Download Category: Arnold Kennedy

(THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE GOD OF ISRAEL TREATS
EVERY PART OF THE PLANET’S SURFACE IN THE SAME WAY).

INTRODUCTION

THAT GOD IS NOT A UNIVERSALIST RACIALLY, that is, Scripture does not show that God treats all races equally, has been expounded in the author’s book, “The Exclusiveness of Israel”.

In this paper we will look at the question of land, to see if God treats all parts of the surface of the planet equally. This will lead us on to the Millennial Kingdom. It will be “news” to most Church people that, in the Bible, some parts of the globe’s surface are, or are to be, considered as God’s special property, whilst some are not.

“EARTH” – “LAND” – “GROUND,” ETC.

We will make a start by considering some verses containing some of the words, such as “earth”,”land”, “ground”, “field”, “dust”, “world”, and “people”, which unfortunately have been very well mixed up by translators. Seldom do any of these words mean the whole globe, and the latter two do not normally refer to humanity in general. Let us consider two verses to start with:

Psalm 24:1-6 The earth is the LORD’S, and the fullness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein. For he hath founded it upon the seas, and established it upon the floods.

The traditional view held that the parables of the Mustard Seed and of the Leaven are about the Kingdom of Heaven coming to progressively fill the whole earth is herein contested.

Matt. 13:31-33 “The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field: Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof.

Another parable spake he unto them; the kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened”.

In the parable of the Mustard Seed, it is a “field” in which a man “took and sowed” the mustard seed, it is NOT the whole earth. In the Parable of the Leaven, the leaven is taken and hidden likewise only in the three measures of meal, it is NOT hidden in everything else. The “field” is that of the Israelites, and the meal is what they are given for food.

EARLY IN THE CHRISTIAN LIFE, THE CONVERT IS TOLD SOMETHING ABOUT “The Church”. The word ekklesia may be used, and it may be correctly spoken of as that which is called out. So far, so good, but then the problem begins. Called out of what? The usual explanation given is called out of the world. Fair enough, but what is the meaning of the world? The chapter entitled, Which World Did God “So Love”? was written to show that there are different “worlds” in Scripture, not just the one world supposedly consisting of everyone of every race who is not converted.

Then we looked at “adoption” to show who was adopted from where, concluding that the Sons of God were placed as sons (not adopted) out of the genetic seed of Abraham, through Isaac. We also looked at “strangers”, considering whether or not genetic stock other than Abraham’s seed could join themselves to Israel, and become as Israel by keeping the Law, Circumcision and the Passover. We found that there were different words for “strangers” and showed that this proposition was basically invalid. Consideration of the matter of “seeds” showed that there is no such thing as a spiritual seed, as is commonly presented, and that the genetic seed of Abraham cannot be spiritualised away. We will now see that “the Church” is called out from amongst Israel. In this chapter, “The Church” is placed in quotation marks, because it is commonly used in a way that is un-Biblical. The Greek word translated “church” means a called – out assembly. It is sometimes translated as assembly.

Thayer A gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, as assembly.

THE BIBLE ALWAYS MAKES IT CLEAR that we are all responsible for our actions; that we must reap what we sow, and that in the end we have to give account to God for those things “done in the body”.

2 Cor 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.

But the churches commonly present a conflicting message about this:

A) That what we do “in the body” is what they call “works”, and is somehow irrelevant after being “justified by faith”.

B) That what they call “Satan”[an un-translated word meaning

“adversary”]- is to be blamed for everything bad in this world. This view is not valid! To show this we shall firstly consider the word “Satan”.

WHEN, AS A NEW CHRISTIAN, I heard a Pastor praying that a person might be given wisdom and balance, I had no real understanding he might have meant by “balance”. At that time I thought he was talking only in terms of human behaviour. I had some understanding about physical balance, balanced states of physical equilibrium, about gymnasts needing good balance, of what happens when credits and debits get out of balance, of balance in equations, and even of idioms such as “plans hanging in the balance”, but any thought about balance referring to doctrine escaped me completely. It was a long time before any application of balance to doctrine came to me. This was because I had not been taught about it.

To explain what I mean by “balance”, I will jump ahead to a popular church position held today, and that is to the idea that common experience is more important than doctrine. This may be within a singular church, or between different groups. This position has been strengthened in the popular search for church unity, and also in the inter-faith movement, where the idea is presented that people who have similar experiences of “God” are one in their worship, regardless of doctrinal position. In short, experience and unity are understood to be more important than doctrine. For instance, Protestants and Roman Catholics who experience similar charismatic “second blessings” are supposed to have some mystical unity, (which incidentally, is promoted as being a tool for ecumenism with Rome). Likewise, the New Age, together with most evangelicals, claim a mystical experience of “new birth’ whereby entrance is made by means of a heightened state or stage of consciousness, encouraged by some emotional message.

WITHOUT REALIZING IT, MOST CHURCHES TODAY HAVE FALLEN TO THE WAYS OF HUMANISM, and biblically the humanistic mind is in a sharp adversary state against the ways of God. There can be no excuse for the modern position of the churches because we are told, “Wherefore thou art without excuse, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judges another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest dost practise the same things. And we know that the judgment of God is according to truth against them that practise such things” -(Romans 2:1-2).

Churches may speak against humanism when they are actually practicing humanism themselves. One of the prime features of humanism is universalism, and universalism in one form or another is the popular church teaching today. This is not at all new and we have to be aware that we can easily become adversaries to God by going along with the humanist position. The Bible does not teach universalism, even if the churches try justify themselves by misusing verses to promote their position, they are wrong in doing so.

BELOW IS AN EXCERPT ON THIS SUBJECT, FROM A BIBLE COMMENTARY, which excerpt is typical of most other commentaries. It embodies the traditional doctrine that most churches teach about the Commandments of God as being now set aside. . A typical commentary comment is, “In the NT, however, such provisions for identifying ‘clean’ and ‘unclean’ animals were understood to have been set aside with the coming of Jesus (Mark 7:19; see also Acts 10:10-16)”. At least they are honest enough to say, “were understood” which shows they are not sure. If the argument was sure as is taught, it contains basic flaws, even if at first glance it appears to be reasonable, or even appears to be right.

REV 2:14 BUT I HAVE A FEW THINGS AGAINST THEE, because thou hast there them which hold the doctrine of Balaam.

We find first mention of this doctrine in the book of Numbers, chapter 22, and involved in this doctrine is advocacy for race mixing. Balaam’s doctrine is a subject that is seldom mentioned in the teaching of the denominational churches. But it must be very important if Jesus says He holds it against any church. When Balaam’s doctrine is mentioned, generally it is suggested that holding the doctrine was a matter for that day and age because the pagan morality of that day would have corrupted the church. The subject is avoided because racial intermarriage is now thought to be a good thing, which fulfils the churches’ wrong idea of what the “that they might be one” of John 17: 11+21+22 means. In this chapter, Jesus does not extend His words about oneness to include other than His disciples, and subsequent Israelite disciples, in this oneness.

In His messages to the “churches” in the Revelation, Jesus makes scathing remarks about Balaam, the Nicolaitanes and Jezebel, all of which are symbols of beliefs. We will see that Jesus holds something against every modern Judeo-Christian Church, as well as all cults that hold the doctrine of Balaam.

Jesus immediately carries on referring this matter back to the Old Testament and He goes on to tell us simply just what the doctrine is that Balaam taught:

Rev 2:14 Who taught Balak to cast a stumbling block before the Children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.

THE TERRITORY OF THE MOABITES WAS ORIGINALLY East and Northeast of the Dead Sea, extending from the River Arnon on the South to the River Jabbok on the North, and from the Dead Sea and Jordan River on the West across the plains and foothills into the mountains to the East. Also included were the “plains of Moab” which were across the Jordan River on the West Bank “towards Jericho”. Deut. 32:49, 34:1 and Josh.3:16 all say part of Moab was “against Jericho”, and this is confirmed by:

Num. 26:63 “These are they that were numbered by Moses and Eleazar the priest, who numbered the children of Israel in the plains of Moab by Jordan, near Jericho”.

Now what is important here is that Jericho is on the West bank of Jordan, and thus this part of “the plains of Moab” are also West of Jordan, according to the verses given above. The story of Ruth does not involve anything about the extermination of Moabites (by race) in certain areas East of Jordan, such as is found during Israel’s advance towards their Jordan crossing.

The story of Ruth is placed at about 1322 BC. Before this in about 1406 BC we read:

Judges 3:28 And they went down after him, and took the fords of Jordan toward Moab, and suffered not a man to pass over. And they slew of Moab at that time about ten thousand men, all lusty, and all men of valour; and there escaped not a man. So Moab was subdued that day under the hand of Israel. And the land had rest fourscore years”.

.

IS TRUTH JUST A MATTER OF PERSONAL OPINION? Isn’t one person’s view of ethics just as valid as another person’s? Are not all views, in essence, the same? And does the whole issue of truth and ethics really matter? Does it make any difference? Can the honest seeker of truth decide without accurate data? In our consideration of ethics — the moral evaluation of what is right and what is wrong — we will need to overcome some common misconceptions people hold in this arena of ethical determination.

Misconception 1: ALL TRUTH IS RELATIVE

Personal opinion doesn’t determine reality. For example, I can choose to believe that the earth is flat, but the reality of the matter is that the earth is spherical not flat! I may still choose to believe that it’s flat, but I’m still wrong! Another way of stating the claim that all truth is relative is to say, there are no absolutes! Yet in response to this claim I must ask, “Are you absolutely sure there are no absolutes?” It is humorous to note that the rejection statement — “There are no absolutes.” — is, in fact, an absolute!

Is the statement “All truth is relative,” true? No, it’s impossible since it is a self-refuting statement, one which contradicts itself. It is, in fact, making a statement of absolute truth when it claims, there is no absolute truth!

Some examples of self-refuting propositions would include, “I’m a truthful liar”; “I’m an honest thief”; “I’m a compassionate killer”. All of these statements are false since they are internally contradictory and therefore self-defeating!