The God Culture: What Is Covenant?

Having looked at the definition of faith as given by Timothy Jay Schwab who is The God Culture let's take a look at his definition of covenant. Both faith and covenant relate to one another. It is by faith one is grafted into the covenant. But as we saw previously, Tim defines faith as works which means one has to work, be obedient, to be in the covenant. 

What Is Covenant?

 

FOUNDATIONS

What Is Covenant? (Biblical, non-denominational framing)

Here is the first problem. It sounds like Tim is being neutral. Like he is gung-ho for Sola Scriptura. Alas, that is not the case. His rejection of "non-denominational framing" is really a rejection of the Church. Tim is on record calling the Church the synagogue of Satan and claims he is here to restore the truth. 

The synagogue of satan was installed and their doctrines as what we call the early church today but the true early church was wiped out. 

New Sabbath Series Trailer

Any Statement of Faith or creed from the Church amounts to Freemasonry.

So how then do we govern ourselves? Who do we follow? What church do we attend? Is there a denomination that gets this right?

You will never find denominations in scripture. His ekklesia cannot be broken into such. In our age, there are a Remnant of believers only. It is not 1.5 billion but a few in terms of the population of the world. They are one and defined as keeping His commandments. Those come from the Bible as should all of our doctrine.

Any organization one enters is a creation of men. You will notice just about all of them attempt to boil down their theology into a Statement of Faith or Mission Statement of sort. These are meaningless as any Statement of Faith that does not include every letter of the Word is no such. The origin of such practice is freemasonry as the Bible never says to create a Statement of Faith. You will find every False Prophet comes from the church within and has a great resume and great sounding Mission Statement. That is Pharisaism not Bible. If one can whittle their faith down to a sentence or paragraph, they are extremely shallow.

Rest: The Case For Sabbath, pg. 416

That is all more than a little ironic since this definition amounts to a Statement of Faith. Tim is not only using the scriptures but he is using his own words to explain them. That is not much different from the Westminster Confession of Faith which explains doctrines and provides the Bible passages which prove those doctrines. 

Covenant is the relational framework Elohim established from creation to govern His kingdom, define humanity’s purpose, and restore what was broken by sin. It is not a contract between equals, but a binding oath initiated by Elohim, rooted in His character, promises, and authority.

In Scripture, covenant means:

Elohim binds Himself by oath (Gen 15; Gen 22:16–18; Ps 89:3–4)

Humans are invited into loyalty, obedience, and trust, not negotiation

Blessing flows from alignment; curse from rebellion (Deut 28)

Covenant is always relational before it is legal

From the beginning:

Creation itself is covenantal (Gen 1–2: order, authority, boundaries)

Adam’s role was priest-king stewardship under covenant

Sin is covenant violation, not merely rule-breaking 

Throughout Scripture, covenant is progressive, not replaced:

Adamic → Noahic → Abrahamic → Mosaic → Davidic

All find their fulfillment and confirmation in Messiah, not cancellation

This is partially correct. The covenant God has established with men is initiated by Him. However, man is not merely invited into the covenant. God unilaterally enters into covenant with whomsoever he will, namely the elect. To make the covenant a matter of invitation tramples on the doctrine of God's decree and sovereign election. He chooses whomsoever he will and passes by all the rest. He chose the nation of Israel above all other nations.

Deut 10:15 Only the LORD had a delight in thy fathers to love them, and he chose their seed after them, even you above all people, as it is this day.

Amos 3:2 You only have I known of all the families of the earth: therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities.

Every Israelite child was automatically a member of the covenant God made with that nation. The sign of the covenant was circumcision. Of course while every member of the nation was part of the visible covenant people not all were actually members of the elect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel (Romans 9:6). Meaning the covenant is much deeper than blood or promises of land.

Here is the covenant given to Abraham. 

Genesis 17:1 And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.

2 And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly.

3 And Abram fell on his face: and God talked with him, saying,

4 As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations.

5 Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee.

6 And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee.

7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.

8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.

9 And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations.

10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.

11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.

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

14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

Note that the promise is given to Abraham's seed. Who is that? Ultimately it is Jesus Christ. 

Gal 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

In his definition of covenant Tim has left out Jesus Christ. He has omitted the covenant between the Father and the Son. 

Isaiah 53:10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.

12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

This is called the pactum salutis or the covenant of redemption. In this eternal, pretemporal covenant, the Father appoints the Son to redeem the elect. That covenant is foundational to understanding the Gospel and the covenant of grace. However, this is no place to discuss it as the topic is too immense. See Herman Witsius' two volumes On the Economy of the Covenants for a thorough discussion of covenantal theology. 

The so-called “New Covenant” is not new in content, but renewed, internalized, and written on the heart (Jer 31; Ezek 36), just as the prophets foretold.

Covenant explains why Messiah came, what sin is, what obedience means, and how restoration works.

Without covenant:

The Gospel becomes abstract

The Kingdom becomes vague

Grace becomes disconnected from purpose

With covenant:

The story is unified

Messiah is correctly understood

Scripture speaks with one voice

Shabbat Shalom. Yah Bless.

The end of this definition, that the covenant is necessary to understand why Christ came, is correct but the first part is woefully wrong. Tim says there is no new covenant. There is only a renewal of the old! That's not what the Bible says. 

Hebrews 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away. 

Hebrews 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. 

And if Tim does not wish to listen to Paul let him hear Christ. 

Matt 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Yes, the new covenant is indeed...NEW! The old has been fulfilled and is no longer in force. The entire purpose of the old covenant, namely the law, was to lead us to Christ! 

Galatians 3:23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.

24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

Tim cites Jeremiah 31 in support of the covenant being not new but renewed. However, Jeremiah disagrees with him. 

Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:

33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Tim is correct in noting that the covenant is internalized with the law being written on the heart but that only undermines his contention that it is renewed. The old covenant was with ONE NATION, Israel. Yes, gentiles could be grafted in but the covenant was with that one nation only.  The new covenant is with the world, the gentiles, all those whom Christ has elected to salvation and who he will graft into Himself by regenerating them, drawing them, and giving them the gift of faith to believe the promises. But Tim teaches we are to keep the law and the measure of our law keeping is what grafts us into Christ, makes us righteous, and keeps us in covenant with Him. 

20:05 For us to not keep his law, uh-oh here it comes, is also to not love Him. As if we love Him what do we do? John 15, keep my commandments. Even in revelation what are they found doing at the very end the end times remnant? Keeping His commandments, His law.  Do we love him? This is a covenant folks and it is  the way it works. See that's the way he defines this. It's a covenant relationship. This is intimacy with the Creator.  He loves you that much. He wants to be intimate with you in relationship. Are we in relationship with Him or not?

Sabbath Series: Part 3B. Messiah Kept the Sabbath.

Thus law keeping is the essence of the covenant according to Tim. 

A more Biblical definition of the covenant is to be found in the Westminster Confession of faith. 

I. The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto him as their Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of him, as their blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God’s part, which he hath been pleased to express by way of covenant.

II. The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam, and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.

III. Man by his fall having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace: wherein he freely offered unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto life, his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe.

IV. This covenant of grace is frequently set forth in the Scripture by the name of a testament, in reference to the death of Jesus Christ, the testator, and to the everlasting inheritance, with all things belonging to it, therein bequeathed.

V. This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the gospel: under the law it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all fore-signifying Christ to come, which were for that time sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation, and is called the Old Testament.

VI. Under the gospel, when Christ the substance was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed, are the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper; which, though fewer in number, and administered with more simplicity and less outward glory, yet in them it is held forth in more fullness, evidence, and spiritual efficacy, to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles; and is called the New Testament. There are not, therefore, two covenants of grace differing in substance, but one and the same under various dispensations.

https://thewestminsterstandard.org/the-westminster-confession/#Chapter%20VII

There are only two covenants of God made with man. One is the covenant of works made in the Garden of Eden which Adam broke when he ate the forbidden fruit. Because Adam is our federal head all men are subject to this covenant and its penalty which is death. The second is the covenant of grace made to all of God's elect people through faith in Christ. This covenant was administered differently in times past but is now revealed in its final form under Jesus Christ. All of the law including the sacrifices and ordinances pointed to Him and are now fulfilled and abrogated. 

Tim's definition of covenant is not Biblical at all. It leads one away from trust and faith in the promises of God to trust in one's own works instead. It also presents a false view of the new covenant as being a renewal of the old. Tim’s covenant is actually a repackaged Covenant of Works. Ultimately there is nothing but heresy in this definition. The fact that it sounds good on its face is what makes this poisoned apple so dangerous. 

The God Culture: What Is Faith - Biblically?

Timothy Jay Schwab who is The God Culture has been posting the definitions of what he considers to be foundational doctrines. What is the Sabbath, what is Israel, what is the Gospel? But in this article I shall dissect his definition of faith. 

What Is Faith?

FOUNDATIONS

What Is Faith—Biblically?

Faith in Scripture is not optimism, emotion, or mental agreement.

Biblical faith is trust proven by obedience.

The debate of faith versus works is one that has raged since the time of Christ. But Tim is the only person I know who has defined faith AS works! For Tim faith isn't just trust, it is trust proven by obedience. Trust in what? He does not say. Obedience to what? Well, Tim is very adamant in his teachings it is obedience to the law.  

From the beginning, faith was never defined by words alone.

Genesis 15:6 (KJV)

And he believed in Yahuah; and he counted it to him for righteousness.

Abram’s faith was credited as righteousness before Sinai, before Israel, and before any national identity. Faith was already covenantal—anchored in trust and submission to Yahuah. 

The prophets affirmed the same definition:

Habakkuk 2:4 (KJV)

The just shall live by his faith.

Faith is not static belief.

It is something one lives.

Now, this may seem orthodox but it is not. Tim does not actually believe faith makes anyone righteous. Abraham was righteous because he kept the law. 

16:44 Abraham kept the law and the sabbath. And so did Isaac and Jacob.  I mean how can they be called righteous if there was no law by which they could be judged as righteous? The very notion is ridiculous from the start.

Sabbath Series: Introduction Commentary Only

What law you might ask? Why the very law which came 430 years after the promise given to Abraham (Galatians 3:17) and was revealed on Sinai to Moses. Tim gets this doctrine from Jubilees which says the patriarchs kept that same law before it was revealed. In fact, the law is what redeems us!

19:30 So this is another example that we aren't to just have faith in Yahusha. That’s not enough. That’s not it.  No, no, no, no. We are to keep His commandments.

Sabbath Series: Part 5: The End Times Sabbath

40:11 The law is what redeems us.

The Law of Sin and Death. What is it? NOT The Law of Moses! WHAT DID PAUL SAY?"

So, any notion of faith Tim has necessarily includes law keeping.  

Scripture then defines faith clearly—not as imagination, but as confidence that results in action:

Hebrews 11:1 (KJV)

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Hebrews 11 does not praise belief without action. Every example acts, obeys, builds, leaves, offers, or endures. Faith is demonstrated by movement in alignment with Yahuah’s will.

James makes this unmistakable:

James 2:17 (KJV)

Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

Biblically, works do not replace faith—they reveal it. Obedience does not compete with faith—it confirms it.

Faith is action affirmed in Paul (whom James never rebuked but agreed) who said:

Ephesians 2:10 (KJV)

Created in Yahusha unto good works... that we should walk in them (act).

James 2:17 (KJV)

But faith which worketh by love.

Paul. James and all the Apostles agreed on this.

Yahusha taught the same reality:

John 5:19 (KJV)

The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do…

Faith follows.

Faith listens.

Faith obeys.

The Biblical Conclusion

Faith is not intellectual assent.

Faith is not inherited.

Faith is not claimed by title, nor by saying a prayer alone.

Faith is covenant trust expressed through obedience.

This section is not much different from the Roman Catholics or the Eastern Orthodox who teach that faith is best defined as faithfulness which is expressed through works. All three (Tim, the RC, and the EO) make the category error of confusing saving faith which justifies versus sanctification which is the natural outworking of our saving faith. I don't believe I have ever heard Tim discuss the doctrine of justification. 

Tim has not defined faith Biblically at all. More importantly he has not even discussed the OBJECT of faith which is Jesus Christ. Why would he do omit something so important? He has only discussed the results of faith, presumably in Christ. He also appears to think that anyone can exercise faith by being obedient. Has he forgotten that all men are dead in sins, objects of wrath, blinded in their minds, not seeking God, and cannot come to Jesus Christ on their own? Jesus Himself said no man can come to Him! 

John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. 

No man can come to Christ except he is drawn by and it is GIVEN UNTO HIM of the Father. That is because man is dead in sins. We need to be regenerated or quickened. And then faith is GIVEN TO US. Faith is a gift, it is not a work or something we produce. 

Ephesians 2:5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)

6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:

7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.

8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

Ephesians 2 is a great chapter about faith and yet Tim only cited verse 10 about good works. He has purposefully left out all the crucial information about that faith which he is attempting to define Biblically. 

Let's take a look at two documents that do define faith Biblically. The first is the Canons of Dort, Heads 3/4 Article 14. 

In this way, therefore, faith is a gift of God, not in the sense that it is offered by God for people to choose, but that it is in actual fact bestowed on them, breathed and infused into them. Nor is it a gift in the sense that God bestows only the potential to believe, but then awaits assent—the act of believing—by human choice; rather, it is a gift in the sense that God who works both willing and acting and, indeed, works all things in all people and produces in them both the will to believe and the belief itself.

https://www.crcna.org/welcome/beliefs/confessions/canons-dort#toc-the-third-and-fourth-main-points-of-doctrine

The second is Article 14 of the Westminster Confession of Faith.

1. The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts, and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word, by which also, and by the administration of the sacraments, and prayer, it is increased and strengthened.

2. By this faith, a Christian believeth to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word, for the authority of God himself speaking therein; and acteth differently upon that which each particular passage thereof containeth; yielding obedience to the commands, trembling at the threatenings, and embracing the promises of God for this life, and that which is to come. But the principal acts of saving accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace.

3. This faith is different in degrees, weak or strong; may be often and many ways assailed and weakened, but gets the victory; growing up in many to the attainment of a full assurance through Christ, who is both the author and finisher of our faith.

https://thewestminsterstandard.org/the-westminster-confession/#Chapter%20XIV

Both of those definitions are Biblical and say the same thing. Namely, faith is a gift worked in our hearts by the Holy Spirit. 

In his definition Tim refers to Hebrews 11. But after listing all the many great men of faith and their deeds Paul says:

Hebrews 12:1 Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us,

2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

The WCF notes that by faith we do yield obedience but the principal acts of faith consist not in obedience but in "accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace." This faith is worked in us fully by Christ who is the author and finisher of our faith.  That is a far cry from the doctrine Tim has proposed which lacks an object in which faith is to trust.

Tim's followers will of course drink his definition of faith quite gladly and even those who know him not yet stumble upon it might say amen. But Tim's doctrine of faith betrays an erroneous theology, Christology, anthropology, and soteriology. Man is dead in sins, God must regenerate him and draw Him to Christ, and the Spirit works faith in man so that he is born again and can believe in the good news Christ brings. That is the Biblical definition of faith. Tim's definition of faith, which has not Christ for its object, robs the believer of assurance because it makes salvation dependent on the quality of their own "proven obedience" rather than the finished work of Christ.

The God Culture: AI Debunks Bethabara: Where the New Testament Truly Begins

Timothy Jay Schwab who is The God Culture is set to release a new book about the origins of the early Church. The title is Bethabara: Where the New Testament Truly Begins: The Priesthood in Exile, the Wilderness Gospel, and the True Origins of the Early Church. 

Bethabara

This book is very obviously a distillation of all his teachings about the Dead Sea Scrolls, John the Baptist, and the Qumran community. Tim claims it will be the most academically rigorous book he has yet published. 

This is the most academically rigorous, carefully sourced, and spiritually confronting work we have ever released.

https://www.youtube.com/post/UgkxhdbDjazhGTCOYkOBVQ3SqX9XgjEIYSOc

That remains to be seen but judging by all the videos he has published on the topic, and which have been thoroughly debunked on this blog, it will not hold up to scrutiny.

This book features a new co-author named Paul Spitz. He refers to Tim as being "brilliant."

Facebook 

More brilliant work by my friend Tim Schwab from The God Culture - Original. 

Just wait for what we have cooking for 2026…

It goes without saying that Timothy Jay Schwab is by no means a brilliant person. He is a poor researcher and his books are filled with errors of every kind. To come away with the perception that he is brilliant is a loud warning sign telling the world that your judgement is not to be trusted. 

Tim has posted a summary of the book's contents. 

Where did the New Testament really begin?

Not in Jerusalem.

Not at Pentecost.

Not in Rome.

But in the wilderness — at Bethabara.

Bethabara: Where the New Testament Truly Begins uncovers the forgotten priestly, prophetic, and geographical foundations of early Christianity — revealing that the roots of the Gospel do not originate in institutional religion, but in a wilderness sanctuary preserved by a faithful remnant.

Drawing from Scripture, archaeology, the Dead Sea Scrolls, early Jewish sources, and the Gospels themselves, this book demonstrates:

• That Bethabara was a real, identifiable priestly site — not a symbolic or legendary place

• That John the Baptist was not a fringe ascetic, but the final legitimate High Priest of the Zadokite lineage

• That the earliest disciples were formed in the wilderness, not in Galilee or Jerusalem

• That baptism, repentance, and covenant renewal began before Pentecost — and outside the Temple

• That the priesthood described by Ezekiel survived in exile and prepared the way for Messiah

• That the early Church was launched from purity and prophecy, not power and politics

This work challenges the dominant academic assumptions about the Essenes, Qumran, the Temple, and the origins of Christianity — and restores the biblical narrative to its original covenantal framework.

This is not a speculative theory.

It is a convergence of texts, geography, archaeology, and prophecy.

For pastors, theologians, historians, Bible students, and anyone seeking to understand the true foundations of the New Testament, Bethabara offers a deeply documented, Scripture-driven reexamination of where Christianity was born — and why that matters.

The Gospel did not begin in empire.

It began in the wilderness.

It's the same old stuff he has been teaching for years now and which has been debunked in many articles on this blog. A full review of the book obviously cannot be given at this time but the description is enough to inform the reader what Tim will be teaching. So, I ran it through ChatGPT for an analysis. While the analysis had some positive things to say about it the conclusion overall was negative. It is reposted here in full. 

Below is a veracity-focused analysis, separating what is well-supported, what is partially plausible, and what is not supported by current evidence. I’ll evaluate the claims as historians, biblical scholars, and archaeologists would—not whether they are theologically meaningful, but whether they are demonstrably true.

---

1. “The New Testament really began at Bethabara”

Veracity: Partially true (theologically), false (historically as stated)

• What is true

  • The public ministry of Jesus begins with John the Baptist (Mark 1:1–11).

  • John’s ministry takes place outside Jerusalem, in the wilderness near the Jordan.

  • The Fourth Gospel explicitly names “Bethany/Bethabara beyond the Jordan” (John 1:28 in some manuscript traditions).

• What is not true

  • The New Testament as a historical corpus does not “begin” at Bethabara.

    • Historically, the New Testament emerges decades later, with Paul’s letters (c. 50s CE) and the Gospels (c. 65–95 CE).

    • Canon formation occurs centuries later.

  • Even narratively, the Gospels themselves frame Pentecost (Acts 2) as the birth of the Church.

Verdict:

Bethabara can be framed as the inaugural moment of Jesus’ mission, but not as the historical or canonical beginning of the New Testament.

---

2. “Bethabara was a real, identifiable priestly site”

Veracity: Unproven

• What is true

  • Bethabara/Bethany beyond the Jordan is a real toponym preserved in textual tradition.

  • The Jordan River region was associated with ritual purification.

  • Archaeology confirms Jewish ritual activity at several Jordan crossings.

• What is not established

  • There is no archaeological evidence identifying Bethabara as a priestly center, sanctuary, or Zadokite site.

  • No inscriptions, priestly artifacts, or cultic structures link it to an organized priesthood.

  • Scholarly debate continues over where Bethabara actually was (east vs. west of the Jordan).

Verdict:

Bethabara is real as a place name, but its status as a priestly sanctuary is speculative.

---

3. “John the Baptist was the final legitimate High Priest of the Zadokite lineage”

Veracity: False (by historical standards)

• What is true

  • Luke presents John as priestly by birth (son of Zechariah, a Temple priest).

  • The Zadokites were the legitimate priestly line in earlier biblical tradition.

  • Some sectarian Jews (e.g., Qumran community) believed the Jerusalem priesthood was corrupt.

• What is not true

  • No ancient source (biblical, Qumran, Josephus, rabbinic) calls John:

    • a High Priest

    • a Zadokite

    • a functioning cultic authority

  • John never performs priestly duties (sacrifice, altar service).

  • High Priests were appointed politically under Roman oversight—John held no such office.

Verdict:

This claim has no historical evidence and contradicts how priesthood functioned in the Second Temple period.

---

4. “The earliest disciples were formed in the wilderness, not Galilee or Jerusalem”

Veracity: Partially true, overstated

• What is true

  • Several early disciples (Andrew, possibly John) originated with John the Baptist (John 1).

  • Initial messianic expectation forms before Jesus’ Galilean ministry.

• What is false

  • The Gospels clearly show:

    • Discipleship formation primarily in Galilee

    • Teaching, commissioning, and movement consolidation in towns and synagogues

  • Jerusalem becomes central very early (Passion, Resurrection, Pentecost).

Verdict:

Some disciples begin in the wilderness, but discipleship formation is predominantly Galilean and Jerusalem-centered.

---

5. “Baptism, repentance, and covenant renewal began before Pentecost and outside the Temple”

Veracity: True (with qualifications)

• What is solid

  • John’s baptism predates Pentecost.

  • It occurs outside the Temple system.

  • Repentance and renewal movements were active in Second Temple Judaism.

• Important clarification

  • John’s baptism is not Christian baptism as understood post-resurrection.

  • Pentecost marks:

    • the giving of the Spirit

    • communal ecclesial identity

    • apostolic mission

Verdict:

Historically correct, but theological continuity should not be overstated.

---

6. “The priesthood described by Ezekiel survived in exile and prepared the way for Messiah”

Veracity: Theologically interpretive, historically unprovable

• What is true

  • Ezekiel’s vision deeply influenced later Jewish thought.

  • Some groups (possibly Qumran) saw themselves as custodians of priestly purity.

• What is not demonstrable

  • No evidence of a continuous, organized Ezekielian priesthood operating into the 1st century.

  • No direct link between such a priesthood and John or Jesus.

Verdict:

This is theological interpretation, not historical fact.

---

7. “The early Church was launched from purity and prophecy, not power and politics”

Veracity: Rhetorically true, historically incomplete

• What is accurate

  • Early Christianity began as a marginal, prophetic movement.

  • It opposed certain religious and political powers.

• What is omitted

  • From its earliest decades, Christianity:

    • engaged cities

    • navigated Roman structures

    • interacted with Temple authorities

  • Power and politics enter the story very early, not centuries later.

Verdict:

True as a theological emphasis, not as a full historical description.

---

Overall Assessment

Claim Category	Veracity
Wilderness importance	✔ Partially true
John as priestly reformer	✔ Limited
John as Zadokite High Priest	✖ False
Bethabara as priestly center	✖ Unproven
Pre-Pentecost renewal	✔ True
Ezekielian priesthood continuity	✖ Speculative
Church origin narrative	✔ Theologically framed

---

Final Judgment

This work is best described as:

A theologically driven reinterpretation that blends real biblical motifs with speculative historical reconstruction.

It does not meet the standards of historical proof for several of its strongest claims, particularly regarding:

• John the Baptist’s priestly status

• Zadokite lineage

• Bethabara as an institutional sanctuary

However, it correctly highlights:

• the wilderness as a critical biblical setting

• John’s foundational role

• the non-imperial origins of Jesus’ ministry

In short:

• Compelling theology

• Weak historical verification

• Strong rhetorical framing

• Not academically established

The God Culture: The Feasts of Light Book Review

Timothy Jay Schwab who is The God Culture has released a nine-week study guide on how to keep the feasts titled The Feasts of Light. 

The subtitle, Obedience Over Sacrifice, is both brazen and hilarious. Brazen because Tim is openly teaching keeping the feasts without offering up sacrifices and hilarious because this is actually disobedience. The subtitle comes from 1 Samuel 15. 

20 And Saul said unto Samuel, Yea, I have obeyed the voice of the LORD, and have gone the way which the LORD sent me, and have brought Agag the king of Amalek, and have utterly destroyed the Amalekites.

21 But the people took of the spoil, sheep and oxen, the chief of the things which should have been utterly destroyed, to sacrifice unto the LORD thy God in Gilgal.

22 And Samuel said, Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.

It's not clear why Tim thinks this verse supports him in his partial observance of the feasts. Samuel is not saying God doesn't desire sacrifice. He is saying that he does not want a sacrifice he did not command. Saul was seeking to sacrifice animals the LORD had demanded be slaughtered. Had he sacrificed them he would have been offering up strange fire like the sons of Aaron. The point is Saul was disobedient not that sacrifices are unimportant. 

On page 13 Tim writes: 

Partial obedience is complete rebellion disguised as worship.

The irony is thick as Tim denies the necessity of sacrifices in keeping the feasts. He is behaving exactly like Saul. 

The study guide is rather puzzling as Tim does not offer suggestions on how to keep the feasts in the guide itself. Instead the guide acts as a primer on the symbolic meaning of each feast and how Christ fulfills them. Ah, yes there's that word fulfill. It doesn't mean abolish or finished.

2 Ful􏰁lled Does Not Mean Finished

When Yahusha said He came to ful􏰁ll the Law, He used the Greek plēroō — “to fi􏰁ll to completion,” not “to abolish.”

A cup 􏰁filled to the brim is not discarded; it is complete and ready to be shared.

Each Feast 􏰁finds its fullest meaning in Him, yet the invitation to celebrate remains.

“To ful􏰁ll is to illuminate, not eliminate.”

pg. 23

Comparing the work of Christ to filling a cup with water is a horrible analogy. Bringing up the "fulfill does not mean abolish" bugbear is more of Tim's dishonesty. Pleroo means TO FINISH, to BRING TO AN END. He has been corrected on this before and refuses to learn. 

The Greek says fulfill, or pleroo, means "to complete."

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g4137/kjv/tr/0-1/

πληρόω plēróō, play-ro'-o; from G4134; to make replete, i.e. (literally) to cram (a net), level up (a hollow), or (figuratively) to furnish (or imbue, diffuse, influence), satisfy, execute (an office), finish (a period or task), verify (or coincide with a prediction), etc.:—accomplish, after, (be) complete, end, expire, fill (up), fulfil, (be, make) full (come), fully preach, perfect, supply.

Christ completed the law. He finished the law and brought to an end by executing it fully. All the shadows of the law were perfected and brought to reality in and by Him. He is the Passover lamb sacrificed for us, He is God tabernacling in human flesh, He is the firstfruits from the dead, His blood is sprinkled on the mercy seat in Heaven making atonement for us, He sent the Holy Spirit on Pentecost just as He gave Moses the law on that same day, and on it goes as all the sacrifices and all the feasts and all the holy days are brought to their completion and fulfillment in Him. The book of Hebrews is very explicit that Christ completed the law by becoming incarnate and shedding his own blood for us. 

https://thegodculturephilippines.blogspot.com/2021/09/the-god-culture-rest-case-for-sabbath.html

The law is not abolished but remains a schoolmaster to lead us to Christ. 

Galatians 3:23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.

24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

The whole purpose of the law is to lead us to Christ. But Tim would have us all live in the shadows.

3 The Shadow and the Substance

Paul wrote: “These are a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Messiah.” (Col 2:16–17, cf. Heb 10:1)

A shadow proves light exists. We don’t destroy the shadow because the light appeared — we walk in it toward its source.

The Feasts remain the pattern of heavenly realities (Heb 8:5; Rev 21:23). The shadow does not disappear until the source is removed. Heaven is still there.

pg. 23

Sorry, but no. Jesus nailed the law to the cross. We are dead to the law and alive to Christ. 

Col 2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

Eph 2:15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

Hebrews 10:1 also serves Tim no purpose. 

For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

If the shadow doesn't disappear then that means the sacrifices of the law, which were a shadow of Christ, are still to be offered up! But not even Tim is crazy enough to say that. He acknowledges that Christ put an end to sacrifices. However, that just makes his system illogical. There is no partial keeping of the law. We either keep the whole thing or none of it. That includes the sacrifices, the washings, the stonings, and all the rest. 

The New Testament doctrine of the law being fulfilled in Christ and Christians no longer being obligated to keep the Mosaic law, including the feasts, is well known. At this point it's like beating a dead horse. 

The most interesting part of this book is the end where Tim has a detailed worship plan for each feast.  The worship order for Passover is representative of the rest. 

PASSOVER (Pesach .1 פסח )
Evening Meal & Service (Sunset to Sunrise) — Feast Sabbath

(Cooking and Serving Allowed)

Service Elements:

Opening prayer of thanksgiving
Reading of Exodus 12 & the Gospels (Capture Narrative) 

Consumption of bitter herbs as commanded (unleavened bread included)  

Meal with any clean meat (no sacrifices — Messiah is the Lamb) 

Foot-washing (optional, John 13)
Family testimonies
“This do in remembrance of Me” (The original Communion) Close with worship

Notes:

Scripture shows households contributing (Ex. 12:3–4); shared meal is appropriate.

Absolutely no lamb sacrifice — Yahusha ful􏰁lled it once for all. Menu only specifies the inclusion of Bitter Herbs signifying the bitterness of slavery in Egypt.

pg. 64

First of all that is not how God commands Passover to be kept. A sacrificed lamb is the very essence of the feast. To say that Yahusha fulfilled the sacrifice and yet demand the feast still be kept is schizophrenic. The feast cannot be both fulfilled and not fulfilled. 

It should not be forgotten that everything Tim does finds its telos in restoring the Philippines as the most important land in the world. It is in this land that the law of God will be restored in full and that includes the feasts. Here is his declaration. 

Today, we stand as one people — humbled, awakened, and ready — as Yahuah calls the Philippines to restore His ways, His rhythms, and His Appointed Times.

For generations, our nation inherited calendars, traditions, and celebrations that obscured the very Feasts Yahuah commanded for His people. Not in rebellion — but in innocence.
Not in de􏰀fiance — but in inheritance.

Not because pastors failed — but because a strong delusion swept across the earth as Scripture foretold.

But now, the veil is lifting.
Truth is returning.
The ancient paths are being restored.

And the Philippines is rising to answer the call.

WE DECLARE

1. The Feasts of Yahuah belong to His people forever.

Not as rituals, not as burdens, but as celebrations of covenant, identity, and truth.

2. Yahusha is the center and ful􏰃fillment of every Feast — not the abolition of them.

Fulfilled does not mean forgotten. Fulfilled does not mean erased. Fulfilled means brought to fullness.

3. We honor the example of the Apostles, especially Paul, who kept and taught the Feasts after the resurrection.

4. We reject the counterfeits, replacements, and occult mixtures introduced by man-made systems.

We return to Scripture — not tradition.

5. We restore what Yahuah commanded for all generations:

Passover, Unleavened Bread, First Fruits, Shavuot, Trumpets, Atonement, Tabernacles, the Last Great Day, and His Weekly Sabbath.

WE CALL UPON THE NATION

Pastors — to lead without fear.
Families — to teach these truths to their children.
Worship teams — to 􏰀ll the nation with songs of the Mo’edim. Congregations — to awaken to the rhythm of Heaven.
Youth and students — to rise as restorers of ancient truth.

THIS IS OUR DECLARATION

The Year of Restoration has begun —
and the Philippines will rise to restore the Biblical Feasts of Yahuah.

From Luzon to Visayas to Mindanao, from the mountains to the islands, from churches to homes,
from pastors to children —

the Philippines returns to the ancient paths. And the Remnant follows worldwide.

This is our time.
This is our calling.
This is our identity.
This is the Restoration of the Mo’edim.

Let us make this the year the Philippines — as a nation — begins to restore the Biblical Feasts and return to the Appointed Times of Yahuah.

pg. 59-60

This is quite literally Tim's declaration of war against history, geography, theology, and the Filipino people. For Tim to lead Filipinos into keeping the law, especially in partial obedience, is to lead them away from Christ and towards death. The Philippines does not need another phony, false teacher such as Timothy Jay Schwab who is The God Culture.