Chapter 5 is purported to reveal the mystery of
Israel. HWA begins by making an interesting claim with consequences
that are going to be difficult for him to overcome. Difficult, but not
impossible.
Did it ever occur to you that the Holy Bible is
the book of and concerning only that one
people Israel?
(p.159)
If this were true, then how does he manage to
declare that the law given to Israel through covenant applies to all
mankind for all time—mankind who were never a party to that
covenant?
The "shocker" and revelation HWA then
claims to reveal, "not recorded or understood by historians"
and "totally unrealized today by Christianity—even
Judaism" is that Israel (the northern kingdom) are not Jews; not
Jewish. Someone needs to inform Christianity and Judaism about this;
this which is plainly stated in scripture. But HWA is not interested
really in what they know and don’t know, all he is interested here
is in maintaining in the minds of his readers that he is the source of
spiritual knowledge and no one else.
HWA brings up Abraham, and claims it was a matter
of obedience that Abraham was called and worked with. This is true,
but the problem is in how we define "obedience." What we
need to keep in mind is that God said to Abraham, "do this, and I
will do thus and such for you." Abraham "obeyed"
because he believed God. He was not obeying in the sense of having
been given commandments like Israel was later.
HWA then goes on to quote from his book,
The
United States and Britain in Prophecy concerning Abraham, and
that Abraham didn’t stop and try to argue and reason with God over
what was commanded of him. The analogy here is obvious; anyone who
would dare argue and question HWA is obviously faithless, and by
extension arguing with God. To question what is commanded is to
question God. Yet Christians are supposed to prove all things. So the
reader now will try to psychologically accommodate this by proving HWA
is right.
On page 163 there is a carrot dangled before the
reader:
They know that God gave the spiritual promise
to Abraham of Christ to be born as Abraham’s descendant—and
that salvation comes to us through Christ. But—and this will
sound unbelievable, yet it is true—almost no one knows what
that salvation is; what are the promises of salvation we may
receive through Christ; how we may receive them, or when—incredible though that sounds! but that truth belongs in another
chapter.
Chapter subjects didn’t stop HWA from covering
subjects not related to those chapters earlier or even later in this
book, so why does he not do so now? Is he trying to perk up one’s
interest here? He’s setting up the reader to question what they
presently believe concerning salvation so as to better sell them on
his version of salvation. What you might have believed is now put in
question.
On pages 164-165 HWA claims that the promises to
Abraham were "conditional upon Abraham’s obedience and perfect
living." This is drawn from the statement by God that Abraham was
to "walk before me, and be thou perfect."
Earlier, HWA stated that Noah was
"perfect" in his generation(s) because he was of pure stock
genetically. Now we are to believe Abraham was perfect in obedience
and living. If this were true, then wouldn’t it stand to reason that
any infraction of obedience; any infraction of his being
"perfect," and these promises would be voided?
Both the books of Romans and Galatians show that
the promises made to Abraham had nothing to do with obedience to
law;
it was a matter of faith.1 This needs to be kept in mind when one reads
through this book further.
The other interesting thing developing here is that
HWA now contrasts "race" and "grace." The promises
to Abraham’s physical offspring is a promise of race. The promises
of those not of Abraham’s offspring are equated with grace. It is a
tragic use of the word grace, and has dire consequences to the unwary
reader.
On page 166, HWA jumps ahead to the children of
Israel, captive in Egypt, and the calling of Moses. HWA claims Moses
was called because of his training and experience having been reared a
prince of Egypt. In other words, God could not have called just
anybody, and in like manner HWA sets himself up as having been chosen
by God because of his background and training. It is but an
application of what he claims as the duality of scripture, but in
actuality it is just HWA trying to equate himself in like manner to
Biblical characters. He also equates himself as being like the apostle
Paul.
One point to notice here. The probability is
that these people [Israel] were all—or nearly all—of the
white racial strain, unchanged since creation. (p.166)
Any thinking person should be able to discern for
themselves what is going on. HWA tries to make a case for Abraham and
his progeny remaining racially pure, and ignores examples contrary to
this concept that come up occasionally. For example, Joseph’s
son’s mother was Egyptian. (Genesis 41:45)
Through Moses, God put to them his proposition.
If they would obey his laws of HIS GOVERNMENT, he would prosper
them, and make them the wealthiest and most powerful of nations.
(p.168)
There is a bit of exaggeration here. This is not
what God promised. God never identifies this law as the laws of His
government. It is a law given to Israel in order to govern them
as a people, and a carnal people at that. What we see here is HWA
slowly playing up the law so he can convince the reader he is
required to live by this law also. If this view of the author were indeed
correct, Israel would not have had a choice in the matter. There would
have been no "proposition."
HWA now makes several "theocratic
decrees" without any substantiation. This method is common with
him when there is no real Biblical support. When several ideas are so
lumped together, it is easy to overlook them and accept them at face
value.
Up to that time, mankind had been denied
spiritual knowledge and fulfillment from God. God now decided to
give them [ancient Israel] knowledge of his law—his kind of
government—his way of life! (p.169)
Without missing a beat, HWA then continues on and
declares the opposite of this statement in the same paragraph.
He was going to prove to the world that without
his Holy Spirit their minds were incapable of receiving and
utilizing such knowledge of the TRUE WAYS OF LIFE. He was going to
demonstrate to them that the mind of MAN, with its one spirit, and
without the addition of God’s Holy Spirit, could not have
spiritual discernment—could not cure the evils that were
besetting humanity. The nation Israel would be his guinea pig to
demonstrate that fact.
Unless the reader has already experienced life
under HWA, it is unlikely one would see where this is leading. The
logic flow HWA uses is pretty convincing given the information so far,
assuming the reader of HWA’s book has no real background in the
Scriptures.
However convincing the above statement sounds, it
is flawed because it begins with a false premise, and the premise is
cleverly disguised. The premise is that the law of God cannot be kept
without having first the Spirit of God. Other premises are also given
as fact, yet they too are false premises, such as this law being that
which governs the kingdom of God.
So God entered into a covenant with them,
making them HIS NATION. It also represented a MARRIAGE covenant,
with Israel the wife, promising obedience to her husband—GOD.
It was the physical type of the yet-to-come spiritual NEW
COVENANT. (p.169)
In HWA’s
book(let), Which
Day is the Christian Sabbath he makes this statement:
The Old Covenant between God and the children
of Israel made at Mt. Sinai imposed upon the people certain terms
and conditions to be performed: the obedience to the Ten
Commandments. It promised the reward of making Israel a nation
"above all people." The promises were purely national,
and material, for this world. The New Covenant is founded on
better promises (Heb. 8:6), which consist of "eternal
inheritance" (Heb. 9:15).
Once a covenant is signed, sealed, or
ratified—confirmed—it cannot be added to (Gal. 3:15).
Anything appearing beneath the signature is not legally any part
of the covenant. You read of the actual making of the Old
Covenant, and sealing it with blood, in Exodus 24:6-8. And notice
(verse 8), it concludes with the words "the covenant, which
the Lord hath made with you." It was then already made—completed.
By his own admission, once a covenant has been put
in force, it cannot be altered. But through theological sleight of
hand, he tries to add Christians to this covenant. It is legally
impossible, but most people today do not understand the law when it
comes to covenants and contracts.
HWA also points out that this covenant is a
marriage covenant between God and Israel. What is never addressed by
HWA is that God, in the personage of Jesus Christ died, thus ending
this marriage covenant. You cannot be bound to one who has died. In
this regard and how it relates to the law, read Romans chapter 7.
Here was a people of almost clear racial
strain, and the God believing heredity of Abraham, Isaac and
Israel. (p.169)
First off, can we make this claim of the children
of Israel, that they were believing? Not according to Hebrews chapters
3 and 4. So what does heredity really have to do with it? And what of
the implication that those who are not of this strain? Are they
therefore by nature unbelieving?
So again HWA makes the claim that the children of
Israel were superior because of their heredity. But what does God say?
Deuteronomy 7:7-8 "The LORD did not set his
love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any
people; for ye were the fewest of all people: But because the LORD
loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto
your fathers, hath the LORD brought you out with a mighty hand, and
redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh
king of Egypt."
On page 171, HWA goes into a diatribe against those
who, as he terms it, "profess to receive Christ" and are
utterly deceived. They have "accepted a false conversion."
A few things to consider here then:
HWA insists this is part of the "born
again" movement, which creates a red-herring argument, and—
HWA does not inform his readers what a
"genuine" conversion is.
Having been previously ensconced in the teachings
of HWA, I know how easily one can concur with HWA’s logic here, but
it is terribly flawed. What I and many others failed to do was to put
such statements above to the test. HWA connects belief / faith in
Jesus with being born again. The "born again" concept
becomes the straw-man here that he knocks down in order to discredit
salvation being a matter of faith in Jesus Christ, worded here as
"accepting Jesus." HWA never really attempts to define
"born again" and "accepting Jesus." Rather, he
lets inference take the lead. So allow me to fill in the gaps.
If baptism represents a "burial" with
Christ—
Romans 6:3: "Know ye not, that so many of us
as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?"
Then what is coming up out of the water but a new
birth, spiritual in nature?
Romans 6:4: "Therefore we are buried with him
by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead
by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of
life."
But HWA would argue that one is not raised a spirit
being, therefore there is no true "born again" condition.
The reader needs to be reminded that HWA is not the authority for
determining the meaning of "born again."2 He claimed that one
was not born again until the return of Jesus Christ and the
resurrection associated with it. What he did not admit to is how one being in receipt of
God’s Spirit has eternal life now. This concept would only hurt his
system of control.
Another relevant scripture:
John 1:12-13:
"But as many as received him, to them
gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on
his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh,
nor of the will of man, but of God."
In HWA’s preoccupation with race, he makes a
statement about the lineage of Jesus that is untrue:
Jesus Christ was born of the tribe of Judah,
and it was necessary that HE be of the original pure racial
strain, even as Noah was. (p.173)
This overlooks Ruth, who was a Moabite, being part
of Jesus’ ancestry. (Ruth 1:4)
An interesting declaration by HWA:
But—nevertheless, the Old Covenant with
Israel at Sinai was a type and forerunner of the NEW COVENANT. It
will be made with the New Testament CHURCH, which is the spiritual
Israel and Judah (Jer. 31:31; Heb. 8:6, 10). (pp. 173-4)
This is a good example of how it pays to read the
context of scriptures quoted by HWA. Verse 32 of Jeremiah chapter 31
informs the reader that the New Covenant would not be like the old
covenant. Verse 9 of Hebrews chapter 8 makes the same declaration
which HWA also does not cite. These two references totally disagree
with his conclusion that the Old Covenant is a "forerunner"
of the New.
There is one more little item here, easily
overlooked. HWA tells us the N.T. Church is
"spiritual Israel and Judah." This is failing to separate
Israel from the Church.
He declares in the next paragraph that the prophets
of the Old Testament are a part of the foundation of the church, and
seeing as they were under the administration of the Old, and now the
foundation of the Church, it must be the same covenant the church is
bound to. No wonder the author of
an
exposé on HWA refers to his teachings as "a tangled
web." (David Robinson)
To Israel God gave his statutes and judgments,
as well as his spiritual law. But these perfect laws did not,
without God’s Holy Spirit, solve the nation’s problems! (p.
175)
Again, HWA claims the law given to Israel was a
spiritual law, and that they were perfect laws.
Hebrews 8:7 "For if that first covenant had
been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the
second."
HWA tried to claim that the fault lay with the
people, and not the covenant, by citing the next verse that has other
possible renderings than the one he insists on. But the statement here
is plain; the first covenant was not without fault. For instance, much
of what Jesus states in Matthew 5 through 7 shows how the law was
limited, and Jesus’ comments on divorce found in Matthew 19 show
that the easy divorce was a concession in the law made by Moses
because they were "hard hearted"; i.e., carnal.
Love is the
fulfilling of the law, but not human love. It requires the "love
of GOD... shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy [Spirit]" (Rom.
5:5). (p.175)
Scripture does state that the love that fulfills the law is the
love of God shed in men’s hearts. If you truly love someone, you are
not going to do anything to harm that person. What is really being
said here, and HWA has been working up to so far, is that it is the
Spirit of God in man that enables him to keep the law Israel was
unable to keep. He hasn’t come out and said it just yet. First he has
to build his argument and rationale carefully and slowly, sneaking up
on the person’s natural defenses that otherwise would more carefully
examine his claim. What is being redefined here is what it means to
fulfill the law. To HWA, keeping the law is what fulfills it through
this law that he will redefine as the Mosaic law. But keeping the law
and fulfilling the law are two very different things.
For instance, he quoted in this line of reasoning
Romans 2:13 which states that not the hearers of the law are justified
but the doers of the law. If one were not careful, they would accept
this at face value, ignoring the context and the many other scriptures
that plainly say no man will be justified by the works of the law
(i.e., Gal. 2:16, Gal. 3:24, Rom. 3:28, Rom.
5:1, etc.3).
HWA further builds his rationale at the end of page
175:
God revealed his law to the nation Israel. One
of the purposes of this nation was to prove by human experience
that man without the Spirit of God within him cannot be righteous.
There are two ways this can be viewed: Either
God’s righteousness is imputed to the one He gives His Spirit to, or
righteousness comes about by keeping the law perfectly because of the
aid of God’s Spirit. Seeing as he begins his statement with the law,
that is the one he will concentrate on.
On page 176, HWA quotes from his book,
The
United States and Britain in Prophecy4 and makes this claim:
In this central prophecy, God reaffirmed the
birthright promise—but with conditions—for those of Moses’
day!
The "birthright" promise was just that; a
promise. There were no conditions to that promise. Those promises that
were made to Abraham were not contingent upon Abraham’s offspring
meeting any conditions. HWA again resorts to making a statement or
claim in an almost innocent manner, but again offers no proof of his
claim, he just makes the statement as though it were a self-evident
truth. Unfortunately, all too often his followers do not question what
he says, even though they were led to believe they were proving all
things and properly questioning all things.
The conditions for the children of Israel had to do
with remaining in the land and being blessed in the land. If they were
to later be expelled from the land, it did not necessarily void the
promises God made to Abraham, which promises were not based on law and
had nothing to do with law,
but were unconditional.5
Romans 4:13-16: "For the promise, that he
should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed,
through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. For if they
which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise
made of none effect: Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law
is, there is no transgression. Therefore it is of faith, that it might
be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not
to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the
faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all."
Notice carefully that two of the Ten
Commandments are mentioned for emphasis. These were the main test
commandments! they were the test of obedience, and of faith in
and loyalty to God. (p.176)
HWA then quotes Leviticus 26:1-2, where the
prohibition against making or having idols is made, followed by the
statement by God, "Ye shall keep my sabbaths..." where HWA
does not finish the passage of verse two which states "...and
reverence my sanctuary: I am the LORD."
So there are really three "commandments"
here, and not two. But the third is counter-productive to what HWA is
trying to accomplish. He wants to emphasize the sabbath observance
with obedience and faith and loyalty... to God? If it is all about
faith and obedience and loyalty, then shouldn’t "we"
(seeing as HWA makes the case that if commandments were good enough
for Israel, they are good enough for us) be reverencing God’s
sanctuary?
But this observation might get the reader to start
thinking critically about the point HWA is trying to convey. Maybe
these commandments were just for Israel! For how else is one going to
reverence God’s sanctuary?
Page 180:
He [Jeroboam] changed the holy festivals of the
seventh month to the eighth month. There is strong indication that
he also changed the seventh day Sabbath to Sunday, the first day
of the week.
In his book, Which day is the Christian
Sabbath, HWA says matter-of-factly Jeroboam made this change.
Now, years later, he tempers the claim, but still insists it being
highly likely. However, there is absolutely no proof or indication of
this. It is wishful thinking, and it is typical of those who insist on
maintaining their pet beliefs, reading them into scripture. (Read ESN
article: Did
Jeroboam Change the Sabbath to Sunday?)
From the book,
Which Day is
the Christian Sabbath:
So immediately Jeroboam set up two great idols
for his people to worship. He ordered the fall Festivals
(including the annual Sabbaths) to be observed in the eighth
month, at a place in the north of his choosing— instead of in
the seventh month, and at Jerusalem as God ordered (I Kings
12:28-32). Through the rule of 19 kings and nine successive
dynasties, the ten-tribed house of Israel continued in the basic
twin sins of Jeroboam— idolatry and Sabbath-breaking. Several of
the kings added other evil and sinful practices.
HWA makes the case that the promises to Israel were
withheld for 2520 years, until circa 1800, at which time the United
States and England came to the foreground of world dominance. He sees
this as a proof that the U.S. and England are Israel, yet Scripture says
Israel was to be dispersed among the nations:
Amos 9:9: "For, lo, I will command, and I will
sift the house of Israel among all nations, like as corn is sifted in
a sieve, yet shall not the least grain fall upon the earth."
What needs to be considered is the prophesy that
all nations were to be blessed through Abraham, and Abraham is the
father of the faithful (Rom. 4:16; Gal. 3:9), not the faithless, and Israel was faithless.
HWA uses backward logic in order to conclude
England and the U.S. are Israel. These two countries are/were more
powerful and wealthy than any nation before, therefore they must be
Israel. A few simple questions dispels this notion: Is everyone in
America and England of the same ethnic origination? No. Are we to
believe Israel, in being scattered throughout the nations, never
intermarried with other peoples; that they remained "racially
pure" in the process?
HWA then spends much verbiage to persuade the
reader that America and the UK are Israel5, and like Israel, are
destined for a great fall due to their continued disobedience. It is
an easy thing to prophesy doom and gloom. In the early 1960’s, HWA
was claiming that the world then was plunging into a time of famine.
Today, the population is easily double what it was in the early
1960’s, and more people are better fed than ever before.
All this doom and gloom is to come on the British
and American peoples because of their lawlessness.
God has a financial law for our nations. He
says 10 percent of the increase, or gross income of each one of
us, belongs to God for his purposes and his work. (p.190)
No where in all of Scripture are people commanded
to give a tithe of their gross income, or any of their income for that
matter. Tithes were levied on agricultural products and livestock;
never wages. Furthermore, these tithes were for the Levites. Only
through deceit does HWA claim a tithe is required for God’s purposes
and God’s work. It would seem therefore God is unable to accomplish
anything without proper funding.
After the year 1800 we prospered because of
Abraham’s obedience and God’s unbreakable promises to him. But
now having received such individual and national prosperity, we
sin by stealing from God. That has brought our nations under a
curse. We have won our last war. Nothing but troubles now lie
ahead until we repent. (p.191)
It seems strange that God would fulfill the
promises made to Abraham only to remove them a short time later for
the same reason they were withheld to begin with.
There is no shortage of prophets of doom, and all
civilizations eventually have their downfall. Question is, will the
downfall of the U.S. and the U.K. be a result of people not keeping
the Sabbath and not tithing, or might there be other reasons? And what
of other countries? Are they to remain unscathed through all this, or
do they too partake of these disasters destined for Israel?
Colossians 3:5-6 "Mortify therefore your
members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate
affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry:
For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of
disobedience:"
Nothing here about violating the Sabbath or neglecting to send your
tithes to HWA.
By
William Hohmann (former WCG member and graduate of Ambassador College)
Exit & Support Network™
August 2004
Next
to Chapter Six
Footnotes for Chapter
Five:
1
The covenant God made with Abraham was an unconditional covenant.
2
"The Greek word for 'again' is anothen which means 'from
above.' ... One today is born from above by the use of water, which is
the Word of God, and the Spirit, the Holy Spirit, making it real to
the heart." (J. Vernon
McGee, Vol. 4, pp. 383, 384)
3
A brief explanation of James 2:14-28 is covered
here.
4
HWA taught British-Israelism. See ESN article
British-Israelism--True or False?
5
"While any particular generation of Israel could enjoy its
provisions only if they were obedient and could, for instance, be led
off into captivity if they were disobedient, the ultimate purpose of
God to bless Israel, to reveal Himself through Israel, to provide
redemption through Israel, and to bring Israel into the Promised Land
is absolutely certain because it depends upon God's sovereign power
and will rather than man's." (Lewis Sperry Chafer, Major Bible
Themes, p. 143)
Home