BRITISH-ISRAEL

Southland Times, Issue 25306, 8 June 1935, Page 11

BRITISH-ISRAEL

(By

“Briton”).

Once again I put the very pertinent question; Can the partial faith of Christendom, which excludes reference to the rehabilitation of Northern Israel, altogether .satisfy the reasonable expectations of those who believe all the prophets have spoken ? . . I will answer this question in the negative, since, if it did satisfy; Brit-ish-Israel had not come into being, and the world would still be awaiting the revelation essential to give to Christianity, a body. Christianity has become etherialized, and other worldly minded and while the Christian rightly and earnestly engages in pursuits which may be summed up in the phrase, “Good works,” he does not expect nor seek for the consummation of his highest ideals in what he justly terms this imperfect world. This arises from, or is consequent upon, an imperfect apprehension of all that our Lord’s Prayer implicates. In this prayer we have the double petition, “Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven.” Of these two petitions, one has direct relationship to the setting up of a material kingdom on this earth, while the other relates to the ideals expressive of the will of God which should so permeate, dominate and govern the activities of the kingdom as to bring about those perfect conditions which obtain in Heaven. It may be objected that it was a heavenly kingdom that was sought for. Well, so it was. It was heavenly in that it was conceived in the counsels of the Almighty, while it is also earthly, since it was on this earth that the conception was to materialize. Have we any warrant for the belief that it was a material or earthly kingdom of heavenly origin that Christ had in mind when He put this petition in the mouths of His followers? Well, the sense and purport of the petitions themselves support no other view, especially when we call to mind the words of the angel (Luke 1, 32). “He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto Him the throne of His father David.” We know that David’s kingdom was material enough and became at times gross enough to stigmatize it as being of the earth, and so earthy, indeed, as to be temporarily cast aside, and yet Christ was to inherit it as the lineal descendant of David. The line-

age of Christ is brought down in two lines in the New Testament in order to emphasize, and establish the legality of the title to inherit. We cannot escape the implication of these things. It is the kingdom of Israel with which we are now concerned and which was to be set up. The defunct kingdom of Judah will never again be set up independent of Israel. The enlightened Bible student knows that David reigned over the Tribe of Judah seven years before the “throne of the Lord” was added to him; and that God made a special covenant with the House of David, saying: “And thy house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee; thy throne shall be established for ever” (2 Sam. 7, 16). “For thus saith the Lord: David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel.” (Jer 33, 17). Let us be clear on this point David was not promised perpetual rule over the throne of the house of Judah. Judah’s throne is non est, while that of Israel is flourishing like a green Bay tree.

I have said that an independent kingdom of Judah will never again be set up. Scripture visualizes a future fusion of the two Houses into a kingdom over which one king will be appointed to rule. “And I will make them one nation in the land upon tire mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king to them all; and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all.” (Ezek 37, 22). I have shown in my last that this is the faith of the expectant Jew. Why does the Christian lack this faith?

Let me return to the two petitions which are concerned with the establishment of a kingdom, and the state of being which should render it perfect; perfect in all its attributes; perfect hi its majesty as a kingdom; and perfect in its allegiance to the Deity, who by long processes has called it into existence. The petitions themselves are the logical outcome of that which had gone before in the past history of Israel, to wit; firstly, the initial establishment of this kingdom as being in a special sense God’s own, though as He says “all the earth is mine,” (Exodus 19, 5), and secondly, the expressed purpose of the Almighty to make it perfect, it spite of continued disobedience and moral and spiritual degradations. “Behold the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was a husband unto them, saith the Lord; But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel: after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.” So fixed was the purpose to redeem, that it .can best be expressed in Christ’s own words: “I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matt 15, 24). Now let me extend the theme suggested by the first of these two points (i.e.) the original setting up of the kingdom.

One of the earliest intimations that Israel’s throne was God’s throne is found in Exodus 17, 15: “Because the hand of Amalek is against the throne of the Lord.” These words are not in the text itself, but appear in the marginal notes of both Authorized and Revised versions. That these marginal notes have authority as signifying intentions is amply borne out by subsequent history and Scripture reference. Although Divine intention had not at that time crystallized into the actual constitution of the kingdom, yet in God’s sight it was regarded as already existing, as the following passages denote: “When Israel went forth out of Egypt, the house of Israel from a people of strange language Judah- became His sanctuary, Israel His dominion.” (Psa 114, 1,2). R.V. Israel at that stage might be looked upon as being God’s kingdom in embryo. The official setting up of the kingdom is set forth in Exodus 19, 5 to 8; “Now therefore, if ye will obey My voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me, from among all peoples;-for all the earth is Mine; and ye shall be unto Me a kingdom of priests, and an‘holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, and Moses came and called for the Elders of the people, and set before them all these words which fhe Lord commanded him. And all the people answered together, and said, All that the Lord has spoken we will do. And Moses reported the words of the people unto the Lord.” The subsequent giving of the kingdom’s Law was accompanied by aweinspiring splendour. Here we have Israel set up as a theocratic state recognizing God as its King, a condition which obtained until the people requested of Samuel a visible King of their own. "But the thing ’displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a King to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the Lord. And the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of >*h® people in all that they say unto

thee; for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not be King over them.” (1 Sam 8, 5 to 8). R.V. The request of the people was acceded to and Saul, a Benjaminite, was annointed captain only “The Samuel took a vial of oil and poured it upon his (Saul’s) head, and kissed him and said, Is it not because the Lord hath anointed thee to be captain over His inheritance?” (1 Sam 10, 1). Be it noted that when Saul was anointed “captain,” it was at best merely an interim appointment. The significance of this will be apparent upon calling to mind that the prerogative of royalty, so far as Israel was concerned, lay with the Tribe of Judah only. “The sceptre shall not depart from * Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto Him shall the gathering of the people be.” (Gen 49, 10). Consequently, and in keeping with pre-determined plan and purpose, when David succeeded Saul the wording of the appointment was changed. “And the Lord said unto Samuel, How long wilt thou mourn over Saul, seeing I have rejected him from reigning over Israel? Fill thine horn with oil, and go, I will send thee to Jesse the Bethlehemite; for I have provided Me a King among his sons.” (1 Sam 16, 1). Saul was a king of the people’s own choosing; he was of a tribal line that could not possibly establish a long enduring dynasty in view of Judah’s prerogatives. Saul’s dynasty was established in anger, and was cast aside for disobedience.