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. 

The God Culture: Mo'edim Dawning Album Review

Timothy Jay Schwab who is The God Culture and Foundations Echo Collective has released a new album. It's titled Mo'edim Dawning and is all about the Levitical Feasts. 

Mo'edim in the title serves two purposes. 1. It is the word translated feasts in the Bible. It means appointed times. 2. It's Tim's way of signifying exotic theological depth. It's not enough for him to celebrate the feasts. He celebrates the Mo'edim. The problem here is that this ersatz depth is historically untethered. It's Second Temple Judaism without the Temple.

This AI generated album is so milquetoast and repulsive I couldn't listen to the whole thing. It is worse than Celine Dion and I hate Celine Dion but at least she has a soul. The "music" is so bland and even more formulaic and derivative than CCM they should open a new Dove category for worst album of the year. Here is a million dollar idea for singer and musician Timothy Jay Schwab: write and record your own music. Or how about this, Ok Computer but the lyrics are praise and worship. Take a lesson from Radiohead and learn intelligent music can only be created by humans.

The lyrics repeat the blasé message of our hearts are on fire and we are rising up and Yahuah, not God, is great. The majority of these lyrics are about the "singer" and less about the "singer's" deity who is Tim's deity who is the binity of Yahuah and Yahusha. Tim is an avowed anti-trinitarian who thinks the Holy Spirit is likely a creation. The theology behind these lyrics is heretical as the album's purpose is to steer people into keeping the feasts which Christ has fulfilled and which we are under no obligation to keep nor could we possibly keep because they all require animal sacrifices at the temple by a Levite priest.

Probably the worst offender on this album is Happy Birthday Yahusha (Shavout). The incarnation is not a fulfillment of Shavout or the Feast of Weeks or Pentecost as it is known by Christians. Pentecost is fulfilled by the outpouring of the Holy Spirt in the upper room as written in Acts 2. Remember, Jerusalem was filled with Jews from all over the world to celebrate Pentecost. If Jesus was born on Pentecost his parents would have been in Jerusalem. The incarnation is a fulfillment of the Feast of Tabernacles because Christ tabernacled in the flesh with us (John 1:14). The title alone is enough to write this off as heresy. 

Now for the lyrics.

Happy birthday Yahusha our king
We lift our hearts and gladly sing
Born on the feast when fire came down
You wear forever the golden crown
Light of heaven, Word made flesh
We celebrate your righteousness
Happy birthday Yahusha our king
All creation begins to sing

Hallelujah

From dawn till dusk let praises ring
Joyful voices to you we bring
In every heart your love will (allow??)
All our hopes are lifted now

Light of heaven, Word made flesh
We celebrate your righteousness
Happy birthday Yahusha our king
All creation begins to sing

Hallelujah 

With every year we'll shout and (play?)
Happy Birthday Yahusha today
Peace and joy in the air we share in your name
We are filled with praise

I listened to this song four times to get the lyrics right and I still cannot make out two words but this is good enough to show the absolute inanity of these lyrics. Thankfully it's very short. Unfortunately it's also staccato and catchy so it's going to be in my head for a while. 

According to the credits Timothy Jay Schwab wrote the lyrics. 

Is this really the best he could do? Tim has been a "Christian" for four decades and this is the highest praise he could muster for the incarnation? A categorically inappropriate Happy Birthday song? I suppose the theological heft of Hark the Herald Angels Sing and O Come All Ye Faithful are too high a bar for Tim to reach. The opening scene of Life of Brian is more reverent than this tripe. 

Just imagine if this is what the Angels sang when they appeared to the shepherds. Imagine reducing the miracle of the virgin birth, of God tabernacling in human flesh, to a banal Happy Birthday, we celebrate your righteousness. The fact that God became man for the express purpose of being a propitiatory sacrifice is a solemn event. It is not a time to put on party hats and sing Happy Birthday. While Christ was born in the flesh he is eternally God. There is never a time when he was not. The fact that God was born of Mary also means something else Tim rejects. Mary is the mother of God.

39:26 And they do indeed embrace the harlot of Babylon taking her image found in archeology centuries before Mary was ever born and they used that image of the harlot of Babylon in their worship and call her those same titles of the ancient goddess. Mother of God. Well, that's not Mary's title, that's the ancient goddess.

The Final World Power in the 7 Ekklesias of Revelation. The Key. Answers In 2nd Esdras Part 7

Making this asinine claim shows that Tim is completely unfamiliar with the disputes of the 5th century over the nature of Jesus Christ and the necessity of calling Mary the theotokos or God bearer. The title Mother of God says less about Mary and more about Jesus Christ. Mary did not give birth to a human person, she gave birth to the second person of the Trinity who tabernacled in human flesh. The title does not mean she is the source of the divinity of Christ only that the one born from her was God. The Council of Chalcedon cleared up this debate and left the following definition:

https://www.monergism.com/definition-council-chalcedon-451-ad

...begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the virgin Mary, the mother of God, according to the manhood;...

https://www.theopedia.com/chalcedonian-creed

Rather than being a title taken from a Babylonian goddess calling Mary the Mother of God or theotokos is a bulwark protecting the divinity of Jesus Christ. If one cannot confess that Mary is the Mother of God or that God was born, God died, and God rose from the dead, then one does not have a right understanding of who Jesus Christ is.

But let's get even more to the point. The Yahusha being praised in this song is not Jesus Christ. He is a figment of Tim's imagination existing as a binary with his Father Yahuah. The Bible tells us Jesus Christ IS YHWH (John 8:58 and 12:37-41) and that he is one person in a trinity along with the Father and the Holy Spirit. This album is literally a paean disguised as worship to a non-existent deity encouraging people to keep the Levitical Feasts which Jesus fulfilled and can no longer be kept today because there is no priesthood and no temple. Not only that but it's also AI generated slop. A computer cannot praise the deity be he real or fictional like Yahusha. 

This album is part of a larger package which includes three children's books and a nine-week study guide on keeping the feasts. Tim believes he is restoring these feasts by telling people to keep them. However, without a temple, without Levitical priests, and without sacrifices these feasts cannot be kept properly. Thankfully Jesus Christ has fulfilled the feasts and we are no longer obligated to keep them. To insist otherwise is to teach a false Gospel and a false Christ. 

The God Culture: What The Bible Says About Tim's Remarriage

Timothy Jay Schwab who is The God Culture does not believe in salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, to the glory of God alone. Instead he believes that for a man to abide in Christ he must be doing something which is keeping the law. Specifically he is to keep the sabbath and the feasts. A man is not secure in his salvation because he can lose it at any moment if he is not keeping the law. In effect Tim is not a Christian in any sense of the word nor does he believe Jesus Christ actually saves. 

It is this legalistic doctrine which led me to remark that Tim, being married to a twice divorced woman, is in a constant state of adultery and is thus a hypocrite. Jesus condemns marriage to a divorced woman as adultery. Tim did not take too kindly to that truth and he has written a whole article to justify the unjustifiable. Let's take a look at his arguments. 

https://thegodculturephilippines.com/what-does-the-bible-really-say-about-divorce/

The topic of divorce has been debated throughout the centuries. While many sincere believers have wrestled with its implications, Scripture is not silent, and it is certainly not open to endless interpretation. When Moses wrote the Law concerning marriage and divorce, he did not preach flexible theology or moral relativism. He gave clear parameters — ones affirmed directly by Yahusha Himself. 

In recent days, an anonymous blogger has weaponized these passages — not for theological clarity, but as ammunition for personal attacks. This must be addressed. Not because we are concerned with his opinions, but because truth matters — and so does protecting the integrity of Scripture from those who twist it to justify their own sin.

As can be seen this article is a response to me. And no I have not weaponized the words of Christ. I have only used them to expose Tim and his false soteriology. Soteriology is the primary issue here. 

1. Yahusha Affirms Moses’ Law (Matthew 5, Matthew 19, Luke 16) 

Each time Yahusha addresses divorce, He begins with what the Pharisees or people had said, then corrects their twisted version of the Law. 

• Matthew 5:31-32
  “It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication...”
  → Yahusha affirms Deuteronomy 24 by allowing divorce in the case of adultery.

• Matthew 19:9
  “And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery…”
  → Again, the exception clause is clear. Divorce and remarriage are not adultery when caused by the other’s fornication.

• Luke 16:18
  Taken alone, this verse seems hard—until we read verse 17 first:
  “It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.”
  → Yahusha reaffirms the Law of Moses, not abolishing it. 

So what does the Law of Moses say about divorce? Oops! That origin of Messiah's words is negligently omitted from the questionable attack blog. Another example of malicious intent in willful defamation. Yahusha brings us Moses and the Blogger ignore the Son of Yahuah and calls himself the judge... Hmmmm...

This section is completely irrelevant. The issue is not divorce, which Jesus said was justified in the matter of fornication (adultery), but the issue of marrying a divorced woman. If Tim's wife committed adultery he is free to divorce her and remarry as long as the woman is not a divorcee. 

It is interesting that Tim does not cite Luke 16:18. He only mentions it and then says verse 17 affirms the Mosaic Law. Here is the passage in context:

Luke 16:14 And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided him.

15 And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.

16 The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.

17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.

18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.

Note that Jesus says the law and prophets were until John. That means the law and the prophets have reached their proper end. John was born to prepare the way of the Lord, to proclaim the arrival of Jesus Christ. The law stands as a schoolmaster to lead us to Christ and not as a way of life for us to follow. 

Galatians 3:24 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 rejects this doctrine and teaches the exact opposite. 

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?"

He rejects justification by faith in Jesus Christ and says the law is what redeems us. 

2. The Law of Moses on Divorce and Remarriage (Deuteronomy 24:1–4) 

“When a man hath taken a wife... and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement... and when she is departed... she may go and be another man's wife.” 

Moses, under the inspiration of Yahuah, made clear that a woman may remarry after a lawful divorce due to “uncleanness” (i.e., adultery). Yahusha never nullified this law—He reaffirmed its moral integrity and corrected the abuse by the Pharisees, who were divorcing women for “every cause” (Matthew 19:3).

The argument here is that the Mosaic Law allows divorce and remarriage and even allows the divorced woman to remarry. Tim claims Jesus reaffirmed Deuteronomy 24. He quotes it in a choppy manner with plenty of ellipses to hide what the law actually says. Here it is in full:

Deuteronomy 24:1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.

2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.

3 And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife;

4 Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

Moses allows divorce for any reason, not adultery. In fact, adultery is actually punishable by DEATH, not divorce.

Deuteronomy 22:22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.

So, uncleanness cannot mean adultery. 

If the husband grows to hate his wife he can give her a bill of divorcement and send her on her way. True, she can become another man's wife. However, she cannot become a priest's wife. 

Leviticus 21:7 They shall not take a wife that is a whore, or profane; neither shall they take a woman put away from her husband: for he is holy unto his God.

In this verse a whore is equated with a divorcee. Both profane the priest. Tim, as a minister, should take heed to this verse. 

Tim claims Jesus "never nullified this law." That is not true. Jesus overturns the Mosaic Law in Matthew 19 saying the law of divorce for any cause was given because of the hardness of their hearts. 

Matthew 19:3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?

4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

There it is as plain as day. Jesus overturns Moses saying divorce is only permissible in the case of adultery and forbidding marrying a divorced woman because it is adultery. He does not qualify the status of the divorced woman as having been wronged by an adulterous husband. He does not say "whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery except she was put away because her husband committed adultery." It is a total ban. Jesus does not cite Deuteronomy 24 but refers to the creation ordinance in Genesis 2 for this doctrine! This proves the law is not the final moral authority.

Marriage is not merely a legal recognition of the union of a man and woman but an unbreakable, spiritual covenant bond which reflects the union of Christ and His Church.

Ephesians 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.

29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:

30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

This being the case how much more should spouses forgive one another even in the face of adultery? We sin against Jesus Christ every day and yet he does not and never will divorce his Church. He forgives and loves her. Do note that Jesus permits divorce in the case of adultery and does not command it. Forgiveness is also a remedy for broken marriages.

The bond of marriage is only dissolved by death. 

Romans 7:1 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?

2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.

3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

The depth of those verses is beyond this article but they show that Christians have ONE spiritual husband: Jesus Christ. As a woman is bound to her husband so long as he lives and is freed by his death, so we are dead to the law through Christ and married to Him. We are not divorced from the law, we are DEAD to the law and married to Jesus Christ. 

The indissoluble nature of the marriage bond is why Jesus Christ declares marrying a divorced woman is adultery regardless of the cause of her divorce.  

📜 What the Bible Actually Teaches About Divorce and Remarriage

The topic of divorce has often been mishandled—not just by critics, but sometimes even by churches, theologians, and bloggers who cherry-pick verses without understanding their Torah context or Messiah's intent. 

Let’s walk through this properly and Biblically: 

📖 1. The Law of Moses – Divorce Is Not Ideal, but Permitted for Infidelity

Deuteronomy 24:1-2 (KJV)

"When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleannessin her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.

And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife."

✅ Moses permits remarriage after a legal divorce, especially in the case of "uncleanness" (which Hebrew scholars widely agree refers to sexual sin such as adultery or fornication).

Wrong. Moses allows divorce for ANY CAUSE, not just adultery. If this law is still in force today then a man can divorce his wife because he has grown to hate her and not only because she committed adultery. We saw above Jesus tells the Pharisees that Moses gave this law due to the hardness of their hearts. 

📖 2. Yahusha’s Words – Affirming Moses, Not Overriding

Matthew 5:32 (KJV)

"But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery." 

Matthew 19:9 (KJV)

"And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery..." 

✴️ Yahusha explicitly affirms that adultery or fornication is a legitimate cause for divorce.

He is not introducing a new law, but reinforcing the intent of Moses’ Torah—clarifying it against Pharisaic abuse and misuse of divorce for “any reason” (Matthew 19:3).

Wrong! While Jesus Christ allows divorce in the case of adultery he does not affirm the law of Moses. He overrides it, says the law was given because of the hardness of their hearts, and limits adultery as the only reason for divorce. There is no "clarifying it against Pharisaic abuse and misuse of divorce for “any reason”" because the law itself allows divorce for any reason. 

Deuteronomy 24:3 And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house

Moses said you can divorce your wife if you hate her for being fat, lazy, and unable to cook or clean. Jesus forbids this part of the law by referring to creation.

If Jesus really did reaffirm the Mosaic law concerning marriage and divorce then then polygamy remains regulated. 

Exodus 21:10 If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.

But Jesus never affirms this. Likewise, Tim never brings up this part of the law. He is focused on sabbath and feast keeping and ignores most of the other laws such as the necessity of washing after relations with one's wife and the prohibition on shaving. 

Leviticus 15:18 The woman also with whom man shall lie with seed of copulation, they shall both bathe themselves in water, and be unclean until the even.

Leviticus 19:27 Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.

Therefore Tim's legalism is false because it is selective. He does not follow the law. That is why we need the grace of Jesus Christ and why righteousness comes from Him alone. 

📖 3. Messiah Defends the Integrity of the Torah 

Luke 16:17-18 (KJV)
"And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.
Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery..."

Here again, context matters. Yahusha just said that not even one letter of Torah will pass away. He is not abolishing Moses’ law—He is calling people back to its righteous use, not its perversion. Think about. That was the very message John the Baptist was called to preach, a return to the law as lawlessness is the definition of sin (1 John 3:4). A church teaching there is no law is teaching lawlessness. John the Beloved said that is the definition of sin.   

Yes, context matters. Here it is again:

Luke 16:16 The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.

17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.

The law and the prophets were until John. John came to proclaim the Messiah, not to return people to the law. He came to prepare the way of the Lord!

Matthew 3:1 In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea,

2 And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

3 For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

That is basic Bible teaching and Tim, a Bible teacher for 30 years, messes it all up saying John the Baptist was sent, not to prepare the way of the Lord but to return people to keeping the law correctly. And he dares to claim he is not legalistic!

⚖️ Legalism as a Weapon

...the difference between a teacher and a bully. 

The God Culture is not legalistic, but accused as such by an extreme legalist by his own behavior. Hypocrisy! A continued double standard by an imposter whose only interest is to defame and defile. 

Wrong! Tim's teaching is legalistic through and through. It's been documented in his own words in many articles and it is documented in this article once again. I am only judging Tim by his own standards in order to show the weakness of his graceless soteriology. Tim is contradicted by his own theological commitments.

Finally, Tim offers a justification for his and Anna's "marriage."

🛡️ The Truth About Tim and Anna – A Biblically Grounded Union 

Let us now address the reckless accusation made by the anonymous blogger, who publicly labeled Tim and Anna adulterers without knowing the facts—and worse, without any regard for the biblical standards of judgment, truth, or love. 

✅ Tim and Anna’s Marriage Is Biblically Valid 

• Anna was divorced due to infidelity—a matter well-documented and confirmed by experts in Biblical unions. This blogger is not. 

• Tim did not break up any marriage, nor did Anna. 

• Their marriage came after a lawful, biblically justified divorce under the condition Yahusha and Moses both affirmed—fornication/adultery. 

• Thus, they were free to marry in the eyes of Torah and Messiah. And it is a good thing they did. 

📖 Deuteronomy 24:2 – “...she may go and be another man’s wife.”

📖 Matthew 19:9 – “...except it be for fornication...”

📖 Luke 16:17 – “...not one tittle of the law shall fail.” 

If these verses hold true—and they do—then Tim and Anna’s marriage is righteous, and anyone declaring otherwise is bearing false witness and violating Torah themselves.

Instead of justifying why it is ok to trample on the words of Jesus Christ who forbade marriage to a divorced woman as adultery Tim justifies his and Anna's divorces. But that's not the subject. The subject is: is it allowable for a man to marry a divorced woman? Jesus answers resoundingly NO, and calls it adultery. It is also ridiculous for Tim to appeal to Church authorities having "vetted" his second marriage to a twice divorced woman and approving it when he rejects everything the Church teaches. If they are wrong about the Trinity and the nature of salvation, as Tim believes, then he ought not to trust their judgement about his marriage. 

Certainly divorce and remarriage is a very painful topic for many thanks especially to the no-fault divorce laws in the USA and around the world. Millions of people are currently living in adultery because they married divorced women. It is a tragedy. That does not change the fact that those marriages, including Tim's, constitute adultery. Once again, let me reiterate that Tim's adulterous marriage would never have been brought up if he did not teach righteousness comes not from Jesus Christ but from the law and the law is what redeems us. 

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

Soteriology is the primary doctrine undergirding this issue. As a man who lives day-to-day in adultery Tim is in no place to speak of righteousness via the law. One who teaches that righteousness comes through the law cannot dismiss Christ’s explicit prohibition on remarriage without collapsing his entire legalistic system. What he needs is the grace of God. It is too bad that Timothy Jay Schwab who is the God Culture exhibits every trait of a vessel of wrath fitted to destruction.