BRITISH-ISRAEL

Southland Times, Issue 22461, 22 December 1934, Page 10

BRITISH-ISRAEL

Historicus.)

EXPOSITORY COLUMN. No. 30.

(By

British-Israel in the New Testament. There can be no doubt that one of the main planks of the British-Israel platform is the Covenant God made with Abraham. Full particulars of just what happened in this very remarkable incident are given in the very first Book of the Bible—Genesis. The Higher Critics Say .... It is often objected against the British —lsrael believer—Dr. Goudge does so in his recent book called “The BritishIsrael Theory”—that his way of read-

ing and regarding the Bible ignores all the knowledge of the Bible that has been gained during the last fifty years and more. This “knowledge” seems to know that Abraham was really just a mythical person, not a flesh-and-blood man such as the Bible depicts him. .... But They are Wrong.

Now if the Bible critics were right in this matter of Abraham, and if the Old Testament had only that very slight value that Bibical Criticism attaches to it, that would by no means invalidate the British-Israel case. Those who depreciate the Old Testament usually acknowledge the full force of the New. If, therefore, the New Testament reaffirms the Abraham Covenant beyond doubt, the Biblical critic, if he is honest—which he isn’t always—would have to admit that the British-Israel man is right in what he says about the Abraham Covenant.

St. Paul in his epistle to the Romans devotes a good deal of space to describing how the Covenant between Abraham and God was made; how Abraham accepted the call with that strong faith in God which made up his whole life. “He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief, but was strong in faith, giving glory to God. And being fully persuaded that what he had promised, He was able also to perform, and therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.” (Rom. IV. 20/2). In previous articles I have detailed the material promises of the Covenant with Abraham—things that it is not intelligent to take in any other way than material promises to the Coven-ant-nation that was to spring from Abraham. I will not therefore detail them again, but will simply stress that the Psalmist and prophets all looked forward to the promises materializing some day. We can see from the New Testament, especially from the epistle to the Hebrews, that the promises could not materialize until Christ had died on the Cross, but for all that, three rival systems have been put forward by Bible students. Three Wrong Views.

One school thinks the material promises to Abraham simply lapsed because the Jews rejected Jesus. The reply to them is that the Covant was said by God to be everlasting (Gen. XVII. 17). It could not therefore lapse.

Another school thinks that the material promises have all been postponed to the Millennium. This, however, is only a venture of faith. Its members think that the Jews are the whole Covenant, Seed of Abraham, and as the Jews have no king or nation, nor have they had any of the other material promises of the Covenant, therefore God will no doubt make His promises good in Millennial times. The reply is that the promises were due for fulfilment in “the latter days” (Gen. XLIX. 1). This means the period between Christ’s first coming and His second (see Acts 11. 17-and Heb. I. 2). The Futurist is therefore wrong.

Still another school transfers the promises to the Christian Church. This finds no warrant in the New Testament so far as I know, but for all that it is a widely held view. The New Testament View.

The Epistle to the Hebrews uses even stronger language in this matter than the Book of Genesis had done. “For when God made promises to Abraham, because He could swear by no greater He swore by Himself, saying, ‘Surely I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee.’ And so, after he had patiently endured, he obtained the promise. For men verily swear by the greater, and an oath for confirmation is for them an end of all strife. Wherein God, willing more abundantly to show the heirs of the promise the immutability of His counsel, confirmed it by an oath; that by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we might have strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the strong hope set before us.” (Heb. VI. 13/8). Surely, therefore, we have the New Testament’s full authority for maintaining that the promises made by God under the Abrahamic Covenant must have been fulfilled in the subsequent history of the world. Even if the Bible critics were right in deprecating the Old Testament as they do, they cannot show that the New Testament in any way goes back on what the Old Testament taught about the Abraham Covenant.

This particular foundation of the British-Israel case is therefore a solid one and has the full support of both Testaments. It is therefore binding on all Christians, whether British—lsrael believers or not.