BIBLICAL AUTHORITY

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23858, 12 July 1939, Page 5

BIBLICAL AUTHORITY

TO THE EDITOR

Sir,—Your correspondent Mr F. R. Hall attempts to place us upon the defensive by "suggesting” that since we—"the antagonists*- of this British Israel theory ” —have stated that we "cannot accept Abraham as a forefather ”, (meaning literally in the sense of descent) will we kindly “suggest someone else who lived at or about that time.” This is, to say the least, ingenious and a new departure. I have read much of the British Israel literature, which they style “truth.” Mr Hall now calls it a " theory ” —a speculation. In this literature they claim to be the literal descendants of "the 10 lost tribes.” See E. Hine, J. Wild, and many others. Mr Hall now goes further and claims ancestry to “Abraham” by literal flesh descent. Therefore we all be Hebrews! I am aware there is an ancestry, also descendants of this man, but they are traced for us by Matthew chapter 1 and Luke chapter 3—from Adam Seth, Abraham, David, Jesus Christ, back and forth, never through the 10 tribes. There is a sense in which we—and when I say we I mean all nations, not just one—can accept Abraham as our forefather by accepting his faith and believing the Gospel preached to him, Gal. iii: 8, and by adoption in the prescribed way, Gal. iii: 27. We become “ his seed.” This, however, is not in the literal ancestral sense, as claimed inferentially by Mr Hall. To do this they will have to show that we are literal flesh descendants of the Jews, who have never been literally lost', and we must not overlook this fact, that it is through “ Judah ” and no other that the literal Abrahamic line comes. Mr Hall presumes that we admit we had forebears literally in those days. We are not at present on trial to show who these were. Speak* ing for myself, I believe they were of the “heathen” (Gal. iii: 8)/ that they sinned, but that , now through belief and obedience in Jesus Christ they are forgiven, as British Israelites must be, to obtain the Kingdom of God. I think it would be a mistake <c attempt a newspaper correspondence on the lines suggested by Mr Hall, on the grounds of space, and there is no necessity to do so. When the believers in British Israelism have produced the “proof,” which is evidence that they are the literal descendants of “ Ephram and Manasseh,” as represented by Britain and the United States, “half Hebrews and negroids—as they have always claimed—there will then be no necessity-to go back to Abraham. That is their job, not ours., They claim to be the possessors of certain “ truths.' Why are they not shown, instead of mexely asserted? I speak for myself, but I have no doubt “ Maran-atha ” would also welcome any really tangible evidence that this so-often asserted “British Israel truth ” is anything more than a mistaken theory, destined to Cause much heart-burning and failure to enter the Kingdom of God, which is the reason I write.—l am, etc., Iconoclast. Oamaru, July 8,

TO THE EDITOR Sir,-May I be pardoned for Saying 1 am often forced to wonder why those who attempt to deal with the subject of Israel confine themselves, one to certain texts in the Old Testament; and others to other selected texts, when there is hardly one Book in the : Testament that does not contain warning and great promise to these people. The Testament should certainly be taken as a whole and the essence extracted therefrom. Again, when dealing. with the Bible, why not deal with it as a whole? To begin with, we have excellent authority for affirming that “testament” is not the correct translation. but that “covenant” is much more the correct word to use. This fact may seem to be of little insport ance, but, in my sight, it is of the greatest possible importances .The first covenant made with man is given us in the third chanter of Genesis, when God said to the woman that her seed would rise and bruise the head of „ the serpent. If this be accepted, then it follows that He Who-was the. promise of the first covenant (the seed, of:the:woman) sealed the secondxoyena'rit with us by the sacrifice dj Himself, ■ “ This cup. is the new covenant in ray blood, even that which is poured, out tor you." My personal view on the central part of this second covenant lies within Hfa request to thej young ruler to “ Go ;sell all ;,thQ.U hast.; take up thy cross and follow r me ’-*1 i.e„ walk in My steps to the best of your ability—and then, “ Lo, lam with, you always, even unto the end of the age.” In my opinion, we are now near the completion of this “ age.” Turning, then, to the eighth chapter of Hebrew, we find, set out for Us, the third covenant which has yet to be made with man. If the first covenant had been faultless, then would no place have been sought for the second covenant. For finding fault with them (plural, be it noted), He saith, ‘Behold, the days come that I will make a new covenant with the House of Israel and with the House of Judah.” Note the "will make," and that both houses are mentioned. “ For this is the covenant I will make with the House of Israel—now joined in one house again. Then we find promises set out which are the most beautiful in the Bible. “I will be to them a God, and their sins I will remember no more.” More especially is this made so if we connect these promises with the Hist chapter of Rev.: “And He shall wipe away every tear from their and death shall be no more, nor crying, nor pain, any more for these things are passed away." lam well aware of the fact that this third covenant is set out in Jer, xxxi. 31. but this only enhances its value, in my sight, and has little, if any, bearing upon the second covenant which had to be made, and worked through by Israel before this third covenant could come Into being. So we have a first covenant covering the day. of the body,, as it were; a second covenant covering the day of the soul, and the *hird covenant shall come into being in the day of the spirit. May I say, in conclusion, that I deprecate controversy concerning this great question. I have merely stated my views, hoping they may, at least,,be helpful to many who must be in a fog, owing to the great differences of opinion which are expressed from time to time. The matter is one more for perception than discussion,—l am, etc., . Fluto. Dunedin, July 8.

TO THE EDITOR Sir. —I am convinced of the correctness of a statement made by the late Dr F. B. Meyer: “British-Israelism is not capable of argument; it is only a kind of infatuation.” We see the deplorable methods of this system, how it forces Scripture texts out of their connections to uphold this foolish invention. The exp9nents of BritishIsraelism brihg forward far-fetched theories of an utterly unreliable legendry character, and containing equally unreliable historical statements.—l am, etc., J. D. Brown. Mosgiel. July 10. TO THE EDITOR Sir. —I am especially grateful to Mr Steel for his kind remarks concerning the " minds ” of “ Maran-atha ” and myself, as being “one.” It. is with regret that I cannot so class him; as to me, he speaks with two voices and indulges in quibbles. Will your readers please note that if in future he writes and gives no references, no chapter at all, then he Is drawing attention to "his whole chapters”—not even mentioned, but left for us to find, in order that those “ specially critical ” might search and find out all about Balaam’s words concerning “ Israel ”; his Israel, mind you, in the present day. I rub my eyes to see if I have read aright, and remark that it is a peculiar way to conduct a correspondence, and exceedingly difficult to believe, especially as Mr Steel was endeavouring oy part quotes in Jeremiah xxxi: 35 to set forth a particular " Israel’’—not including Judah —in these words, “ Verse 31 spoke of Judah and Israel, but this verse 35 (36) is of Israel alone.” Yet in to-day’s issue he denies that “ he tries hard to separate Israel from Judah,” and this after he had been claiming unity of mind with “Maranatha ” —which he now rejects—who had been telling us about “some” of the 10 tribes. Mr Steel said we have always said that sections will be “regathered from the four corners

of the earth,” so it looks as If we shall not be wrong after all, although we pin our faith to the first advertisement (no chapter), 1452, “which does not boost anything but Israel,” Please note the singularity of this “ Israel,” which, read in conjunction, definitely proves that he meant his “ Israel ” of the 10 tribes “alone.” And he wound up his letter with “the lion and the unicorn in Israel’s sign, no matter what the foolish critics say" —meaning us. Sir, is it not definitely proved that in these three instances he has “ Israel ” separated from Judah? He now denies it. because he is forced to admit that "Israel” is the proper name of the 12 tribes shown in his own hidden quote of Nam. xxiv: 14. He dare not attempt to substantiate his “Israel” in Jeremiah xxxi: 35. It does not fit. He evades my challenge by saying “ Iconoclast ” should know that of course Benjamin (the tribe that kept the “ Israel" tree alive) with most, of Levi and the royal house of Judah are included in Balaam’s forecast.” He now admits this, and that the name of this 12tribed house is “ Israel.” He goes on, “And the tribe of Judah will be included as soon as they acknowledge their Redeemer." Why does he leave out Benjamin and Levi? Surely they are also included. Mr Steel certainly nas the tribes separated, and his “Israel” from Judah, and he “longs for Judah to be reunited.” So why should he deny it? Now. as, there were only two kingdoms, and his “ kingdom ” of the House of Israel # ceased to exist in 721 (see Hosea i. 4), because they rejected God, this must be the nation to whom “Judah”, is to be reunited. Let Mr Steel quote from the Bible when it was regathered in; where, too, when they acknowledged their Redeemer, when was it re-estab-lished and under what king of the 10 tribes? They had one before, except during the times of anarchy when they were murdering each other An answer without any quibbling will oblige.—l am, etc.. Iconoclast. Oamaru, July 10.