law...." - or in KJV: "Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight...." These words seem to stand in opposition to 2:13; UCG will mention that on page 84.



PG. 61: "Regulations mentioned in Hebrews as changed do not include laws that define sin."

What about Romans 7:6? It declares, "....we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code." On pg. 100 UCG explains this verse by saying we're delivered from the law's "condemnation to death." But the context seems to relate to adultery and covetousness (vs. 1-4, 7-8) - two of the Ten Commandments.



PG. 63: "The Jewish practice of requiring Gentiles (non-Jews) to be circumcised to be accepted into their fellowship threatened the unity.... The apostles held a special conference at Jerusalem to address that issue so that the right perspective of justification through faith in and of Christ would not be distorted."

The only reason?! UCG quotes Acts 15:1 and 24 here. But it leaves out verses 5 and 29, with the demand that Gentiles "must be.... required to obey the law of Moses" - and lists four key requirements for all Gentiles to meet.



PG. 64: "In the early New Testament church, certain false teachers.... were teaching that justification was possible only if they [Gentile converts] were physically circumcised and adhered to other temporary laws that were given at Mt. Sinai."

"The law of Moses" is how Acts 15:5 ends in every major translation (CEV capitalizes it as "Law" again here). So UCG at last indirectly defines the "law of Moses" here as something beyond the Ten Commandments - something which includes "temporary laws." A specific definition is not stated until pg. 132: "the imperatives of the Sinai Covenant, which would have included perhaps some of its rituals and ceremonies...."

Our concordance review found every time the phrase "law of Moses" appears in the Bible, it relates to aspects outside the Ten Commandments -- everything from where priests stand at ceremonies in the Old Testament, to circumcision and purification rituals in the New Testament. It's an important delineation to keep in mind.



"The gentile Christians in the province of Galatia were being enticed to accept circumcision so that fellowship barriers between them and the Jews would be dropped."

Apparently not! Acts 15:1 quotes the men as saying without circumcision, "you cannot be saved" -- so to them, the issue was salvation.



PG. 65: "What the Galatian gentiles were being enticed to accept would have changed their entire perception of how important Christ's sacrifice was to them."

This involved circumcision - but if it's true for that practice, why is it not true for eating clean meats? (And perhaps to some extent, keeping holy days?)



PG. 66/SIDEBOX: [In Galatians 3:28, Paul] "never represents this freedom as a release from the law of God that defines the sins that are so common in the world."

Yes, but.... what about Ephesians 2:15 - where Paul says Jesus came "abolishing in his flash the law with its commandments and regulations"? That obvious question comes from the book's statement, but the book won't address that until later.



PG. 69/SIDEBOX: "....a badly misguided assumption that Paul viewed God's law as a curse. But how could he view it as a curse since he stated in Romans 7:12 that God's law was holy?"

Paul also stated "Christ is the end of the law" in Romans 10:4. But the book doesn't get into that here; that discussion also comes up later.



PGS. 69-70: "That Jesus Christ had to pay the death penalty the law demands for transgressions shows that God still regards His law as binding."

Present tense?! Would it not be more accurate to say God regarded His law as binding, when Jesus went to Calvary?



PG. 70: "Therefore, continues Paul: 'I do not nullify the grace of God; for if justification comes through the law, then Christ died for nothing.'" [Gal. 2:21, NRSV]

Justification - or something else? Note the translation shift UCG makes here, and compare it with others. The KJV, NIV, NASB and Moffatt all replace the word "justification" with righteousness -- and so does the NRSV margin. UCG contends righteousness is defined by the law, based on Psalm 119:172 (as mentioned above) -- so wouldn't this verse contradict that?

The Greek words admittedly are similar: dikaiosis or dikaioma for justification (Rom. 4:25, 5:16 in NIV), and dikaiosyne for righteousness. UCG has a sidebox on pages 26-27, claiming the terms "have a slightly different focus." Yet Paul seems to combine the two in Galatians 2: "....we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law, for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified." (2:16,. KJV)



"For us to be reckoned dead to the law, the law must still be in force."

Does this apply before conversion, or after it? Didn't Paul write if we are "dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus," the result is that "you are not under law, but under grace?" (Rom. 6:11, 14)

An interesting side note here: the index of The New Covenant lists 18 lines of page references relating to the word "law." There's only a bit more than two for the word "grace."



PG. 72/SIDEBOX: "The term 'Sabbath,' 'Sabbaths' and any related words do not even appear anywhere in the epistle to the Galatians."

Yes, but - Paul only uses the word "Sabbath" once in any of his epistles (not counting Hebrews, since its authorship is debated). And what is that verse? Colossians 2:16 - "Therefore do not let anyone judge you by.... a Sabbath day." UCG comes to that next....



"The Greek words Paul uses for 'days and months and seasons and years' [Gal. 4:10].... are totally different from the precise terms Paul used in Colossians 2:16 specifying the Sabbaths and festivals of God."

Yes, but -- consider the entire New Testament, and how the Greek word for "days" is used. In describing the "day of Pentecost" (Acts 2:1), "days of unleavened bread" (12:3) and "Sabbath day" (13:14, all based on KJV), the same word is used as in regular days! In fact, Acts 20:6 uses it three times - once for unleavened bread, the other two for travel and abiding times.

Our study of Paul's phrase revealed something else of interest. The book quotes Galatians 4:10 from the New King James, while the old King James replaces "seasons" with "times." The word UCG accepts as "seasons" here is understood as prophetic years in Revelation 12:14! How can the UCG (and for that matter, most other traditional Churches of God) explain this shift of thinking?

Note also that UCG makes "Sabbaths" plural based on KJV - but that translation says "sabbath days" with days in italics, meaning it's not in the original Greek and translators added it.



PGS. 72-73, SIDEBOX: "Since Paul's readers were from a gentile background, it is difficult to see how the "days and months and seasons and years" they were turning back to could be the Sabbath and other Biblical festivals...."

Perhaps a Jewish-pagan background is what they really had. "Astrological elements were at times infused into Jewish as well as pagan practices." (N.B.C., pg. 1100)



PG. 73/SIDEBOX: "The word translated 'elements' [in Gal. 4:9] is the Greek word stoicheia. What does it mean?"

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance offers this: "Something orderly in arrangement (i.e. fundamental)." The NIV uses "principles" here, as in something basic or elementary. Today's WCG, of course, would warn against using concordances to define words. So UCG goes to a different source....



"The Expositor's Bible Commentary explains: 'It would seem that in Paul's time.... stoicheia referred to the sun, moon, stars and planets - all of them associated with gods and goddesses.... Hence, he would be thinking of a demonic bondage in which the Gentiles had indeed been held prior to the proclamation of the gospel...."

Not in the context of this chapter. "Elements" or "principles" appears in Galatians 4:3, before it appears in verse 9: "We, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world." (KJV)

What did God do in response? "God sent forth his Son.... to redeem them that were under the law...." (vs. 4-5) So were they released from pagan mythology - or from being under the law of God?



"From the context, we see it is simply not logical to conclude that Paul was criticizing the observance of the Biblical Sabbath or festivals...."

Yet isn't the overall context of the book of Galatians dealing with "works of the law?" As The NIV Study Bible notes: "Judaizers.... insisted that Gentile converts to Christianity abide by certain OT rites, especially circumcision." (Barker, Gen. Ed., 1995, pg. 1780). Note especially along this line 2:11-16; 3:3-5, 10; and 5:2-6.



PG. 75/SIDEBOX: "But notice what Luke records in Acts 13 concerning Paul's actions during his actual visit to Antioch.... Paul, as a guest and scholar, teaches in the synagogue (verses 15-41)."

Note verse 39 - where Paul declares through Jesus, "everyone who believes is justified from everything you could not be justified from by the law of Moses."



"If one assumes Galatians 4:9-10 condemns Sabbath-keeping.... why would Paul teach Gentiles and Jews on the Sabbath while visiting the Galatian churches and then, after departing, write a letter reprimanding them for keeping the Sabbath day?"

Ask the WCG! The leaders did that same sort of thing after making the major doctrinal changes of the 1990's. Members were told they would continue to keep the seventh-day Sabbath "for a long time to come" (Worldwide News, 1/10/95) - and within about five years, ministers were being fired for resisting clear pressure from the leadership to switch to Sunday services. I know this, because my WCG Pastor was one of them.



"When they 'begged that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath,' [Acts 13:42] why didn't Paul simply tell them he would teach them the very next day - Sunday - or any other day?"

Perhaps he did! Don't overlook verse 43: "When the congregation was dismissed, many of the Jews and devout converts to Judaism followed Paul and Barnabas, who talked with them and urged them to continue in the grace of God." There's no evidence these preachers left town for a week. Besides, Paul and Barnabas obliged the request of the crowd. If they want to hear more on a Sabbath, why not offer more then?



"If in Galatians 4:9-10 Paul was attempting to condemn Sabbath-keeping as bondage, his actions as recorded in the book of Acts show he was either very confused or very hypocritical."

Perhaps neither one! Perhaps Paul was practicing what he explained in I Corinthians 9:19-20: "I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law." By the way, this is a passage UCG never addresses in the book.



PG. 76/SIDEBOX: "When the apostle Paul said, 'And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law' (Galatians 5:3).... Hebrews [based on 9:9-10] does not say that everything contained in the 'whole law' was temporary."

Note another scripture -- as James uses "whole law" in the context of the Ten Commandments (Jms. 2:10-11). And Paul declares in Ephesians Jesus came "abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations." (Eph. 2:15) UCG will get to this key verse later.



PGS. 76-77: "Paul refers to 'the whole law' in Galatians 5:3.... the law contains the Ten Commandments and many other commands, precepts, statutes and judgments that permanently distinguish righteousness from sin."

OTHER commands? What might they be - and did Jesus abolish those? UCG leaves that statement hanging, leaving us to wonder what they are. But the Greek word for "whole" suggests the entire law of Moses is meant - since it also appears in 5:9, warning about a little leaven leavening "the whole lump" (KJV).



PG. 77: "....'the whole law' contains symbolic regulations pointing to Christ's role in solving humanity's problem with sin.... Yet their observance is no longer required. Hebrews 9:9-10 explains this clearly. Jesus became the sacrifice for sin they represented."

Based on this, if Jesus is "in the Holy Days" as UCG likes to say, are they also "symbolic" and abolished? The Adventists would argue they are.



PG. 78: [Based on Hebrews 7:11-12] "That partial change in the law (not a rejection of the eternal aspect of law itself) included only limited features within the entirety of what was spoken at Sinai."

The priesthood of Aaron was declared in Exodus 28. But in switching back to "the order of Melchizedek," this shows some of God's instruction to Moses at Mount Sinai is adjustable. If this can be, why not other larger aspects of the law?



PG. 79: "(Romans 4:13, NIV). That faith was coupled with and demonstrated by Abraham's obedience."

How do we understand this verse, in the light of verses 2-5? "What does the Scripture say? 'Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness'.... to the man who does not work but trusts God who justified the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness." Yes, Abraham kept God's requirements, commands, decrees and laws (Gen. 26:5; see notes on pgs. 12-13 above) -- but Paul seems to say belief alone was sufficient in God's sight.



"In other places he focuses on remaining justified through continued obedience -- also possible only through Christ."

"Sanctification" is what other denominations (including today's WCG) would call it. Yet UCG seems very reluctant to use that word; in fact, it's not in the 12-page index of the book.



"Paul asks, 'What purpose does the law [its "temporary" and custodial aspects] serve?' In the same verse he answers: 'It was added because of transgressions.... (Galatians 3:19)'"

In the next paragraph, UCG says there's a "preexisting, unchanging law of God" - with "sacrificial and ceremonial laws" added to it. The challenge for the believer is to figure out which is which. (See the note on page 29 for more on this.)



PG. 80: "God's people today, just as righteous Abraham (see Genesis 26:5), must keep the unchanging law of God that defines sin - though it cannot forgive sin."

Which law? Plenty of rules outside the Ten Commandments "define sin" - including the death penalty for a sorceress (Ex. 22:18) and exploitation of widows and orphans (22:22-24).



PG. 82/SIDEBOX: "The Holy Spirit is not a separate 'person' forming part of a 'Holy Trinity.' There simply is no Biblical evidence to support the common belief...."

We found much evidence to support that belief, by putting various clues of Scripture together. This web site has an article devoted to that subject.



PG. 84: "In Romans 2:13 Paul says emphatically.... 'the doers of the law shall be justified.' Justification is not even available to those who refuse to be 'doers' of the law...."

Huh?! Only three paragraphs after this bold statement, UCG adds: "no one can earn forgiveness by 'works' or 'deeds of the law' (Romans 3:28-30)." This sounds (at least) like a contradiction - that you can't be justified without doing, yet you can't be forgiven by doing. In fact, Romans 3:20 flatly rules out being justified by observing the law. (Review our extended notes on pg. 27 regarding justification.)

We've already considered 3:28 in the context of 3:24 and 5:1. But notice what else Paul writes in Romans 13:10: "Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law." UCG would connect this verse with Psalm 119:172, to declare the Ten Commandments binding yet still unfinished. Yet we've seen how disputed the use of "fulfill" and its forms can be.



PG. 87: "In the final judgment.... all who refuse to meet those conditions will be judged as unrepentant sinners and condemned."

The "conditions" mentioned here are personal repentance of sin, and faith in Jesus as Savior and Redeemer. But this section of the book overlooks something, which I fear many COG's gloss over - that Christians will be judged as well. "For we will all stand before Hod's judgment seat," Paul warns in Romans 14:10.



PG. 88: "First, God requires repentance of everyone who seeks forgiveness. Second, He still judges everyone by 'truth.'"

Is this valid? Jesus forgave the sins of a paralytic man, who from what we can tell never uttered a word of confession (Mk. 2:3-5). How interesting that some "teachers of the law" witnessed this and suspected Jesus of blasphemy (vs. 6-7). Would UCG teachers of law be just as skeptical today?



"....most Jews were refusing to accept Jesus as the Messiah.... This made Him a 'stumbling block' to them (Romans 11:9)."

Is Jesus a table? We ask this strange-sounding question because of the first part of that verse: "May their table become a snare and a trap...." If the last part refers to Jesus, shouldn't the entire verse?

Jesus truly is described as a stumbling block to nonbelievers elsewhere in the New Testament (e.g. I Cor. 1:23). But Paul is quoting here from Psalm 69:22, where enemies are persecuting King David. From our review of the word "table" throughout the Bible, it seems the only way to interpret Jesus as a table is to read Him deeply into verses such as Psalm 23:5 and Proverbs 9:2. (Yet as we wrote this, a CCM song challenged us with the phrase: "I am the beggar and you are the table....")



PG. 90/SIDEBOX: "'He who endures to the end shall be saved' (Matthew 24:13, Mark 13:13). The salvation described here is yet future (see also Acts 15:11....)"

Future or present? UCG bases its statement on the KJV - but the NIV says for Acts 15:11, "We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are." It's a present, current condition. Versions such as the NASB, Moffatt and CEV agree with the NIV. Yet UCG is correct to point out in this sidebox that salvation has both present and future elements.



PG. 91/SIDEBOX: [Quoting Rom. 5:5] "Now hope does not disappoint, because the love of God [which I John 5:3 defines as obedience to God's commandments] has been poured out in our hearts by the Holy Spirit...."

Yes, but.... this is another case where UCG often takes one verse using "commandments" as a definition, and makes it The Official Bible Definition. I John 5:3 is a definition, of course - but not the only one. (This also occurs on page 118 of the book.) In fact, the Biblical text quoted by the book here offers another one: "But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us." (Rom. 5:8)



PG. 94/SIDEBOX: "Many Christians believe Romans 14 says that Christians are free from all former restrictions regarding the meats they may eat.... Verse 2 contrasts the person who 'eats only vegetables' with the one who believes 'he may eat all things' - meat as well as vegetables."

Consider verse 5: "One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind." For some reason, UCG only quotes the last line of this verse in this side discussion of meats.

Traditional COG's probably would argue all of Romans 14 deals with meats. But one commentary draws what appears to be an obvious conclusion: "The groups were divided over the observance (presumably in the practice of fasting) of certain 'holy days.'" (N.B.C., pg. 1042)

Note also that the KJV and NASB have "alike" in italics, meaning it was added to the original text. Some in Rome may have considered every day holy: "All days are to be dedicated to God through holy living and godly service." (NIV Study Bible, pg. 1729) WCG agreed with this for a time after the changes of the 1990s, then seemed to back away from this view.

(But hold on a second - who said the real point of this passage involves meats at all? One of my King James Bibles has this heading over the chapter: "Unity in Christ." The Message by Eugene Peterson subtitles this chapter, "Cultivating Good Relationships.")



PG. 95/SIDEBOX: "In Romans 14 Paul uses the word koinos, which means 'common'.... This word, along with its verb form koinoo, is used in Mark 7:2, 15-23, where it obviously refers to ceremonial uncleanness."

Compare translations -- especially for Mark 7:19! The King James ends that verse with Jesus saying, "purging all meats." But in other translations such as NIV, the last part of the verse is an explanatory parenthetical note to readers: "(In saying this, Jesus declared all foods 'clean.')" The NASB, RSV, ESV and Moffatt all agree with that approach. The New King James even mentions it in a footnote! And the modern paraphrase The Message adds: "That took care of dietary quibbling...." Not in the traditional COG's, it didn't.



"'Clean' meats as such aren't addressed in the New Testament...."

Yes, they are -- IF you use the translations we just mentioned for Mark 7:19. As well as the Amplified Bible, New Living Translation, New Century Translation and New Life Version.





"Realize also that, in verses 14 and 20 of Romans 14, the word food or meat doesn't appear in the original Greek..."

That's misleading - because Strong's Exhaustive Concordance shows the word "meat" in the KJV translation of Romans 14:20 means "food." And we should consider the context of the chapter, as "meat" unquestionably does appear in verse 15.



PG. 96: "Each group's eligibility for justification was on the same basis - through Jesus Christ...."

Romans 2:26 is cited here by UCG - but that appears to be a typographical error. Verse 16 seems to make more sense: "This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ...."



PG. 97: "So Paul explains, in Romans 5:1-17, the benefits of being justified through faith. These include.... the 'gift of righteousness' - made possible through a pardon for past guilt and the gift of the Holy Spirit (verse 17)."

While the gift of righteousness is mentioned in verse 17, my Bible refers to the "Holy Spirit, whom he has given us" in verse 5.



PG. 98/SIDEBOX: "In Romans 14:5-6.... the Sabbath is nowhere mentioned here. In fact, the word Sabbath or references to Sabbath-keeping are not found anywhere in the book of Romans."

Then why "esteem" one day above another, as KJV translates verse 5 to explain what some people do? The NIV says, "One man considers one day more sacred than another...." CEV and New Century Version say "more important," while the New Living Translation says "more holy."



"Also, no New Testament writers refer to the Sabbath by such ambiguous phrases as 'one day.'"

Yes, but - check a concordance, and you'll discover James and Peter never refer to the Sabbath in their epistles at all. Neither did John, in his epistles or Revelation after Jesus was resurrected. Is there a message in that omission?



"Notice first that this discussion is about 'disputes over doubtful things" (verse 1). These were matters of 'opinions' (NRSV), which tells us that Paul wasn't addressing issues clearly stated in the Scriptures...."

Some would argue the meat question is clearly stated, in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14 - yet that appears to be a main focus of Romans 14.



"...references to eating meat, vegetarianism and fasting in [Romans 14] verses 2, 3 and 6. There is no Biblical connection between Sabbath observance and any of these things...."

There's not?! Isn't it all part of the same "law of Moses" which God instructed? The Lord gives the standards for clean meats in Leviticus 11, repeated in Deuteronomy 14. (Apparently the church at Rome had some early Adventists, who recommended vegetarian living.) And fasting is commonly thought to be part of the instructions for keeping the Day of Atonement in Leviticus 16 (see especially CEV and Moffatt translations).



"The Expositor's Bible Commentary explains.... 'Paul has in mind a special day set apart for observance as a time of feasting or a time of fasting'...."

Couldn't a "special day" be defined as a Sabbath or holy day?



PG. 99/SIDEBOX: "Possibly members of the church at Rome were trying to enforce fasting on particular days on other Christians.... Paul appears to be setting the record straight by emphasizing that fasting is a voluntary exercise of worship not limited to a particular day."

Don't say "voluntary" on the Day of Atonement - because traditional COG's expect everyone to fast on that day, except for children and cases of special health needs. Would UCG dare argue that fasting on Atonement is voluntary as well?



"The context [Rom. 14:2-6] shows us that some members of the congregation there were eating meat, and others were abstaining from eating meat."

Meat only!? Perhaps not! As we mentioned above in passing, the Greek word for meat in Romans 14:15, 20 is broma - defined by Strong's as "food, especially articles allowed or forbidden by the Jewish law."

We cannot resist quoting the quite direct NIV translation of Romans 14:20. "All food is clean...." to which NASB and CEV agree, and the New Living Translation has "acceptable."



"....Romans 14:14. Rather than using the Greek word used to describe those meats listed in the Old Testament as unclean, he used a word meaning 'common' or 'defiled,' which would be appropriate in describing meat that had been sacrificed to idols."

But compare that explanation with Acts 10:14. There Peter says about an oft-debated vision of animals: "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean" - and uses both words.



"God's Sabbath is a 'feast' day (Leviticus 23:1-3), not a day when one must abstain from eating meat."

That's misleading -- because while the Bible says nothing about "meatless Fridays," Leviticus 23 mentions one "feast" where yeast is forbidden (verse 6) and another where no food is eaten at all (verses 27, 32).



PG. 100: "....like the woman released from the specific law binding her to her former husband, we through Jesus' death may be released from the law's specific requirement of death for past sins."

This statement is based on Romans 7:4 - where the overall point seems to be that we're now engaged to Christ, not the law (note Rev. 19:7)!



PG. 102/SIDEBOX: "Paul, while in Corinth, 'reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and persuaded both Jews and Greeks' (Acts 18:1, 4). This is the context of Paul's actions when he wrote the book of Romans."

Synagogue?! Ignoring the Sabbath issue for a moment, why didn't Paul meet at the Corinthian church? The answer seems to be that he planted a congregation in Corinth around 50-52 AD, based on the converts he gained at the synagogue (verses 6-8). But Paul had a "to the Jew first" approach to ministry - something few Sabbath-keeping Christian groups seem to have nowadays.

Note also that Greeks were at the synagogue in Corinth. What were they doing there? "God-fearers (Gentiles committed to worshiping the one true God) were part of the audience." (NIV Study Bible, pg. 1674)



PG. 103/SIDEBOX: "As the book of Acts shows, regardless of what city Paul was in, Sabbath-keeping was his regular manner or 'custom....'"

Was it - or was the custom actually to preach in the synagogue, based on his "Jew-first" approach in Romans 1:15-16? Keep in mind Paul also reasoned "in the marketplace day by day with those who happened to be there" (Acts 17:17). He seemed to have a seven-day ministry, not simply "Sabbath only."



"He tells them to keep the biblical Feast of Unleavened Bread in the proper manner, understanding its spiritual intent (I Corinthians 5:7-8....)"

Yes, but - is this really an analogy? Keep in mind the context of this comment, which is an adulterous relationship in the church (verses 1-5).



"He instructs them on how to keep the New Testament Passover as a commemoration of Christ's death (I Corinthians 11:23-30)."

Not completely - not in the way COG's keep Passover, at least. Why doesn't Paul mention foot-washing at any point? Only John 13 does that.



"If you accept the common interpretation of the book of Romans, you would have to conclude that Paul instructed the Corinthians [in keeping Holy Days].... and the very next year wrote to the Romans that none of this mattered and was all unnecessary."

Perhaps UCG misunderstands I Corinthians. We mentioned one thing missing in the Passover instructions. But UCG (as well as most traditional COG's) also argues that I Cor. 16:8 proves Paul kept Pentecost. Perhaps he did. OR perhaps he mentioned the day merely as a well-known marker of time - the way COG's schedule and advertise events for "Martin Luther King Day" or "Easter Weekend," yet never really keep those days.

We should also remember the early apostles were "quick-change artists" at times during their lives. God started that in Saul/Paul with his dramatic conversion in Acts 9 - and Peter suddenly became emboldened when the Holy Spirit entered him in Acts 2-3.



PG. 106/SIDEBOX: "'Paul's mention of the dividing wall [Eph. 2:14].... depicting the former separation between Jew and Gentile and the new order created in Christ' (Review and Expositor, Spring 1996....)"

How is this new order created? Verse 15 isn't quoted, but it gives the answer: "...by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations." UCG is still coming to that.



PG. 108: "The New International Commentary of the New Testament: The Book of Acts explains: 'That no Gentile might unwittingly enter into the forbidden areas, notices in Greek and Latin were fixed to the barrier at the foot of the steps...."

Quoting Acts, to justify Ephesians -- or at least a commentary on Acts?! That's what the UCG book does at this point. Acts 15 admittedly deals with a similar issue, but this struck me as a bit strange.



"Setting up that physical wall in the outer court of the temple was not commanded in the Scriptures.

Yes, but.... it had a Biblical basis. See Nehemiah 6:10-13, Psalm 79:1 and Numbers 25:6-8 to find grounds for such a separation.



PG. 109/SIDEBOX: "....intense prejudice against Jewish beliefs and customs.... led to the first great 'falling away' from the New Covenant teachings as explained by Christ's apostles (2 Thessalonians 2:3)."

Were not Old Covenant traditions dumped by the early church - not, for example, belief in Jesus? And weren't these customs given to all 12 tribes, not merely the Jews?



"'....imitators of the Churches of God which are in Judea' (I Thessalonians 2:14).... followed the same spiritual way of life the Jewish Christians practiced."

Does this refer to keeping Holy Days - or to facing persecutions, for preaching to the Gentiles (verses 14-16)?



"A new concept of 'progressive revelation' allowed church leaders to revise doctrine to suit their perceptions of church needs...."

But doesn't UCG do this, too? Members don't have to pay third tithe to the church, based on UCG rules concluding the government takes it out of paychecks already. And UCG doesn't require members to build their own booths at the Feast of Tabernacles.

But then again -- isn't progressive revelation a Biblical concept to some extent? Foot-washing was never mentioned in connection with Passover until Jesus did it. And Jesus Himself went from "The Lord" in the Old Testament to "his Son" and Savior in the New Testament (Heb. 1:2-4).



PG. 110/SIDEBOX: "God's Law is not something that is 'against us'.... Scripture always refers to it being a blessing to humankind...."

Yes, but.... the book of Acts shows the "law of Moses" cannot justify you (Acts 13:39). It is NOT required of some Gentiles (15:24-29). And Romans 10:4 declares Christ "the end of the law" (the book is still coming to that).



"The Scriptures always use exaleipho in reference to wiping away sin, not law. In acts 3:19 Peter uses this word...."

Not exactly. The Greek word is used in Revelation 3:5, in terms of people's names never being blotted out from the book of life. It's also used twice in Revelation to declare "God will wipe away every tear" from believers' eyes in His Kingdom (7:17/21:4).



"The Friberg Lexicon explains cheirographon dogma as 'a strictly handwritten document.... figuratively in [Colossians] 2:14 not as the law itself, but as the record of charges....'"

Wasn't all of the Old Testament law "handwritten"? "The Lord gave me two stone tablets inscribed by the finger of God," Moses declares in Deuteronomy 9:10 (see also Ex. 32:15-16). What was on those tablets? Moses says it was "his covenant, the Ten Commandments...." (Deut. 4:13; see also Ex. 34:28)

As we wrote that last paragraph, we came to a challenging realization. Back in our notes on page 12, we pointed out Moses brought down "the law and commands" (Ex. 24:12) - seemingly two separate things, including the instructions of Exodus 21-23. Yet in Deuteronomy 5:22, Moses said after listing the Ten Commandments written on the tablets: "he added nothing more." Do we have a contradiction here?

We're open to ideas on this -- but consider the Moffatt translation of Deuteronomy 5:22: "These sayings the Eternal spoke to all your gathering at the mountain.... He then ceased, and wrote them on two stone tablets which he handed to me." To say God "ceased" from speaking is a bit different from saying nothing more was added to the Ten Commandments.

But back to the UCG sentence we're quoting. What about Colossians 2:14? Could we assume Paul is talking about the same thing here as he is in Galatians 4:9 and 5:3 -- even though the Greek words are noticeably different?



PG. 112/SIDEBOX: "Paul explains in Colossians 2:17.... mello, translated 'to come,' is a present active participle. It explicitly points to events yet future."

Yet the NIV ("were to come") and CEV ("what was to come") have it completely in the past tense.



"Paul is saying that the Sabbath and Holy Days, which the Colossians celebrated by feasting according to biblical instruction, had been given by God to foreshadow future events - things yet to come."

But compare this verse with Hebrews 10:7-9. Colossians 2:16-17 says the reality of the "shadow" of eating, drinking and holy day keeping "is found in Christ" (NIV). Hebrews says Jesus "sets aside the first to establish the second." And what was the first? "Sacrifices and offerings...." Those admittedly are not the same as holy days. But if Jesus set aside one group of activities, why not the other?



"Even today, most of the events foreshadowed by these festivals are yet to be fulfilled in God's plan."

Yet if Colossians 2:17 says "the reality is found in Christ," doesn't that indicate there's a present time fulfillment -- with potentially a future one as well? (Of course, UCG would note "is" is italicized in the KJV, and argue from there that no verb belongs in the phrase at all.)



PG. 113: "The ideas Paul was fighting in Colosse were not biblical ideas but worldly philosophical ideas rooted in human tradition."

Huh?! Are the points mentioned in Colossians 2:16-17 worldly, or based in Old Testament instructions and customs -- such as "a Sabbath day?"



"In Titus 1:14 Paul uses the Greek word entole for 'commandments' which he clearly labels to be 'of men.' He uses the same word.... when he writes of 'the law of commandments contained in ordinances' in Ephesians 2:15."

Same word, yes - but entole also is used twice in Hebrews 7:15-19. It describes a priest "made, not after the law of a carnal commandment.... for there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof." (KJV) The "carnal commandment" refers here to the rules for the Levitical priesthood -- a commandment of God! (See Num. 3:5-13; Deut. 18:1.) Yet Paul says in Ephesians 2 it was abolished in Christ!



PG. 115: "Paul's use of these words is plain. He uses the word ordinances (dogma in Colossians 2:14 and Ephesians 2:15, dogmatizo in Colossians 2:20) to mean humanly imposed regulations and rules - the 'commandments and doctrines of men.'"

ALL of them?! Ephesians 2:15 follows several verses on circumcision. Was that a "humanly-imposed" doctrine of men -- or really ordered by God? (See Leviticus 12; Gen. 17:9-14.)



PG. 115/SIDEBOX: "....the Jews.... recognize the months by new moons and name these months using agricultural terms."

This box quotes from a book by Chicago religion professor Dr. Troy Martin. But isn't the fourth month on the Jewish calendar named Tammuz -- a god of the Phoenicians (Ezek. 8:14)? The sixth month Elul is "probably of foreign derivation," (Strong's, Hebrew word #435) although Judaism web sites dispute that -- and when the word is not used to name a month (Neh. 6:15), the word means "good for nothing." Similar questions could be raised about the months of Cheshvan and Adar.



PG. 117/SIDEBOX: "The reference to the reputation of the human commandments and teachings in [Colossians 2:23] implies a specific, recognizable tradition that is different than the Christian tradition of the author and his readers...."

UCG quotes Dr. Troy Martin at length again here, about what he calls "syntacically one of the most difficult sentences in the New Testament." At issue: what is Paul rejecting at the end of Colossians 2? Verse 20 says believers "died with Christ to the basic principles of this world...." One commentary says these principles are regulations with "a strongly Jewish flavour, since taboos of various kinds were integral to Judaism.... an appearance of wisdom refers back to food taboos." (N.B.C., pg. 1148)



PG. 118/SIDEBOX: "....regarding the practices of festivals, new moons and Sabbaths, [Paul in Colossians 2:16] said only to 'let no one judge you,' which is quite different from saying these practices are unnecessary or obsolete."

This is a traditional WCG understanding of Colossians 2:16-17, based on KJV. This sidebox goes on to say on the next page that the Colossians "were being judged by a worldly philosophy for how they observed festivals, new moons and Sabbaths...." But who would do the judging? Based on the complaint of Acts 15, wouldn't they be Jewish believers -- perhaps Pharisees keeping traditional "Jewish" days?



"When we read the rest of the chapter, it quickly becomes obvious that other issues were involved. Among these.... ascetic rules forbidding to touch, taste and handle (verse 21)...."

Which means meats - right? Leviticus 11:24 begins a section warning that someone who even touches the carcasses of unclean creatures "will be unclean till evening."



PGS. 118-119: "In the New Testament nomos is generally used for biblical law, especially the Torah (the five books of Moses) either as a whole or in part."

Assuming that's true, then the law can change! Hebrews 7:12 says so (but see the note on pg. 35). And Acts 15:24 in the KJV says people who insisted you "be circumcised, and keep the law" - the nomos - are "subverting your souls!"



PG. 119/SIDEBOX: "As the church expanded from the Holy Land into pagan areas such as Asia Minor, Italy and Greece, it had to deal with pagan philosophies, some with very ascetic beliefs."

This is how the book explains Colossians 2, and especially verses:21-23. But Paul faced other forms of heresy - including "ceremonialism.... strict rules about the kinds of permissible food and drink, religious festivals (2:16-17) and circumcision (2:11; 3:11)." (The NIV Study Bible, pg. 1813) Could some Church of God groups and members be engaged in that kind of heresy today?



"New moons.... were used as the biblical markers of time but never declared to be sacred Sabbaths, nor are they listed among the annual sacred festivals."

This was such a provocative statement that we interrupted our study of this book and wrote an entire article on the new moon issue. For this discussion, suffice to say while that sentence technically is accurate, there's plenty of Bible evidence for keeping new moons -- even now.



PG. 123: "James.... goes on to explain that we cannot pick and choose which of God's commands to obey...."

But doesn't UCG do this -- along with other Church of God spinoff groups? Consider how few of them keep a wave-sheaf offering ceremony today, while arguing other special services listed around it in Leviticus 23 remain binding. We analyze this further in a different article.



PG. 124: "In his second epistle.... Peter reminds us that the Old Testament prophets spoke (and wrote) under the inspiration of God's Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:20-21)."

Yes, there are cases where this happened (II Sam. 23:2, for example) -- but be careful. There are times when people presumed to have the Holy Spirit wrote very condemnable things. One example was King David's written order to put Uriah the Hittite on the front line of battle (11:14-15) -- which was done so David could claim Uriah's wife.



PG. 125/SIDEBOX: "In II Timothy 3:16-17 he writes: 'All Scripture is given by inspiration of God'.... in Hebrews 3:7 he speaks of the Holy Spirit directly inspiring the words of the Old Testament."

Assume for a moment Paul wrote both these passages (but keep in mind our note above about how the author of Hebrews is disputed). Some would call this evidence of a trinity - with "God the Holy Spirit" doing the inspiring, and even speaking.



"Do these passages sound like the statements of a man who taught that the Old Testament was obsolete or no longer necessary?"

Old Testament, no - but at least parts of the Old Covenant, yes.



PG. 126: "Acts 2:46 -- The early Church met daily 'with one accord in the temple.'"

So why not now? Why don't Church of God groups have daily meetings - and in a "temple," not a church building? (See also the note on this page about Acts 5:21, 25, 42.)



"Acts 6:7.... they saw no contradiction between Christianity and their role as priests."

Did the "large number" of priests mentioned in this verse keep that title? If so, why are COG ministers not referred to as priests today?



"Acts 8:26-39 - Philip explained to the Ethiopian eunuch how Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies."

Note verses 36-38 - where the eunuch was quickly baptized. COG's and some other Christian groups contend new believers should NOT be rushed to baptism. But doesn't this example indicate just the opposite?

(In my case with the Worldwide Church of God in the 1980's, I was kept busy with two years' worth of literature which needed to be read -- and by the way, NO recommendation to read through the Bible.)



"Acts 9:20.... Paul 'preached the Christ in the synagogues' in Damascus."

Uh-oh - where did that quote come from? We checked more than a dozen translations online, and that wording was in NONE of them!

Note what the KJV says: Paul "preached Christ.... that he is the Son of God." If UCG is saying this is the gospel, it risks setting itself apart from old-time WCG believers who contended the gospel is NOT about Christ, but about His Kingdom.

Another question about this verse: why don't COG's preach in synagogues today? (See earlier note about pg. 102.)



"Acts 13:42.... 'the Gentiles begged that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath.' If the Sabbath were done away, Paul and Barnabas missed a golden opportunity...."

"The people begged," according to several other translations such as NIV and NASB. But Strong's Exhaustive Concordance indicates the Greek word here is ethnos, referring usually to a non-Jewish race of people.

Yet consider - weren't Paul and Barnabas on a mission to the Jews (based on verse 46 and 14:1)? The evangelists deferred to the custom of their "target audience." I've seen Seventh-Day Adventist evangelists take this in the opposite direction, and avoid holding meetings on Sundays during campaigns.

(Besides, there's evidence from Acts to show Paul preached during the "work week" - in verses such as 17:17 and 28:23, 30-31.)



PG. 127: "Acts 16:13 - In Philippi, Paul met with Jews on the Sabbath beside a river...."

Were they Jews? The NIV Study Bible and some commentaries suggest that conclusion, but no major translation directly says that. So the women could have been from any background.



"Acts 18:21 - Paul departed Ephesus, saying, 'I must by all means keep this coming feast in Jerusalem....'"

Did Paul say that? While the KJV has this statement, most other translations do not. (Even the New King James admits this in a footnote.) And the New Bible Commentary: Revised calls it a "'western' addition to the text" (pg. 998).



"Acts 20:6 - Paul and his group sailed away from Philippi 'after the Days of Unleavened Bread....'"

Thus they kept it - or so COG's have argued for decades. It's mentioned; therefore it was kept. But isn't this a bit presumptive? COG members talk a lot about Halloween, Christmas and Easter today, but they don't keep those days.



"Acts 21:21-26 - To counter false accusations that he taught against the law...."

Isn't this really a Jew-Gentile dispute? Would UCG dare to argue members should take part in purification rituals today? (And note verse 25, which lists the "four simple rules" stated earlier in Acts for Gentile believers to follow.)



"Acts 28:17.... Paul told them, 'I have done nothing against our people or the customs of our fathers.'"

Yet note verse 23 - where Paul declared to crowds "the kingdom of God and tried to convince them about Jesus from the Law of Moses and from the Prophets." He was not necessarily teaching law, but emphasized the Lawgiver.



PG. 128: "John.... repeatedly talks about the need to keep God's commandments in his epistles... 'whatever we ask we receive from Him, because we keep His commandments and do those things that are pleasing in his sight' (1 Jhn. 3:22)."

Keep reading! Verse 23 seems to specify what John means. "And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us." Of course, I John's use of the word "commandment" is a key breaking point of doctrine between today's WCG and spinoff groups such as UCG.



"'This is love, that we walk according to His commandments" (2 John 6)."

Keep reading! UCG cuts the quote off in mid-verse. The second half of it says, "As you have heard from the beginning, his command is that you walk in love."

(Of course, UCG would response to this by pointing to the verse mentioned in its book between the two we've just cited - I John 5:2-3, that love for God means "to obey his commands.")



PGS. 129-130: "They falsely accused him [Paul] of abandoning God's law and his Jewish heritage."

Falsely?! Wasn't Paul maintaining circumcision was no longer required -- in opposition to Leviticus 12:1-3? (See our earlier notes about this topic.)



PG. 130/SIDEBOX: "In Romans 10:4.... Regrettably, most translators render the Greek word telos simply as 'end' instead of giving Paul's intended meaning...."

Let's compare. The same word telos is used several times in the New Testament to refer to an opposite of "beginning." That clearly means "end" in verses such as Rev. 21:6 and 22:13. Paul also uses telos in Romans 6:21-22 -- and the NIV translates it there as "result," the word UCG lobbies for in chapter 10.

The NIV Study Bible takes UCG's side concerning this verse - that "end" should be understood as a "goal" or "fulfillment," as opposed to "termination" or "cessation." It continues: "The Christian is no longer 'under the law' (6:15), since Christ has freed him from its condemnation, but the law still plays a role in his life." (pg. 1723).

On the other hand, the CEV goes completely the opposite way with this verse and declares: "Christ makes the Law no longer necessary for those who become acceptable to God by faith" - putting an alternate rendering of "full meaning" in the margin.



PG. 131: "Notice Paul's rebuttal of the false accusations made against him.... 'I worship the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the Law and in the Prophets.'"

Consider the context. How did Paul believe all these things mentioned in Acts 24:14? In other trial testimony, he explained it involved the death and resurrection of Christ (26:22-23). And we've already noted how Paul taught about Jesus "from the Law of Moses and from the Prophets" (28:23).



PG. 132: "Peter's testimony [Acts 15:7-11] gave proof that God gave the Holy Spirit to gentiles who were not circumcised (Acts 10:44-48)."

At long last - UCG's book finally comes to a detailed look at Acts 15. Some UCG ministers tried to call for an "Acts 15 conference" on doctrine, after WCG leaders announced their major changes in late 1994. They were rebuffed by the WCG executives, who declared that conference already occurred and everything was settled in the first century.

What was the end result of that first-century conference? Acts 15:28-29 appears to be the answer, telling the gentiles "not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements...." What we're calling the "four simple rules" are then mentioned.



"James said nothing [in Acts 15:19-20] about murder, stealing, lying, taking God's name in vain or a host of other sins. By this rationale, should we conclude that Christians are now free to do such things? Of course not!"

Which "other sins?" The New Testament hints at possible confusion about this, even in the early church. Paul told the Ephesians, "Put off falsehood and speak truthfully.... He who has been stealing must steal no more...." (Eph. 4:25, 28) John adds, "....you know that no murderer has eternal life in him." (I John 3:15)

But does this extend to other "fine points" of the law - such as unclean meats and land sabbaths? Didn't synagogues of the time mention those matters as well?



PGS. 132-133: "Notice the reason James expressed for listing those particular prohibitions: 'For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath (Acts 15:21, NIV).'"

But wasn't a new age dawning - a church age, with scattered brethren?



PG. 133: "In that day no one had their own copies of the Bible.... Only the very wealthy could afford any kind of personal library."

Then how did New Testament writers quote from the Old Testament so much? Were the apostles (and for that matter Jesus) physically wealthy men?



"Both Paul and his converts regarded the Holy Scriptures - as taught by the Jews in their synagogues - as the foundation of their beliefs. Thus he did not always have to explain every detail of the way of life these new converts were to learn."

Yet Paul clearly had to explain circumcision to some groups - and based on what we've seen already, perhaps things such as meats and holy days as well. And besides, how new were these converts? If they had no copies of Scripture for their own, how firm would their foundation be? Would they have to attend synagogues and house-churches?



PG. 137: "What Jesus was saying.... He fulfilled all aspects of what the Law and Prophets required, substantiating them...."

If "fulfillment" meant broadening and making full (see our notes on pg. 39), shouldn't believers today be offering even more sacrifices than ever? They don't, of course -- believing Jesus accomplished that once for all time.

But hold on here - is UCG now saying Jesus actually fulfilled the Law and Prophets?! Didn't we note on pg. 39 that UCG maintains these have not been fulfilled, since Jesus has not come back yet?



PG. 138: "The Greek word pleroo, translated 'fulfill' in Matthew 5:17.... Jesus said He came to complete the law and make it perfect. How? By showing the spiritual intent and application of God's law."

Check Bible dictionaries, and you might reach a different conclusion. In our notes on pg. 39, we noted what Vine's Expository Dictionary has to say about pleroo. Which definition is meant in this verse? Vine's is strangely silent on that.



PG. 138/SIDEBOX: "The popular belief that the New Covenant abolishes God's law reflects a misunderstanding of both covenants. God tells us that He altered the original covenant...."

Then why is that original covenant declared "obsolete" in Hebrews 8:13? That's what NKJV, NIV and NASB say, going beyond the simple "old" of KJV. Other translations go farther: the CEV says "out of date"; the Amplified Bible says "out of use and annulled because of age." And the paraphrase The Message declares: "God put the old plan on the shelf. And there it stays, gathering dust."



"There was, however, a weakness, or fault, in the original covenant. That fault was with the people, not with the law."

Hebrews 8:8 is quoted to support this, and most major translations accept the concept of "finding fault with them...."(KJV) But the NIV margin notes some manuscripts word this verse as: "God found fault and said to the people...." - as if the people might not have been the problem. (CEV actually says, "God found fault with it....")

Yet go back one chapter, and you'll discover this: "The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless...." (Heb. 7:18) The context here involves a change in the priesthood - but the new covenant really was introduced with Jesus taking wine at the Lord's Supper in Luke 22:20.



"In the Old Covenant, God wrote the law on tablets of stone. It was external, not part of the thinking and the motives of the people."

Not completely true - not based on Psalm 40:8, where David says to God: "your law is within my heart." (See also our notes on pg. 110.)



PG. 139: "Jesus, by explaining, expanding and exemplifying God's law, fulfilled a prophecy of the Messiah found in Isaiah 42:21...."

Now hold on - what does UCG mean here by "fulfill?" Did Jesus make the prophecy perfect? Did he broaden it, or "complete" it? Was it "accomplished?"



PG. 139/SIDEBOX: "The following passages in the New Testament confirm, either explicitly or by example, that Jesus and the apostles viewed the Ten Commandments as necessary.... Third Commandment.... Luke 11:2...."

Huh?! This verse is from the "Lord's Prayer," where Jesus teaches how to address the Father. But how does that teach not misusing God's name, or taking it in vain?



"Fourth Commandment: Luke 4:16...."

"He went into the synagogue" on the Sabbath day, that verse says - so should believers in Jesus avoid churches and go to synagogues on Saturdays? (See our note on pg. 102.)



PGS. 140-141: "Jesus.... is saying that we cannot diminish the law of God by even a jot or a tittle...."

But doesn't UCG do this? Having spent seven years in that association, I know its rules made a notable change when it comes to tithing. Third tithe does NOT have to be saved or submitted, based on the theory that the government deducts it from paychecks already through programs such as Social Security and Medicare.

(Some people also take UCG to task for not physically building booths during the Feast of Tabernacles, as believers did in Nehemiah 8:14-16. Everyone I knew there stayed in motels for eight days - even though a top minister admitted during the 2007 Feast in Florida that Jews historically leave their booths on the seventh day of the festival, before the Last Great Day.)



PGS. 141: "The scribes were the most renowned teachers of the law - the interpreters of the law, the learned men, the experts.... When Jesus stated that one's righteousness must exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees, this was a startling declaration!"

And yet Jesus frequently showed how wrong their knowledge and interpretation was! So should we pay attention to them, as UCG hints we should?



PG. 142/SIDEBOX: "But Jesus also illustrated through his example that love and obedience must go together."

John 15:10 is then quoted - where Jesus says, "I have obeyed my Father's commands and remain in his love." But the UCG book does not quote Jesus saying verses 12-14: "My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you.... You are my friends, if you do what I command."



PG. 144/SIDEBOX: "A dictionary definition of legalism is 'a strict, literal or excessive conformity to the law or to a religious or moral code.'"

Yet this is the very thing critics accuse UCG and other Sabbath-keeping groups of doing. The law is emphasized more than Jesus, they contend -- in everything from how love is explained to the definition of righteousness. Sabbath-keepers often defend themselves by arguing the definition is faulty; obeying God's law is not legalism, but excessiveness with fine points is.

Notice how Paul describes himself in this regard. "As for legalistic righteousness, faultless. But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ." (Phil. 3:6-7)



PG. 145/SIDEBOX: "However, the law of God remains the righteous standard by which all mankind will be judged (James 2:8, 12)."

By the "royal law," as James 2:8 calls it? Or the whole Bible, from beginning to end? "The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books," Revelation 20:12 says. Many COG ministers have declared these books refer to the 66 books of the Bible. If so, this would include books where the law of God isn't really brought up at all - such as Philemon.

Along these lines: in Deuteronomy 27:26 Moses declares, "Cursed is the man who does not uphold the words of this law by carrying them out." This follows several verses of instruction which go beyond the Ten Commandments. By not following "every jot and tittle" as we've noted above, have Churches of God unwittingly brought a curse on themselves?



PG. 146: "Some erroneously.... assume that Jesus was either opposed to the Mosaic law or was modifying it in some way."

But He did that in some areas! At least that's the way UCG teaches it. Take the way Jesus marked the "Last Supper" before His death. Where were the Old Testament instructions about foot-washing? Jesus "modified" the Passover ceremony, and all Churches of God I know include that modification today. They also pass only one cup of wine, based on the gospel writing - while the Jewish Passover tradition includes four.

And didn't the sacrifice of Christ "modify" the offerings, in the eyes of COG's? They now argue many of the Old Testament offerings were settled through the death of our Savior.



"Jesus was restoring, in the minds of His listeners, the Mosaic precepts to their original place, purity and power."

As if they weren't in place already?! Jesus joined a crowd, by spending Sabbaths in the synagogue - and He went to the Feast of Tabernacles, which based on John 7 apparently had a good turnout.



PG. 147: "God tells us in Malachi 3:6, 'I am the Lord, I do not change....'"

Yet Jesus brought changes! We just mentioned one major change, concerning how Passover is kept.



"Some believe that no Sabbath at all is needed now, that we can rest or worship on any day or at any time we choose."

Worship any day - YES. The women meeting Jesus at His tomb "worshiped him." (Mt. 28:9) When did this happen? On a Sunday, based on verse 1. We have a separate article on this web site devoted to this issue.



PG. 151: "....We have to conclude that the 'Christian' religion has let us down by not holding to the original teachings of Christ...."

Has UCG held to them? Has any Church of God spinoff group met in synagogues? Has any attempted to feed multitudes - or gone out on healing and demon-removing campaigns (Mt. 10:6-8)? As the book admits down the page, "not all churches claiming to represent Christ really represent Him accurately."



PG. 152: "Jesus faithfully taught the written word of the Old Testament. Jesus Christ is consistent, 'the same yesterday, today and forever' (Hebrews 13:8)."

Yet this was the same Jesus who not only changed the Passover ceremony, but refused to join in the stoning of an adulterous woman as required by the Law of Moses (Jhn. 8:3-11). So to simply say Jesus followed every little point of Old Testament law is really misleading.



PG. 158: "Jesus Christ.... explained to one young man searching for eternal life, "If you want to enter life, keep the commandments (Matthew 19:17, NIV)."

Is that enough? The way some COG's explain it, it's not - you also have to stop eating pork, among other things. And they may be right, based on Leviticus 18:5. "Keep my decrees and laws, for the man who obeys them will live by them."

+++++++

Talk about a detailed review! People counseling for baptism and membership in the United Church of God could be given The New Covenant, and come out with a more detailed understanding of the Bible than some seminary classes offer. But when we add up the score from the book, that doesn't mean every detail is accurate. We've highlighted the most disputed conclusions we've found, based on the Bible:
WHERE UCG IS CORRECT WHERE UCG IS INCORRECT
The law is spiritual. The law is the "basis of the Gospel."
The Commandments existed pre-Sinai. All commandments are "everlasting."
Old Testament symbolism was removed. Commandments 3-4 may not have existed pre-Sinai.
Reformation came at Jesus's first coming. Justification is by faith, and works outside the law.
Rituals were superceded by the sacrifice of Jesus. The law about high priests was changed.
The "law of Moses" goes beyond the Ten Commandments. Old Testament law was altered concerning circumcision, the Passover order and more.
God's Law is holy. Not all of the Old Testament is valid now.
The meaning of the Festivals is not fulfilled yet. "Elementary teachings" of the Old Testament emphasized Christ.
Righteousness does not come through law.
Galatians is not about "the works of the law."
The Holy Spirit is part of a trinity.
Repentance is not always required for forgiveness.
I Corinthians 5 is about adultery, not Holy Days.
The Old Testament and Old Covenant are two different things.
Baptism of believers can be done rapidly.
Jesus modified the Mosaic law.
Churches of God fail today to conduct healing or demon-removing campaigns.

We put this in scorecard form for our personal benefit, because we were in the midst of considering whether we could continue to worship with United Church of God in good conscience. Our result may disappoint many people, who want an outright condemnation of UCG. But the association is like life in general, not to mention a wide range of church denominations - it has good and bad things to it.

Our prayer is that this in-depth examination will help you resolve lingering questions you might have about the covenants. The arguments various church groups make admittedly can leave you in a fog -- and it can take time and effort to cut through the fog, to find the truth.

Keep in mind how the Bible defines truth - as God's Word (John 17:17), Jesus Himself (John 14:6) and the Holy Spirit (I Jhn. 5:6). Pray for God's help in sorting everything out, asking for His truth to dwell in you (II Jhn. 2:2). And if you find the church group you attend doesn't quite have its foundation in the truth (I Tim. 3:15), don't be afraid to search for one that's closer to the target. May God and His Spirit lead you every step of the way.

To respond to this article, e-mail the author directly.

< back to www.cg main page

© 2008 Richard Burkard, All Rights Reserved.