NOTES AND EXPLANATIONS.
Note I.
ANGLO-ISRAEL "PROOFS" OF A SEPARATE FATE AND DESTINY OF "ISRAEL" AND
"JUDAH."
The Anglo-Israel theory is based for the most part on the supposition of
a separate history during the Dispersion, and a separate destiny of the
Ten Tribes from that of Judah. I have already shown that the supposition
is a false one, but it may be well to analyse here a few more of the
Scripture "proofs" by which the contention is supported.
The following is from a truly amazing pamphlet, entitled "Fifty Reasons
why the Anglo-Saxons are Israelites of the Lost Tribes of the House of
Israel," a publication full of misinterpretations, wild fancies, and
absurd fables, which are given out as facts of history.
But the reader may judge for himself of the method of this writer, who
is a "D.D.," in handling Scripture.
"The Jews," we are told with an air of authority--
"are one people, the Lost Tribes are another.... The Word of God
clearly intimates that Israel would lose their identity, their
land, their language, their religion, and their name, that they
would be lost to themselves, and to other nations lost. 'I will
scatter them into corners, I will make the remembrance of them to
cease from among men' (Deut. xxxii. 26). 'The Lord hideth His face
from the House of Jacob' (Isa. viii. 17). He was not any more to
speak to them in the Hebrew tongue; but 'by another tongue will I
speak unto this people' (Isa. xxviii. 11). They shall no more be
called Israel, He will call them by another name. 'And thou shalt
be called by a new name which the mouth of the Lord shall name'
(Isa. lxii. 2). 'The Lord shall call His servants by another name'
(Isa. lxv. 15). 'The name Israel shall be no more in remembrance'
(Psa. lxxxiii. 4). 'And ye shall lose, or leave, your name, and the
Lord shall call His servants by another name.' 'Why sayest thou, O
Jacob! and speakest, O Israel! my way is hid from the Lord, and my
judgment is passed over from my God?' (Isa. xl. 27).
"'For a small moment have I forsaken thee, but with great mercies
will I gather thee. In a little wrath I hid My face from thee for a
moment; but with everlasting kindness will I have mercy upon thee'
(Isa. liv. 8).
"In Hos. i. 4, 7 the Lord says, 'I will cause to cease the kingdom
of the House of Israel.... I will no more have mercy upon the House
of Israel, but I will utterly take them away.... But I will have
mercy upon the House of Judah.' Israel is to be called Lo-Ammi, for
'ye are not My people, and I will not be your God' (Hos. i. 7)."
Now let us look for a moment at the references and quotations here given.
The first is Deut. xxxii. 26: "I will scatter them into corners," etc.
This occurs in the song which Moses was commanded to put into the mouth
of the _whole nation_ at the very commencement of their history, which,
besides being a vindication of God's character in His dealings with the
nation from the beginning hitherto, is also a prophetic forecast of
their whole future history. It is the _whole people_, which according to
Moses was to be scattered into all corners as a special punishment for
their apostasy, until such time as the Lord shall turn their captivity
and have compassion upon them, and gather them from all the nations
(Deut. iv. 25-31; xxviii. 64, 65; xxx. 1-7; xxxi. 16-22). This
reference then has nothing whatever in it about a "lost identity."
These forecasts are fulfilling themselves, not in lost tribes, but _in
the Jews_. The second reference, Isa. viii. 17: "_The Lord hideth His
face from the House of Jacob_," is (as is often the case in Anglo-Israel
quotations) a sentence broken away from the context, and has not the
least shadow of connection with "lost" or found tribes. It is an
exclamation of the prophet Isaiah with reference to the condition of
things then prevailing in _Judah_. Because of the wickedness of the
people and its king, God's face seemed to be hid from the people. But
Israel's prophets always looked beyond the present gloom and darkness,
and exercised faith in God even in the most adverse circumstances, so he
exclaims: "And I"--whatever the nation whom he sought to bring back to
God may do--"will wait upon Jehovah that hideth His face from _Jacob_
(which stands for the whole nation) and will look to Him," _i.e._, "my
hope shall be set on Him alone."
A quotation is made in proof that God would not any more speak to "lost"
Israel in the Hebrew tongue. The reference is Isa. xxviii. 11: "By (or
with) another tongue will I speak to this people."
This is another instance of breaking away an isolated text from its
context, and giving it a meaning which was never intended. In that
chapter we read how the leaders, not of the Ten Tribes, but of Judah,
perverted the Word of God, which He intended should bring "rest" and
"refreshing" to the weary (ver. 12), and turned it into so many isolated
"precepts" and commandments. But because the words of grace and
salvation He was speaking to them through the prophets were scorned and
abused, God threatens that He will speak to them in judgment--"with
strange lips and with another tongue"--in which there may be included
also a reference to their being carried into captivity, "where they
would have to listen to a strange language," which they understood not
(Psalm lxxxi. 5; cxiv. 1).
The next references in proof that the "lost" tribes were "no more to be
called Israel," but by another name, is a typical instance of the
perversion of even the most beautiful spiritual truths of the Bible for
mere outward, I was going to say, _carnal_, ends. The first quotation in
proof of this point is from Isa. lxii. 2: "Thou shalt be called by a new
name which the mouth of the Lord shall name." This short chapter is one
of the most precious and beautiful in the whole Old Testament, and it is
like laying hold of an exquisitely delicate and beautiful work of art
with a rough and dirty hand to treat it as Anglo-Israel "theologians"
do. The chapter begins: "For _Zion's sake_ will I not hold My peace, and
for _Jerusalem's sake_ I will not rest until her righteousness go forth
as brightness and her salvation as a lamp that burneth." The speaker is
either the prophet, or very probably the servant of Jehovah, the
Messiah, who is the speaker in the preceding chapter. The subject is
"Zion" or "Jerusalem," which includes the people. I believe that it
includes the _whole nation_ of which Jerusalem is the God-appointed
metropolis; but if it is to be limited to any part of the people, then
it is certainly _Judah_, of which Zion or Jerusalem is the capital, and
not the Ten Tribes who are here spoken of.
This Zion, for whom the Messiah makes unceasing intercession, is now
called עֲזוּבָה--"forsaken," and her land שְׁמָמָה--"desolate"; but when
God's light shall again break upon her, and her righteousness goes forth
as a lamp that burneth, "Thou shalt be called חֶפְצִי-בָהּ (Hephzibah,
_i.e._, My delight is in her); and thy land בְּעוּלָה" (Beulah, _i.e._,
married). But the new name by which the mouth of Jehovah shall then
call her shall not only answer the outward transformation which shall
then come over the people and the land, but will describe the _inward_
transformation and the true character of the people. In fact, we are
told in this very chapter what the new name shall be. They shall call
them--Saxons? Britons? No, "they shall call them the Holy People, _The
Redeemed of the Lord_." This is also the "other-name" in Isa. lxv. 15,
by which God shall call His true servants in contrast to the ungodly in
the nation, who shall be "slain," and leave their name (_i.e._, their
remembrance) as a proverbial "curse" unto His chosen.
The next reference given in proof that the Ten Tribes were to lose their
name is Psalm lxxxiii. 4: "The name of Israel shall be no more in
remembrance." This is a typical and characteristic specimen of the
manner in which Anglo-Israel "theologians" deal with Scripture. It
reminds one of the grounds adduced by a certain individual for paying no
heed to the Old Testament because it is written, "_Hang_ the law and the
prophets" (Matt. xxii. 40). It is certainly most easy to prove almost
anything from the Bible by breaking away an isolated sentence from its
connection, and attaching to it a meaning which was never intended.
Psalm lxxxiii. is an impassioned cry to God for His interposition and
deliverance of His people from a confederacy of Gentile nations, who are
gathered with the determined object of utterly destroying them as a
people.
"O God, keep not Thou silence:
Hold not Thy peace and be not still, O God; for lo, Thine enemies make
a tumult:
And they that hate Thee have lifted up the head:
They take crafty counsel against Thy people, and consult together
against Thy hidden ones.
They have said: Come, and let us cut them off from being a nation,
That the name of Israel be no more in remembrance."
This historical occasion of this Psalm may perhaps have been the great
gathering of the Moabites, Ammonites, and a great multitude of others
against "Judah,"[23] who, in the Psalms belonging to that period, is
invariably called Israel. At the same time there is a prophetic element
in the Psalm, for all the past gatherings of the nations against
Jerusalem foreshadow the final great gathering under Antichrist, when
the battle-cry of the confederated armies shall indeed be, "Come, let us
destroy them from being a nation, that the name of Israel may be no more
in remembrance." But note, part of the furious cry of the Gentiles in
their onslaught against Jerusalem is broken away from its connection and
used by Anglo-Israel writers to prove that the Ten Tribes would lose
their identity and that the very name "Israel" would be "lost."
Passing on to the next two references, Isa. xl. 27 and Isa. liv. 8, I
would ask the intelligent Bible-reader what relevancy or connection
these precious Scriptures have with the subject of the identification of
any "lost" tribes? They are glorious words of consolation and promise
addressed to the Jewish nation, or rather to the godly remnant in exile,
assuring them that God's eye is ever upon them, and though, on account
of their sins, His face has been turned away from them, as it were, "for
a moment," He will yet return to them with "everlasting kindness and
have mercy upon them." It is like sacrilege to misapply such beautiful
Scriptures and great spiritual truths to prove a theory which has no
basis in fact, and with which they have not the remotest connection.
The last reference is Hosea i. 4-7; the words are plain enough, and if
they prove anything in connection with this subject it is the very
opposite of what the Anglo-Israel writers assert. Hosea did speak
primarily to the Israel of the "Ten Tribes" shortly before its final
overthrow by Assyria, and what he announces is that God would cause that
kingdom, _as a kingdom_, "to cease," and that He would no more have
mercy upon them. As a people they would be preserved, but, as it were,
disavowed of God, and therefore called "Lo-Ammi" (_i.e._, "not My
people"). But what is said here by Hosea of the condition of the people
of the "Ten Tribes," after they shall have ceased to exist as a kingdom,
is true also, as we know from many other Scriptures, of those who
belonged to the southern kingdom of Judah. It is now the Lo-Ammi period
for the _whole nation_ of the Twelve Tribes, and they shall continue to
be disowned of God nationally (not as individuals) until they as a
nation acknowledge and own their long-rejected Messiah. Then, in the
final trial, when the spirit of grace and of supplication is poured upon
them, and they shall look upon Him whom they have pierced, and mourn,
God will look down upon them and say, "Ammi"--"It is My people": and
they shall say, "Jehovah is my God" (Zech. xiv. 9).
And it is not only the prophetic Scriptures of the Old Testament which
are abused in this manner, the plainest statements in the Gospels and
Epistles are also twisted and perverted to mean the very opposite of
what was intended. The following is from a booklet, "The Lost Tribes of
Israel," by Reader Harris, K.C., "founder of the Pentecostal League," in
which all the absurdities and misinterpretations found in all the
Anglo-Israel publications are embodied:--
"NEW TESTAMENT PROPHECIES.
"Let us now turn to the New Testament. It is perfectly clear that
Israel, who had been dispersed for more than 700 years, was much in
our Lord's mind during His three years' ministry upon earth, for
many were the references to Israel made by Him. As an example, let
us turn to the commission He gave to the twelve apostles in Matt x.
5, 6:--
"'These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not
into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans
enter ye not: but go rather to the lost sheep of the House of
Israel.'
"These apostles were not to go to the Gentiles, nor to the
Samaritans--who were the descendants of usurpers of Israel--'but to
the lost sheep of the House of Israel'; and they obeyed this
command as far as was then possible. The only tribe that they could
reach which had any connection with Israel was Benjamin, and
Benjamin as a tribe was won to allegiance to the Lord Jesus Christ.
Benjamin had gone into captivity with Judah, and had come back with
Judah; but in the prophecies of God, Benjamin had been always
associated with the Ten Tribes of Israel. It is a remarkable fact
that the majority of our Lord's disciples at the time of His
earthly ministry were connected with the tribe of Benjamin. It is
also of interest that, when Jerusalem was afterwards besieged by
the Romans under Titus, the members of what had become the
Christian tribe of Benjamin escaped.
"Christ Himself declared, in Matt. xv. 24, this was His own
mission: '_He answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost
sheep of the House of Israel._'
"Again our Lord says, in Matt. xxi. 43: '_Therefore say I unto you_
(He was speaking to the Jews), _the kingdom of God shall be taken
from you, and given to a nation_ (the Jews had long since ceased to
be a nation) _bringing forth the fruits thereof_.'
"The Jews themselves evidently so understood His statement, for in
John vii. 35 we read:--
"'Then said the Jews among themselves, Whither will He go, that we
shall not find Him? Will He go unto the dispersed among the
Gentiles, and teach the Gentiles?'
"So the Jew quite understood our Lord to refer to Israel.
"Israel was evidently in the minds of the apostles themselves. On
the day of the ascension they asked Him:--
"'Lord, wilt Thou at this time restore again the kingdom to
Israel?' (Acts i. 6.)
"A restoration of the kingdom of Israel with the kingdom of Judah
had been promised. The apostles did not confuse the kingdom of
Israel with that of Judah, for they said, 'Wilt Thou at this time
restore the kingdom to Israel?' St. Paul devotes thirty-six verses
in Romans xi. to prove that God has not cast away His people, but
that "blindness in part is happened unto Israel until the fulness
of the nations be come in," so that all Israel shall be saved.
"Lastly, the final word must be that of our Lord. In Acts i. 7, 8
Christ said:--
"'_It is not for you to know the times or the seasons which the
Father hath put in His own power, but ye shall receive power, after
that the Holy Spirit is come upon you, and ye shall be witnesses
unto Me in Jerusalem, in all Judea, in Samaria, and unto the
uttermost parts of the earth_'--which refers to the 'regions
beyond'--an expression that was fully understood to mean the
dispersed among the Gentiles."
With much pain one has to say that this reveals either lamentable
ignorance of the plainest and simplest truths of New Testament Scripture
on the part of an otherwise educated man, or a clever adaptation by
which a lawyer would seek to support a preconceived theory.
I have already dealt with some of these perversions in the first part of
this pamphlet, so need only refer to them again in the briefest possible
manner.
(a) It is indeed "perfectly clear" to any reader of the New Testament
that Israel "was much in our Lord's mind during His three years'
ministry upon earth"; but as clear and evident is it to any candid
reader that the only "Israel" of whom He thought and spoke were the
people among whom He lived and moved, and to whom His blessed ministry
on earth was confined, and who are alternately called in the New
Testament "Jews" and "Israel."
It was to these "lost sheep" _in the land of Palestine_ for whom His own
compassions were moved when He beheld them in multitudes, that the
Twelve were sent out in Matt. x., and He ascribes to them the term
"lost" in a deeper and more solemn and spiritual sense than
Anglo-Israelism has evidently any conception of. (_See_ page 41.)
(b) The statement here repeated about the tribe of Benjamin, and that
the "majority of our Lord's disciples at the time of His earthly ministry
were connected with the tribe of Benjamin," is nothing but a fiction
invented by Anglo-Israelites, as already shown in Part I. (_See_ page
17.)
The only thing which is historically true is that the Apostle Paul was
of the tribe of Benjamin, but he was called after our Lord's earthly
ministry was ended, and he was appointed not to the "lost tribes," but
to preach Christ's Gospel _among the Gentiles_ (Acts xxii. 21; Rom. xi.
13; Gal. i. 16).
(c) The nation which brings forth the fruits of the kingdom of God
during the present dispensation of Israel's national unbelief is not the
British Empire, but _the Church of Christ_--the elected body out of
_all_ nations and kindreds and peoples and tongues, who are called "a
chosen generation (or 'elect race'), a royal priesthood, a _holy nation_
(εθνος), a people for God's own possession" (1 Peter ii. 9).
(d) To state that the Jews themselves understood Christ's statement in
Matt. xxi. 43 as referring to some "lost" Israel, because in John vii.
35 they said: "Will He go unto the dispersed (την διασποραν) among the
Gentile (or 'Greeks'), and teach the Greeks?" is not true.
The "dispersed" among the Greeks were Hellenistic "_Jews_" of all the
Twelve Tribes scattered abroad, who stood (as already shown in Part II.)
in closest connection with the Temple and hierarchy in Jerusalem, and
were never "lost"; and the Greeks among whom they were dispersed were
"_Gentiles_."
(e) And what can be said of such a perverted application of the
question in Acts i. 6, namely, that when the disciples, immediately
before Christ's ascension, asked: "Lord, wilt Thou at this time restore
the kingdom to Israel?" it was not their own nation, the "Jews," that
they meant, and Jerusalem the centre of God's kingdom on earth--but some
"lost" tribes in distant regions of which they knew nothing--I suppose
on the same principle of Anglo-Israel interpretation when Peter, with
the eleven on the Day of Pentecost, for instance, addressed the people
as "_Ye men of Israel_," and again, "Let all the house of Israel,
therefore, know assuredly that God hath made Him both Lord and
Christ--this Jesus whom ye crucified" (Acts ii. 22-36)--he did not speak
to the assembled multitude of "Jews" before him, but over their heads to
some distant regions where there were some wandering "lost" tribes who
alone were entitled to the name "Israel." But such assertions are
altogether too ridiculous to be treated seriously.
The "Israel" which "was evidently in the minds of the apostles," and to
whom Peter spoke, and of whom Paul wrote in that great prophetic section
in his Epistle to the Romans (chaps. ix.-xi.), were the "Jews," whether
of Palestine or in the "Dispersion," who are the only representatives of
all the Twelve Tribes of "Israel" with whom Scripture or prophecy has
any concern, and not any supposed "lost" tribes to be identified after
many centuries by Anglo-Israel writers as the British and the United
States.
(f) "Lastly, the final word," we are told, "must be that of our
Lord," and then there follows the quotation of the glorious promise and
prophetic forecast from Acts i. 7, 8: "_Ye shall receive power when the
Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be My witnesses both in
Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and unto the uttermost parts of
the earth_"; and we are assured that the last sentence refers "to the
regions beyond--an expression that was fully understood to mean the
dispersed among the Gentiles"--by which, I suppose, we are meant to
understand, the "lost" tribes.
But the sentence--και εως εσχατον της γης--means, as it has been
properly rendered, "unto the end (or 'uttermost part') of the earth,"
and has always been "fully" and properly understood by the Church of
Christ as a Divine warrant and forecast of the preaching of the Gospel,
not to the Dispersed _among_ the Gentiles, but to _the heathen world_.
Note II.
THE PROMISES OF A MULTITUDINOUS SEED, AND THAT ISRAEL SHALL BECOME A
GREAT AND MIGHTY NATION.
A great point is made by all Anglo-Israel writers of the promises which
God made to the fathers of a multitudinous seed. The argument is, that
since the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were to be a great and
mighty and very numerous nation--yea, "a company of nations"--these
promises cannot apply to the "Jews," who are comparatively few in
number. There must exist, therefore, a people somewhere great and
mighty and numerous who are the seed of Abraham, in whom these promises
are realised.
Now look at the British Empire, how great and mighty it is in the earth,
and what vast numbers it includes, _ergo_, the British, including the
United States of America (which by some wonderful process of divination
Anglo-Israelites are able to distinguish and identify as "Manasseh," in
spite of the fact that their progenitors, who emigrated from England,
were, according to them "Ephraimites," and that those original emigrants
have since been mixed up with a flood of emigrants from all other races
under heaven), are the descendants of Abraham, and particularly of the
"lost" Ten Tribes!
Now the following are the Scriptures on the subject:
(1) "And I will make of thee (Abraham) a great nation" (Gen. xii.
2).
(2) "And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth; so that if
a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be
numbered" (Gen. xiii. 16).
(3) "And He brought him (Abraham) forth abroad, and said, Look now
toward heaven, and tell the number of the stars, if thou be able to
tell them: and He said unto him, So shall thy seed be" (Gen. xv.
5).
(4) "And God talked with him (Abraham), saying: As for Me, My
covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be the father of a multitude
of nations; neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but
thy name shall be Abraham; for the father of a multitude of nations
have I made thee. And I will make thee exceedingly fruitful, and I
will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee" (Gen.
xvii. 4-6).
(5) "Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all
the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him" (Gen. xviii. 18).
(6) "In blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will
multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven, and as the sand which is
upon the seashore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his
enemies" (a Hebrew idiom for "shall be victorious over his foes")
(Gen. xxii. 17).
(7) "And God said unto him (Jacob), I am God Almighty, be fruitful
and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee,
and kings shall come out of thy loins" (Gen. xxxv. 11).
To these passages have to be added Isaac's blessing to Jacob: "God
Almighty bless thee and make thee fruitful, and multiply thee, that thou
mayest be a company--literally, 'a congregation' ( קְהַל עַמִּים ) of
peoples" (Gen. xxviii. 3); and Jacob's forecast of Ephraim in his
blessing of Joseph's sons, that his seed shall become "a multitude (or
literally, 'a fulness,' מְלֹא הַגּוֹיִם ) of the nations."
Now in reference to all these particular promises and forecasts, I would
beg your attention to the following observations:--
I. There are expressions in them which must not be pressed to the
extreme of literalness according to our Western ideas. We speak of
"nations," and think of them as embracing populations of whole
countries, and of "kings" as being sovereigns of States, but in the
earlier books of the Bible we are introduced to many "nations" and
"peoples" as comprised in one little country of Canaan, and of many
"kings" who were no more than chiefs, or rulers of "cities," which in
our modern times we would only class as "villages." As a matter of fact,
the term גּוֹיִם , _goim_, generally standing for "_nations_," and
usually for the _Gentile_ nations, is actually used for the _tribes_ or
families of the Jewish people. Here is the Scripture: "And He said unto
me, Son of Man, I send thee to the children of Israel, to nations
( גּוֹיִם , (_goim_--the word is in the plural) that are rebellious, which
have rebelled against Me" (Ezek. ii. 3).
The "Jews," or "Israel," as they are properly called are being spoken
of as "nations," because they comprised different families or tribes.
Already Moses could say of the Israel of his time: "_Jehovah your God
hath multiplied you, and behold, ye are this day as the stars of heaven
for multitude_" (Deut. i. 10; x. 22); and Solomon, in his prayer for
wisdom, says: "_Thy servant is in the midst of Thy people which Thou
hast chosen, a great people that cannot be counted for multitude_" (1
Kings iii. 8).
The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews knew nothing of a supposed
identification of the millions in Britain and America with the "lost"
Ten Tribes, but speaking of the descendants of Abraham and Sarah, he
could say that because Abraham believed God, and Sarah herself, in spite
of natural impossibilities, judged Him faithful who had promised:
"_Wherefore also there sprang of one, and him as good as dead, so many
as the stars of heaven for multitude, and as the sand which is by the
seashore innumerable_" (Hebrews xi. 12); so that even if we view only
the past it is not true to assert that the promises of God that the seed
of Abraham should be a multitude which cannot be numbered, and
constitute "a company of nations," has not been fulfilled in the "Jews"
or "Israel," which has never been "lost."
II. The promises of a multitudinous seed and rapid increase of the seed
of Abraham, though in the first instance given to the fathers
unconditionally, and therefore will assuredly be fulfilled, were
nevertheless made conditional on Israel's obedience. It is with this, as
with all the other great promises, given to the Jewish nation. They were
conditional as far as any particular generation of Jews are concerned,
who may either enjoy them if in obedience, or forfeit them through
disobedience; but they are unconditional to the nation because God
abides faithful, and in the end all His plans and purposes in and
through them will be fulfilled. For this very reason He has preserved
them as a people in spite of all their sin and disobedience.
Now at the very commencement of Israel's history--long before there was
any likelihood of a schism among the tribes--Moses, speaking in the name
of God of the whole nation, says: "_If ye walk in My statutes and keep
My commandments to do them, ... I will have respect unto you and make
you fruitful and multiply you, and will establish My covenant with you_"
(Lev. xxvi. 3-9).
On the other hand, he solemnly forewarns them that if they shall
"corrupt themselves" and fall away from the living God, "I call heaven
and earth to witness against you this day that ye shall soon utterly
perish from off the land whereunto ye go over Jordan to possess it, ...
and Jehovah shall scatter you among the peoples, _and ye shall be left
few in number among the nations whither Jehovah shall lead you_" (Deut.
iv. 25-27).
This is repeated with solemn emphasis in Deut. xxviii. 62: "_And ye
shall be left few in number, whereas ye were as the stars of heaven for
multitude_." In the light of the Word of God, therefore, and apart from
all the absurdities involved in the Anglo-Israel theory, the very fact
that the British and American races are so numerous and powerful among
the nations precludes the possibility of their being Israel, for when
out of Palestine and in dispersion Israel was to become "few in number,"
and oppressed and downtrodden among the nations.
III. The underlying fallacy in the Anglo-Israel argument from the
promises of a multitudinous seed which God made to the fathers (and
this, indeed, is one of the chief errors underlying the whole theory),
is that it overlooks the fact that those promises, according to the
testimony of the prophets, will be fulfilled in the _future_, when (as
stated above) the Jewish nation, restored and converted, shall become
under the personal rule of their Messiah, great and mighty for God on
this earth. Then, when Israel shall be spiritually restored to God, and
in and through the grace of their Messiah they shall be a nation all
righteous and planted by God in their own land, "the little one shall
become a thousand, and the small one a strong nation" (Isa. lx. 21, 22);
and so rapidly and marvellously shall they increase that even the whole
promised land, which is fifty times as large as the portion of it "from
Dan to Beersheba," which alone they possessed in the past, shall become
too small for them, so that they shall say to the surrounding nations:
"_The place is too strait for me, give place ('make room') that I may
dwell_" (Isa. xlix. 19, 20).
Now all this has been, and will be, fulfilled in the "Jews," who, as I
have shown, are the people of the whole "_Twelve Tribes scattered
abroad_." In the dispersion among the nations they became reduced to
"few in number," but when they are restored and blessed God says: "I
will multiply them, and they shall not be few; I will also glorify them,
and they shall not be small" (Jer. xxx. 19).
Of the capacity for rapid increase of the Jewish people there is
sufficient proof already. The following is from a recent number of _The
Scattered Nation_:--
"The marvellous increase of the Jewish people since their so-called
'emancipation' in the xixth century, is indeed a striking sign of
the times. The statement of a recent writer in the _Jewish
Chronicle_ that at the commencement of the xvith century there
could scarcely have been more than a million Jews left in the
entire world after the untold sufferings, dispersions and massacres
which they had to endure in the dark and middle ages--is probably
true. The historian Basnage, in his 'History of the Jews from
Jesus Christ to the Present Time,' calculated that in his time (end
of the xviith and beginning of the xviiith century) there were
3,000,000 Jews in the world. Since then, however, the growth of
Jewry has been phenomenal. At the commencement of the xixth century
there were said to be five millions. Half a century later the
numbers reached six or seven millions; and at the end of another
half a century--in 1896--the greatest living authority on Jewish
statistics gave their number as eleven millions. And now, after the
lapse of another seventeen or eighteen years, we are informed that
there are no less than 13,000,000 Jews in the world. And the
surprising feature of this latest calculation is the officially
authenticated fact that, in the country where they are most
persecuted, and which during the past three decades has driven
forth millions to seek an asylum in other countries, there are more
Jews to-day than ever before; and this in spite of pogroms, and
baptisms, and overcrowding, and starvation, and the pursuance of a
merciless policy of repression which led Pobiedonostsef to
prognosticate that, in the end, a third of Russia's Jews would
emigrate, a third would die, and a third would join the dominant
faith. The old story of Israel in Egypt renews itself to-day in
Russia: 'The more they afflicted them, the more they multiplied.'"
And if this be so now even in dispersion, we can imagine that in the
millennial period, under the fostering care and blessing of God, the
favoured nation will increase and multiply so that they will be as the
stars of heaven, and as the sand which is upon the seashore,
innumerable.
Note III.
THE PERPETUITY OF THE DAVIDIC THRONE.
One great Anglo-Israel argument that the British must be the "lost"
Israel is based on the promises which God made to David that his seed
and his throne shall be established for ever. Sometimes, indeed (as seen
in one of the quotations given in Part I., _see_ page 12), and in
keeping with Anglo-Israel logic, the argument is used the other way: "If
the Saxons be the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel, then the English throne is
a continuation of David's throne, and the seed on it must be the seed of
David, and the inference is clear, namely, that all the blessings
attaching by the holy promise to David's throne must belong to
England";[24] and since, according to the dictum of the theory, this
"must be so," evidence must somehow be found, both "historical" and from
Scripture. So on the historical side a genealogical table has been
produced in which the descent of the royal house of England (which may
God protect!) is directly traced to David and Judah--a table truly
strange and wonderful, and which only shows how easy it is to prove
anything if wild guesses and perverted fancies be treated as facts. On
these genealogical tables and "histories," however, with regard to which
we would only apply to the Anglo-Israel "world" the old Latin
proverb--_Mundus vult decipi et decipiatur_--it would be sheer waste of
time to enter here. It is the product of a false supposition, supported
by a logic which is also false, both in its premises and conclusions.
People whose capacity for credulity is large enough to believe the wild
romances spun out by Anglo-Israel writers about Jeremiah's journey to
Ireland with a daughter of Zedekiah, who brought with them as part of
their personal luggage the coronation stone which is now in Westminster
Abbey, are very welcome to believe it; and one would not trouble much
about them if they would only let the Bible alone and not pervert
Scripture.
But it is the supposed _Scriptural_ "proofs" which impose on some
simple-minded Christians, with whom alone we are concerned here. The
following passages almost all Anglo-Israel writers fasten upon:--
"_The Lord hath sworn unto David in truth, He will not turn from it; of
the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne_" (Psa. cxxxii. 11).
"_I have sworn unto David My servant, Thy seed will I establish for
ever, and build up thy throne to all generations_" (Psa. lxxxix. 3, 4).
"_Thus saith Jehovah: If ye can break My covenant of the day, and my
covenant of the night, in their season, then may also My covenant be
broken with David My servant that he should not have a son to reign upon
his throne.... Thus saith the Lord: If My covenant of day and night
stand not, if I have not appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth;
then will I also cast away the seed of Jacob, and of David My servant,
so that I will not take of his seed to be rulers over the seed of
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob: for I will cause their captivity to return,
and will have mercy on them_" (Jer. xxxiii. 20, 21, 25, 26, R.V.).
The argument drawn from these Scriptures is: If the British be not
Israel, and the English throne be not a continuation of the throne of
David, where is the fulfilment of these promises? In answer to this
crude logic I would observe:--
I. That it seems to be quite a characteristic of Anglo-Israelism to
ignore our Lord Jesus Christ as the centre of all promise and prophecy,
just as it ignores the existence of the Church and the future kingdom of
God, for all which it substitutes the British people and the British
Empire. But _Christ_ is the true Son of David, and the only legitimate
heir to the Davidic throne. "The sure mercies of David," which are sure
(or "faithful," as the word may be better rendered), because God has
sworn to fulfil, or "establish" them, are all merged and centred _in
Him_. Hence, when His birth was announced to the Virgin Mary, the Angel
Gabriel said: "Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb and bring forth a
son, and shalt call His name Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be
called the Son of the Most High, and _the Lord God shall give unto Him
the throne of His father David, and He shall reign over the House of
Jacob for ever; and of His kingdom there shall be no end_" (Luke i.
31-33).
If Israel had received Him His throne would have been established, and
His visible reign on earth commenced then. But He was rejected, and so
the promise in reference to setting up again of the Davidic kingdom,
which had ceased to exist since the days of Zedekiah, was still deferred
until the purpose of God with reference to the Church should be
accomplished.
But the promises which God made to David have not failed, for Jesus, the
true Son of David, lives, and though He is for the present sitting on
the throne of God in heaven, _He is coming again_ to set up the throne
of His father David, and then "He shall reign over the House of Jacob
for ever, and of His kingdom there shall be no end."
II. It was announced in advance that during the "many days" of Israel's
apostasy, and consequent banishment from the land, they "_shall abide
without a king and without a prince_," _i.e._, without the true Davidic
king of God's appointment, and without a prince of their own choice, as
Jewish commentators have themselves explained, until "the latter days,"
when restored and converted they shall find in their Messiah the true
David, both their King and Prince.[25]
III. The only place on earth where a _throne of David_ can have any
legitimate place, either in the sight of God or of man, is on _Mount
Zion in Jerusalem_, and it is an absurdity to speak of the continuity of
a Davidic throne in England. Thank God that the right of the British
Sovereign to his illustrious throne rests on a firmer basis than the
fictitious genealogies made out by Anglo-Israelites.
IV. The same Scriptures, which speak of the perpetuity of the Davidic
seed and _throne_, speak also of the unceasing continuance of _the
priesthood_. "_Thus saith Jehovah, David shall never want a man to sit
upon the throne of the House of Israel; neither shall the priests the
Levites want a man before Me to offer burnt-offerings and to burn
oblations, and to do sacrifice continually.... Thus saith the Lord: If
ye can break My covenant of the day, and My covenant of the night, so
that there should not be day and night in their season; then may also My
covenant be broken with David My servant, that he should not have a son
to reign upon his throne; and with the Levites the priests, My
ministers_" (Jer. xxxiii. 17, 20, 21).
Now it would be quite as logical to argue that the ministers of the
Church of England must be the lineal descendants of the Levites, else
God's promise of the continuance of the priesthood has failed, as to
argue from these same Scriptures that there must be somewhere now on
earth a throne of David, or else these prophecies have proved false.
The truth is that neither have God's promises in reference to the throne
nor to the priesthood failed--for Christ is, in His blessed Person, the
Prophet, Priest, and King. He is all this now at the right hand of God,
for not only are all the essentials of the Aaronic priesthood fulfilled
in Him, but He is "a priest _for ever_ after the order of Melchizedek";
and when He is manifested again on earth to take up His throne and
reign, "_He shall be a priest upon His throne_, and the counsel of peace
shall be between them both."[26]
Note IV.
THE SO-CALLED HISTORIC PROOFS OF ANGLO-ISRAELISM.
I have stated on page 10 that the so-called Historic Proofs of
Anglo-Israelism, by which the theory is supported, are derived from
pagan myths and fables. Let the following suffice as a sample:--
"To accomplish this" (_i.e._, that the seed of Abraham should
inherit the isles of the west) "some were sent to take possession
of the islands long before."
The wrath of man is made to praise Him (Gen. xxxvii. 2; l. 15-21),
which led to the flight of Danaus, the son of Bela, from _Egyptus_
his brother. Dan is the son of Bilhah and brother of Joseph, who
was over all the Egyptians. This was the first secession from
Israel. This is probably alluded to in Ezekiel xx. 5-9. Another
secession took place (1 Chron. vii. 21-24). A third secession was
after the Exodus. When in the Wilderness Num. xiv. 1-4 states that
they said, "Let us make a captain." Nehemiah ix. 17 tells us they
did so (compare Psa. cvi. 26, 27; Ezek. xx. 21-23).
_Hecatœus of Abdera_ (6th century B.C.), quoted by _Diodorus
Siculus_ (B.C. 50), i. 27, 46, 55, says:--
"The most distinguished of the expelled foreigners (from Egypt)
followed Danaus and Cadmus into Greece; but the greater number were
led by Moses into Judæa."
In Æschylus' _Supplicants_ (B.C. 6th century) Danaus and his
daughters are represented as a "seed divine," exiles from Egypt,
fleeing from their brother Egyptus. Since they feared an unholy
alliance, they appear to have passed through Syria and perhaps
Sidon into Greece.[27]
I will say nothing here about the Scripture references in the first
paragraph, but if any intelligent Bible student will look them up he
will see that only a perverted fancy can see in them any justification
for the theory here propounded. But, as will be noted, the heathen fable
about Ægyptus and Danaus is here brought into the history of Israel,
Danaus being identified as Dan, the son of Bilhah; and Ægyptus, I
suppose, with Joseph. Now here is the pagan fable, and let the reader
judge what connection it has with the history of the sons of Jacob.
Ægyptus, who had fifty sons, and Danaus, who had fifty daughters, were
twin brothers. Their father, Belus, the son of Poseidon, identified by
the Romans with Neptunus, the god of the Mediterranean Sea, had assigned
Libya to Danaus; but, fearing Ægyptus, his brother, he fled with his
fifty daughters to Argos in Peloponnessus, where he was elected king by
the Argives in place of Gelanor, the reigning monarch. Thither, however,
he was followed by the fifty sons of Ægyptus, who demanded his daughters
for their wives. Danaus complied with their request, but gave to each of
his daughters a dagger with which to kill their husbands in the bridal
night. All the sons of Ægyptus were thus murdered, with but one
exception. The life of Lynceus was spared by his wife, Hypermnestra,
who, according to the legend, afterwards avenged the death of his
forty-nine brothers by killing his father-in-law Danaus.
The fifty daughters of Danaus, known as "the Danaides," were punished in
Hades for their crime by being compelled everlastingly to pour water
into a sieve. Note also that the fable propagated by Manetho that the
Jews were _expelled_ from Egypt as lepers, and the legend of Hecatæus,
quoted by Diodorus Siculus that, "the most distinguished of these
expelled followed Danaus and Cadmus into Greece, but the greater number
were led by Moses into Judea," is also accepted as history. Some of
these same pagan writers believed that the object of worship in the Holy
of Holies was the head of an ass, and other absurdities of the same
nature. I wonder if Anglo-Israel "theologians" accept this also as
"history."
I may here add that the identification by Anglo-Israel writers of Tea,
or Tephi, the heroine of some Irish ballads, with a princess of the
royal house of Judah, whom Jeremiah brought to Ireland in one of the
ships of Dan, and who married Esincaid, King of Ulster, and so became
the ancestress of the royal houses of Ireland and Scotland, and
subsequently of England--has just as much "history" for its basis as the
identification of Danaus with Dan, or of Ægyptus with Joseph.
The value of Irish legends and ballads (upon which the romances of
Anglo-Israel writers are largely based), as sources of "history," may be
judged from the following introductory statement taken from a standard
compendium of the history of Ireland:
"The history of Ireland, like that of almost all ancient countries,
'tracks its parent lake' back into the enchanted realms of legend and
romance and fable. It has been said, not untruly, of Ireland that she
'can boast of ancient legends rivalling in beauty and dignity the tales
of Attica and Argolis; she has an early history whose web of blended
myth and reality is as richly coloured as the record of the rulers of
Alba Longa and the story of the Seven Kings.' We cannot now make any
effort to get at history in the beautiful myths and stories. We should
puzzle our brains in vain to find out whether the Lady Cesair, who came
to Ireland before the Deluge with fifty women and three men, has any
warrant from genuine tradition, or is a child of fable altogether. We
cannot get any hint of the actual truth about Conn of the Hundred
Fights, and Fin MacCoul and Oisin. But the impression which does seem to
be conveyed clearly enough from all these romances and fables and
ballads is that the island was occupied in dim far-off ages by
successive invaders who came from the south.
"The Phœnicians are said to have represented one wave of invasion and
the Greeks another....
"What may be called the authentic history of Ireland begins with the
life and career of St. Patrick (5th century)."
Note V.
"THE GATE OF HIS ENEMIES."
One brief note more must be added on a point which all Anglo-Israel
writers advance as proof positive in support of their theory. It is the
promise that God made to Abraham, "Thy seed shall possess the gate of
his enemies." The term "gate" (or "gates" as often mis-quoted) is taken
to signify "strait," "port," or strategic maritime position and these
writers grow quite eloquent in pointing out the many maritime points of
vantage which are in occupation of the British as a fulfilment of this
ancient promise to the chosen people.
Thus the writer of "Fifty Reasons" (W. H. Poole, D.D.), with which I
have already dealt, asks (page 61) "What nation or people are now the
gate-holders of the nations? We hold Gibraltar, Malta, Cyprus, Acre,
Suez Canal, Aden, Perim," and many other important maritime points which
he enumerates, and concludes triumphantly "_For 500 years Britain has
been the gate-holder in the lands of those who hate her_"--a very
doubtful compliment this, by the way, to British rule over her acquired
possessions.
But like many other Anglo-Israel "proofs" it has no basis in philology
or in fact. The word שַׁעַר --Sha'ar ("gate") is used hundreds of times in
the Hebrew Bible, but _never once_ either literally or figuratively of a
maritime "strait" or "port." The "gate" as being not only the entrance
to, but as giving control or possession of the oriental (walled) city,
often stands for the city itself. It was, moreover, the most public
place of the city, where causes were tried and justice administered
(Deut. xxi. 19; xxii. 15; Prov. xxii. 22; Amos v. 10-15); and where
elders and judges, kings and princes "sat" officially for counsel or
often to exercise authority and rule (Dan. ii. 49; Jer. xvii. 19;
xxxviii. 7).
The promise that Abraham's seed should possess the gate of his enemies
is idiomatic figurative language, equivalent to saying that they shall
be victorious over their enemies, and take possession of their cities.
This was fulfilled when at the conquest of Canaan the Israelites took
possession of the land and thus assumed the position of lordship over
the doomed nations who are spoken of as their "enemies."
We may notice, by way of contrast, that in Jer. i. 14-16 God threatens
that as a punishment on Israel for their sin He would call all the
families of the kingdoms of the north, and "they shall set every one his
throne at the entrance of the gates of Jerusalem," which is equivalent
to saying that the Gentiles would possess "the gate" of Israel--which as
a matter of fact, they are now permitted to do by treading down
Jerusalem and scattering the people until the times of the Gentiles are
fulfilled.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 23: See 2 Chron. xx. 1-13.]
[Footnote 24: "The Lost Ten Tribes," by Joseph Wild. The Eighteenth
Discourse.]
[Footnote 25: See "The Interregnum and After"--the first chapter of my
book, "The Ancient Scriptures and the Modern Jew."]
[Footnote 26: One fundamental of the Anglo-Israel theory is that the
destinies of Israel and Judah are distinct and separate. Most
inconsistent, therefore, is their appropriation of David, the King of
Judah, with the promises applying to his royal house _for ever_; their
endeavour should rather be to claim, if they can find in Scripture
promises made to descendants of Jeroboam's line, or some other King of
Israel--with David they can have nothing to do.]
[Footnote 27: "Palestine into Britain," by Rev. L. G. A. Roberts,
Secretary of the "Imperial British Israel Association."]
APPENDIX.
ARE WE THE TEN TRIBES?
By the Late HORATIUS BONAR, D.D.
(Reprinted by permission from _The Sunday at Home_, October, 1880.)
That the inhabitants of Great Britain are Israelites is a modern theory
which has been widely spread. Its defenders have invented a large number
of resemblances or "identifications," on which, in the absence of
authentic history or national tradition, they rest their proof.
The languages of our country--Saxon, English, Welsh, and Celtic--have no
affinity with the Hebrew; but that is made of no account. The history of
the many tribes of which our nation is composed--whether Teutonic, or
Saxon, or Caledonian, or Latin, or Scandinavian--is totally distinct
from that of any of the tribes of Israel; but authentic history is in
this case wholly set aside.
The manners and customs of our nation, both religious and social, have
not the slightest resemblance to those of Israel; but this is quite
ignored. The physiognomy of our countrymen--whether they are English, or
Welsh, or Scotch, or Celtic, or Norwegian, or Norman--is the very
opposite of Eastern, the Israelitish face being a marked contrast to the
British; but that is reckoned of no consequence.
The names of men, women, and places in our land are not Hebrew or
Semitic at all, but are traceable to another class of languages
altogether; yet _this_ weighs nothing. The occupation of our land by
certain tribes, who we now call the Aboriginal Caledonians, or Britons
(long before the Ten Tribes were carried captive to Assyria, and who,
therefore, could not be Israelites), is passed by. The grand story of an
Israelitish emigration from Assyria into Great Britain, whether by sea
or land, we are not told, and there is neither history nor tradition nor
local monuments to confirm it. And yet, when was there _ever_ an
emigration in which the emigrants did not carry their language, their
religion, their manners, their dress, and their national traditions with
them? This the identifiers of Israel with England have not considered.
The Two Tribes in their dispersion over wide Europe carried their
worship, their language, and their manners, into every European city,
and synagogues exist to this day which were set up centuries before
Christ, and every European Jew can tell for certain that he is a
descendant of Abraham, and lives apart from the Gentiles around; yet, if
the Anglo-Israelite theory be true, the Ten Tribes poured in upon Great
Britain and settled themselves there, drove back the Aborigines, but
left their religion, their books, their priesthood, their language,
their names behind them, like cast-off clothes, in order to prevent
themselves from being identified, as if ashamed of their ancestry. It
must have been with Israelites that Julius Cæsar fought; their queen,
Boadicea, not a Hebrew name, and their general, Caractacus, not a Hebrew
name either: these Israelites must have set up the Druid religion in the
island, and to them we must owe Stonehenge and similar relics of
antiquity.
There is no evidence in the Bible, or in history, or tradition, for any
such Israelitish emigration. Such a flood could not have passed over
Europe, either north or south, without leaving some trace or being
mentioned in history. If some two or three millions of Israelites did
pour into this remote and barbarous island of ours, it must have been
before the Romans came; and such a flood of Easterns must have made it a
populous island, which certainly it was not.
These cultivated Easterns--for the Israelites, even in their apostasy,
were a highly educated and cultivated nation--flowed in upon an island
of barbarians, yet produced no impression, taught them no arts, gave
them no language, and brought no civilisation to the barbarous Britons
and Caledonians; whereas the Romans, who followed, carried language,
arts, manners, names with them, and left behind them (though theirs was
but a brief military occupation) traces of their Latin footsteps, which
remain to us after nineteen centuries. Traverse our island, and you will
find in every county names and traditions and ruins that tell you that
Rome was once here; but no name or traditions to say that Israel was
here. Note: In Cornwall there may be some traces of Phœnician commerce;
but we know whence these Eastern strangers came and the object of their
coming, viz., to procure tin from the mines.
Are such things credible or possible? Prophecy, moreover, intimates that
Israel is to remain scattered and under the curse till the Redeemer
comes out of Zion, and will turn away ungodliness from Jacob. The whole
Twelve Tribes are under the curse till the great day of national
deliverance comes for Judah and for Israel.
Let Rom. xi. be studied in connection with this.
The "identifications" gravely announced in some of the many pamphlets of
Anglo-Israelitish literature are somewhat peculiar, and do not carry any
extraordinary amount of weight with them to counterbalance the above
arguments. Here are a few of them:--
1. "Isles and islands," spoken of by the prophets. These must be the
British Isles, and, therefore, their inhabitants are the Ten Tribes.
2. "Israel loveth to oppress," the prophet says; "England loveth to
oppress"--therefore, England is Israel.
3. "I believe," says one of the Anglo-Israelitish authors, "that Sunday
Schools have been raised up purposely for this identity!"
4. "Israel is to occupy the ends of the earth." Britain does so;
therefore, Britain is Israel.
5. "Israel is to possess the gates of his enemies." We possess
Gibraltar, Malta, the Cape, etc.; therefore, we are Israel, for these
are "the gates" of our enemies.
6. "The smoke and fire coming up from the cities and furnaces of our
land are like the pillar cloud of Israel."
7. The people in the South of Ireland trouble us, just as the Canaanites
troubled Israel; therefore, we are Israel, for the South of Ireland is
peopled by the descendants of the Canaanites.
8. Jacob's stone is still in our possession. It is that on which Jacob
slept, that which was the chief corner-stone of the Temple--saved by
Jeremiah, and taken by him to Ireland, and then placed in Westminster
Abbey under the Coronation chair; therefore, the English are Israelites.
9. "Jacob's glory is like the firstling of a bullock" (Deut. xxxiii.
17). The identifiers write: "The ox being oftentimes applied to Israel
may partly be said to emblemise the world-famed power of John Bull."
No evidence (worthy of its name), either historical, ethnological,
linguistic, or traditional, is produced; we get nothing but conjectures
and fanciful allusions as the proofs of this singular theory.
Some of its defenders boast that since this theory was started the
incomes of our Jewish Mission Societies have fallen off by £15,000.
Whether this is true or not we cannot say; but the boast, whatever be
its foundation, shows the spirit of the writers and the tendency of the
new doctrine.
Noah's prophecy stands out clear and sharp with its threefold ethnology;
Shem, Ham and Japheth are the roots of the nations, and God has kept
them distinct: let us beware of confounding them. History tells us that
our pedigree is to be traced to Japheth. The modern discoveries in
ethnology confirm this beyond a doubt; Eastern monuments, whether of
Assyria or Egypt, tell the same story.
The above theory rests on a misreading of prophetic truth: such a
misreading robs it of all its Divine spirituality. Outward national
prosperity and greatness, not righteousness nor truth, are made the
characteristics of the Israel of prophecy. England--full of crime,
infidelity, immorality, and ungodliness--is said to be now enjoying the
favour of God, which is destined for Israel in the latter day! The
knowledge of the glory of the Lord is to be the privilege of these
tribes, and by that knowledge they are to be exalted. But their theory
gives us another standard of the nation's greatness--a standard which no
part of Scripture recognises, least of all the sure word of prophecy,
the light in the dark place. This theory darkens the whole prophetic
Word, perverting events and inverting times and seasons. It denies
Israel's present guilt, and lowers our ideas of Israel's coming glory.
It puts a Gentile King and Queen in the place of the nation's own
Messiah, under whose sceptre alone it is to enjoy peace, blessedness and
holy greatness. It rejects the apostle's symbol of the olive tree, in
Rom. xi.; Not merely confounding the Jewish and the Gentile
dispensation, denying that the once good olive tree has for a season
become evil, and its branches cut off to make room for the grafts of the
wild olive tree.
This is emphatically and pre-eminently the time of the wild olive tree,
whereas this theory not only confuses the wild olive with the good, but
denies that it is the grafted branches of the wild olive tree that are
now bearing fruit and receiving blessing.
When the dispensation of the wild olive, or Gentile, shall end, then,
but not till then, shall the blessing and the glory return to the good
olive--that is, to "all Israel."
Let us take the Word of God simply as we find it. Let us beware of
fanciful identifications, which, even were they true, are not worth the
stress laid upon them. Suppose I could prove, not by conjecture, but by
registered genealogies, that I belong to the tribe of Ephraim or
Issachar, what does it profit me? Will it make me a holier man to know
that I belong to those northern tribes against which the Lord, when
here, pronounced His darkest woes, as primarily and pre-eminently His
rejectors. "Woe unto thee, Chorazin! Woe unto thee, Bethsaida! It shall
be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the Day of Judgment than for
thee."
Capernaum, the representative of the Ten Tribes, had been condemned for
refusing the Lord of Glory before Jerusalem was cast away.
To esteem external national prosperity as God's special mark of favour,
is to carnalise all the prophets, and to degrade, not only the glory of
the latter day, but present privileges in Christ; for what a poor thing
these privileges and the glory must be if this sinful nation of ours,
that seems ripe for judgment and rejection, be the exhibition of these,
the fulfilment of Jehovah's promises to the beloved people.
Other Works by DAVID BARON.
The Servant of Jehovah: The New Cheaper Edition.
Sufferings of the Messiah and the Price 3s. 6d. net.
Glory that should Follow
Types, Psalms and Prophecies: 3rd Revised Edition.
A Selected Series of Old Testament Studies Price 6s. net.
The Visions and Prophecies of 2nd Cheaper Edition.
Zechariah: "The Prophet of Hope 566 pages, demy 8vo.
and of Glory" Price 7s. 6d. net.
The Ancient Scriptures and Sixth Edition.
the Modern Jew Crown 8vo.
Price 4s. 6d. net.
The Shepherd of Israel and His
Scattered Flock: A solution of the New Edition.
Enigma of Jewish History Price 2s. 6d. net.
Israel's Inalienable Possessions: New and Revised Edition.
The Gifts and the Calling of God which are Paper Covers, 9d. net. Cloth
without Repentance 1s. 4d. net.
A Divine Forecast of Jewish New and Enlarged
History--A Proof of the Supernatural Edition. Paper Covers,
Element in Scripture 9d. net.
The Jewish Problem--Its Solution; New Edition. Crown 8 vo.
or, Israel's Present and Future Price 1s. net.
Christ and Israel: Lectures and Addresses Price 4s. net.
on the Jews. By Adolph Saphir,
D.D. Collected and Edited by David
Baron
Morgan and Scott Ltd., 12, Paternoster Buildings, E.C.; or from The
Hebrew Christian Testimony to Israel, "En-Hakkoré," Northwood,
Middlesex.
All these books can be had also in America from the China Inland
Mission, 237, West School Lane, Germantown, Philadelphia, Pa.