Timothy Jay Schwab who is The God Culture has finally responded to one of my book reviews. After nearly four years Tim has decided to set the record straight about my review of Rest: The Case For Sabbath.
This document serves as both a theological and academic rebuttal to the above blog post. The post in question is riddled with doctrinal bias, intentional misrepresentation, and multiple acts of intellectual dishonesty. It not only fails as a fair or scholarly critique but contains elements of personal defamation, libel, and potential religious discrimination.
A theological and academic rebuttal? Hardly! Instead of countering my arguments in depth Tim posted a very shallow bullet point outline. My review of Tim's rebuttal shall follow that pattern.
1. Misrepresentation of Hebrews 4
Claim: Timothy Jay Schwab misinterprets Hebrews 4 and confuses Jesus with Joshua.
Correction: The KJV uses "Jesus" for Joshua, but Hebrews 4:8–10 clearly refers to a greater rest beyond what Joshua provided. The word “sabbatismos” (Hebrews 4:9) is a unique term that means “Sabbath-keeping,” not merely spiritual rest. Timothy's interpretation aligns with this accurately.
Tim interprets the rest in Hebrews 4 as being the seventh day sabbath. But the rest promised in Hebrews 4 is eschatological and not simply ceasing from work once a day. Heb 4:3, 4:6, and 4:11 all indicate belief is the way to enter into that rest. The seventh day sabbath has nothing to do with belief but only a cessation from work. Tim's interpretation of Hebrews 4 does not align with the words of the text. Hebrews 4 is not a sabbath sermon but part of a much larger text demonstrating how the law has been fulfilled in toto.
2. Twisting Paul's Teaching on the Law
Claim: Tim conflates the Law of Moses with the Law of the Spirit, against Paul.
Correction: Tim distinguishes between:
Law of Sin and Death (Romans 8:2, nature of sin)
Law of Moses / Law of God, which Paul says is holy (Romans 7:12)
The blog falsely assumes that Timothy denies grace. In Rest, Tim says salvation is through Yahusha alone and the Law is not a means of salvation, but instruction.
3. Misuse of 2 Corinthians 3 and Galatians 4
Claim: The Law of Moses is the Law of death and bondage.
Correction: Paul speaks contextually of the Law misused for justification. Timothy explains this distinction extensively. Cherry-picking verses from Paul to dismiss the entire Law is eisegesis, not exegesis.
Items two and three go together. While Paul does call the Law of Moses holy he never conflates it with the Law of the Spirit. In 2 Corinthians 3 Paul calls the law the ministry of condemnation and death and opposes it to the ministration (or law) of the spirit. Galatians is all about the purpose of the law which is to lead us to Christ. The law is good and holy because it leads us to Christ not because it is a way of life for us to follow. Citing 2 Corinthians 3 as well as the book of Galatians 4 is not cherry-picking. Paul is very clear that we are no longer under the Mosaic law. That is a constant theme in all his letters. Romans 8:2 says:
"For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death."
The law of Moses does not set us free. It only condemns.
Tim may say he teaches salvation is through "Yahusha alone" but that is not where his system leads and that contradicts other things he has said. He is very clear that faith in Christ alone does not save a person. Did he forget his "Grafted Into the Kingdom" video? That leads us to the next related item.
7. Outright Libel and Character Assassination
Tim has most certainly said "the law is what redeems us" and faith in Christ is not enough, we need to keep the law.
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 at 19:30
The law written by the very finger of Yahuah Himself. The law is what redeems us.
He has also indicated that righteousness comes from keeping the law and not from faith in Christ.
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
If Tim wants to keep the law then he needs to keep the WHOLE LAW (Gal 3:10, 5:3) which means he needs to stop shaving (Lev 19:27), fast more, and a myriad of other things such as bathing after intimacy, not wearing mixed fabric clothing, banning menstruating women from the house, and sacrificing animals. Those are not irrelevant or defamatory remarks they are the consequence of following the law. You have to do it all once you have put on that yoke. Tim is also on record denying the divinity of the Holy Spirit when he says the Holy Spirt is not Elohim and indicates He is a creature.
4. Fallacy in the Use of Church History
Claim: Tim doesn’t know the Church Fathers or that the early Church kept both Sabbath and Sunday.
Correction: The citation of Ignatius used is from the longer recension, widely regarded as a forgery. Tim prioritizes authentic documents and Scripture over manipulated Church history. He also provides multiple quotes of the progress of changing the Sabbath to Sunday and forcing it down the throats of the ekklesias in time abandoning the Saturday practice. That is not just 1 quote but this blog fails.
Ignatius is not the only witness that the Church kept both the Sabbath and the Lords Day. Nobody forced the Lord's Day down the throat of the Church. Saying such a thing just shows how unfamiliar he is with the Church Fathers and the history of the early Church. Oops, wait. Tim has read every source he cites so he is not unfamiliar with the sources. He is lying about them. Or at least he sincerely does not understand them when he forges a fake conspiratorial history saying Satan took over the Church which contradicts the words of Jesus Christ (Matt 16:18 and Matt 28:20).
5. Mockery of Language and Research Method
Claim: Tim uses an English dictionary and Blue Letter Bible, which makes him unqualified.
Correction: Blue Letter Bible contains Greek, Hebrew, and lexicon tools used by millions worldwide. Beyond Strong's Concordance and Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, this includes Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon, Thayer's Greek Lexicon, and Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon. For this blogger to be unaware, demonstrates a lack of understanding on another topic once again. These are not the only Concordances used by The God Culture either which is a misrepresentation as seems to be a consistent pattern. The blog omits that Tim does use Greek later in the book. The critique is meant to degrade, not correct. Let us not pretend.
When attempting to figure out what the word "fulfill" means Tim used an English dictionary instead of going to the Greek. Coming from a man who insists on uncovering the deeper meaning of the English by examining the original languages this blatant neglect of what the Greek means is astonishing. Why would Tim not go the Greek?
Let us take a look at this English word fulfill. What does it mean? Here is what Merriam-Webster 's Dictionary defines...
p.29
I have nothing against using the Blue Letter Bible or any Hebrew and Greek concordance or dictionary. The problem is Tim wrote the following:
“Today, a regular person can go to resources like Blue Letter Bible and become a sort of Hebrew expert legitimately.”
p. 33
That is not true. While Hebrew concordances and dictionaries can help out the layman using them regularly will not make one "a sort of Hebrew expert legitimately.” People who are experts in Biblical Hebrew have undergone years of study and training. Tim is on record calling all those concordances and dictionaries corrupt. Why use books he claims are corrupt? He is also on record saying he is not a linguist nor does he wish to be one. Yet he continues to use linguistics in his books.
6. Distortion of Christ's Fulfillment of the Law
Claim: Tim claims "fulfill" means to set an example.
Correction: Tim discusses "plēroō" and includes both application and prophetic fulfillment. His broader teaching includes the Greek meaning and prophetic typology. The blog isolates one portion early in the book and hides the full context, as is an observable pattern of misrepresentation.
On which page does Tim discuss the Greek word "pleroo?"
He doesn't.
8. Failure to Address Hebrews 7:12
The blog claims Tim ignores Hebrews 7:12, yet Rest covers the priesthood of Melchizedek in connection to Yahusha. The argument here is again misleading. Also, refer to our Mystery of Melchizedek videos and the Biblical Tithe Series which teachings embrace and fully explain Melchizedek in clearer manner than we have ever seen.
The book never discusses Hebrews 7:12 which says a change of the priesthood necessitates a change in the law. In fact Tim says the exact opposite. Hebrew 7:12 indicates the law of Christ is not the same as the Mosaic law. Yet Tim has stated that the law of Moses and the law of Melchizedek are the same which contradicts the meaning of this verse. Here is what I wrote in my review:
Hebrews goes on further to say that Christ is a priest after the order of Melchizedek and not of Levi. That is to say Christ is not a Levitical priest who ministers after the law of Moses. This is important because it means that the law has been changed.
Hebrews 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
Somehow Timothy missed that verse completely. In his exposition of the of the book of Hebrews from chapter 4 to the end he does not even mention that verse. In fact, Tim says:
“He does not say that He changes His laws.”
p. 19
Which is absolutely not true and which contradicts Hebrews 7:12.
So, no he does not address Hebrews 7:12. And the subject is not his video series but this book which the cover says "Bible Proof No Theologian Can Dispute." Maybe he will write a second edition and include a discussion of this very important verse.
9. Research and Attribution Ethics
Accuses Tim of plagiarism from SDA sources but admits he cited them in the footnotes. That is not plagiarism.
Attacks his use of secondary sources while hypocritically quoting Wikipedia and unsourced blog-level commentary.
I did not accuse Tim of plagiarism from the SDA. Here is what I wrote:
Not only does Tim rely on the SDA to do his research but he also cribs several citations concerning the Fathers from an article on the website Detecting Design, run by an SDA minister named Sean Pitman, which he fails to attribute properly by not including the URL in the footnotes.
This is not the work of a real researcher. A real researcher would not rely on a group that has an obvious bias and parrot their talking points but instead he would actually read the Fathers and attempt to understand why celebrating the Sabbath fell out of practice. He would learn Church history from the sources and would not quote-mine secondary sources to prove a point.
The accusation is not plagiarism but using the SDA and others without doing his own research. I was not using the word crib as a synonym for plagiarism but for copying which is not the same thing. If my hip slang is over Tim's normie head that's his problem. Learn to use the Urban Dictionary. It's pretty clear Tim does not understand the Church Fathers. Remember now, Tim has said it is wrong to suggest he has not read every source he cites. So we must assume he has read the Church Fathers as well as Antiquities of the Christian Church by Joseph Bingham which he also cites. Yet he still gets the whole sabbath to Lord's Day history wrong assuming it's a cover-up and subversion by Constantine. Christians were meeting on the first day of the week in the book of Acts and ever since! The SDA and Tim are both wrong. Does Tim even know the history of the SDA? Does he really want to count that group as an authority?
I use Wikipedia because it's a great short hand source. The difference is I am not using Wikipedia as a primary source in a book that I have declared to be irrefutable. There is no hypocrisy as it's all about how Wikipedia is being used. If I were to transform my review into a book then I would not be using Wikipedia. Since Tim thinks Wikipedia is an authority he should have no problem with me citing it.
10. Doctrinal Bias and Sectarian Agenda
The blogger repeatedly attacks Sabbath-keepers, Hebrew roots believers, and those who reject Constantine’s version of Christianity, as he hates them perhaps as much as Filipinos it appears. He openly labels Tim as a heretic, a fraud, and a liar. This is not theological critique but hate speech.
Tim is absolutely right. I have no love for seventh day sabbath keepers or Hebrew Roots believers or any other kind of heretics. I also do not write from a neutral viewpoint when I write about religious topics. I write as a Christian. What Tim believes and teaches is not Christianity in any sense of the word. Tim's mention of "Constantine’s version of Christianity" is completely misguided and historically wrong.
As for saying labelling "Tim as a heretic, a fraud, and a liar" is not theological critique but hate speech, that too is wrong. Christianity is not whatever Tim wants it to be. It has a 2,000-year-old history and it teaches very specific doctrines which Tim rejects. Therefore when Tim teaches doctrines at odds with Christianity he is a heretic, a fraud, and a liar. Has he not read the very spicy theological debates of the past? Does he not know what The Panarion, Against Heresies, or the Fount of Knowledge (third book) are? Is he unaware that the Church Fathers wrote volumes about heretics and called them heretics? I have a whole article about Tim's heresies, why they are heresies, and my own beliefs which can be read here.
Conclusion: This review is not a good-faith theological critique but a malicious polemic aimed at defaming Timothy Jay Schwab and The God Culture. It uses:
This rebuttal is hardly a rebuttal. It's bullet points that don't refute anything I have written. A real rebuttal would include exact instances of where all the above occurred and it would refute them as well as my over all conclusion about the book. The review is not malicious polemic but takes the time to point out where, why, and how Tim is historically and theologically wrong. ChatGPT has also written a detailed chapter-by-chapter analysis of this book to which I point the reader.
This rebuttal provides both necessary clarity for readers and critical legal context should this material be submitted in cases of religious harassment, libel, or cybercrime. On top of this blog, the same individual has published an Amazon review under another fake name — a review in which he accidentally linked and exposed himself [evidence submitted to authorities]. That so-called “review” is nothing more than a condensed version of this defamatory blog — a blatant abuse of Amazon’s platform.
Worse still, this individual takes it to the most reprehensible extreme imaginable: he falsely accuses Tim and Anna of adultery — in writing, repeatedly, over the course of multiple years. On Amazon... on a book about the Sabbath. Let that sink in. We can scarcely imagine a single rational person on this planet who would consider that behavior anything but grossly defamatory and illegal.
This is not critique. This is not theology. This is a personal smear campaign and coordinated psy-op, and it will be dealt with soon.
More to come as needed. We will continue to correct the record,
There is no clarity here. This rebuttal is very shallow and does not deal with anything I have brought up in my review in any meaningful way. Once again Tim thinks my review is libel. I admit I do use mockery when writing about Tim and that is a tried and true style used by many authors. See the writings of Martin Luther and Jonathan Swift. Watch an episode of South Park or The Daily Show or The Matt Walsh Show. Would he prefer I write a boring, soporific article in the style of Henry James?
Furthermore Tim's books and videos are filled to the brim with invective against scholars. The same scholars whose work he uses to buttress his false history. Every other sentence in his videos and books is dripping with, not just mockery, but absolute disdain and hatred of scholars and academia. The vituperation against scholars oozes from Tim's mouth so much that one touch would instantly transform you into a Teenage Mutant Judaizing Heretic. And he dares to tone police me?
As for accusing Tim and Anna of adultery? Well, Tim did marry a twice divorced woman and Jesus says point blank:
Matthew 5:32
“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
“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.”
Luke 16:18
“Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.
Again, the reason this is important is because Tim teaches everyone must keep the law. If he did not teach that abominable, graceless, Christless doctrine then I would never have brought up his adulterous marriage, his beardless face, or his fat gut.
