BRITISH-ISRAEL

Southland Times, Issue 25312, 15 June 1935, Page 12

BRITISH-ISRAEL

(By “Briton”). Last week I concluded with the statement that Saul’s dynasty could not endure, since its existence conflicted with the predetermined prerogative of Judah to provide the wielder of the sceptre of Israel, and, in keeping with this restriction, Saul’s status was merely that of captain, or prince, while David’s status was that of king. This being so, David was actually the first king of "All Israel.” My remarks were concerned with evidence showing the connection between the material Throne and Kingdom of David and the Kingdom petition in the Lord’s Prayer, “Thy Kingdom Come.” God made a special covenant with David’s House assuring to it age long continuity, even fqr ever; thus raising that House to a pinnacle, far beyond the aspiration of anyone of the Tribe of Judah, that was not of royal descent. David’s House was established in, but was independent of, the House of Judah. It was a House designed to rule Israel and Judah alike, and it did do so until the disruption of “All Israel” into two Houses in the time of King Rehoboum. The institution of the special covenant with David is found in 2 Sam 7, 11:—“Also the Lord telleth thee that He will make thee an house.” v. 16: “And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever.” To emphasize the intention to restrict succession to David’s lineal descendants, we have the following, Jer 33, 17, 20, 21: “For thus saith the Lord; David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel. Thus saith the Lord; If ye can break my covenant of the day, and my covenant of the night, and 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 ” There is deep significance in the fact that the Kingship of Israel virtually began with David and that succession was to be held inviolate and sacred to David’s seed. This obtained right through Scripture history and prophecy ensures everlasting continuance throughout all their generations until He comes whose right it is. This indicates that when Christ comes unto this Kingdom inheritance, it will be one which has been kept free of family alienation of any kind. It may be said, this is all very well; but where is that throne and Royal line to-day? Judah is no longer a kingdom and her royal house is swept away. This is an important, even a vital, question, which must be answered, affecting as it does, the matter of continuance of which we have been speaking. I made it clear that David’s House was separate from, although of, the House of Judah; it was a house within a house. Its function was to rule the Kingdom of Israel. This.it could continue to do although Judah as a Kingdom ceased to exist. I have already shown that Judah was the sanctuary Tribe and that Israel was the Dominion (Psa 114, 1 and 2). This distinction must be understood and kept in mind. It may be urged that David’s seed was preserved hi all integrity upon the throne of Judah, until the death of Zedikeah and his male succession. But how did God keep faith with David in regard to the promise to maintain or reserve to his line the Kingdom of Israel if Judah was not that kingdom? The answer to this riddle, for riddle it has been until recent times, is found when we realize that David’s succession, after the rebellion from the House of David during Rehoboam’s reign; was restricted to one Kingdom tribe only, namely, the Tribe of Benjamin which tribe, together with that of Judah and a remnant of Israel, who elected to remain in the land of Judah, and also a portion of the tribe of Levi, constituted the kingdom of Judah. The tribe of Benjamin as a component of the Kingdom of Israel was loaned to Judah for a special and specific purpose. The following passages make this clear. (1 Kings 11, 11 to 13): “Wherefore the Lord said unto Solomon. .... I will surely rend the kingdom from thee, and will give it unto thy servant.” “Howbeit, I will not rend away all the kingdom, but will give one tribe to thy son, for David my servant’s sake, and for Jerusalem’s sake which I have chosen.” Thus the covenant with David was sustained by the presence of a kingdom element; namely, the tribe of Benjamin, with Judah, although the kingdom itself had departed. Because of the presence of this tribe, despite the fact that the kingdom itself was lost to them, David’s successors could still, and consistently, be styled Kings of Israel. Without this element Judah’s throne would have sunk to the level of a tribal chieftainship. This element persisted with Judah until the time of Our Lord. From it was drawn all the disciples with the exception of Judas Iscariot. It was this element that St Paul proudly claimed tribal relationship with and it was with reference to this element that Our Lord said to the Jews: “Therefore I say unto you the Kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.” (Matt 21, 43). I think I hear a protestant voice exclaim that Our Lord also said, “My Kingdom is not of the world.” Well be it so; that statement is not tantamount to saying, “My Kingdom is not of this Earth.” There be many worlds on this earth; for instance, we have the British-Israel world, and I know of some at least who disclaim attachment to it. This is not flippancy; I will not descend to that in this column, but it serves to show that words sometimes have a meaning different from that usually assigned to them. There are many worlds or spheres of human interest on this earth. And be it noted Our -Lord’s petition reads: “Thy Kingdom come .... on earth.” I will deal with this and kindred problems later on. Jeremiah’s commission is defined thus. “See, I have set thee over the nations and over the kingdom, to root out, and to pull down, and destroy, and to throw down, to build and to plant.” (Jer 1, 10). Its special significance to Judah is revealed in verse 18: “For behold, I have made thee (Jeremiah) this day a defenced city, and an iron pillar, and brazen walls against the whole land, against the Kings of Judah, against the princes thereof, against the priests thereof, and against the people of the land.” Scripture history faithfully records the fulfilment of the first part of the commission. The people were uprooted and the kingdom with its King and his male succession destroyed. We may be sure that the performance of this first part was bitter to the heart of the stern patriot Jeremiah, but its very fulfilment ensured to him the latter and happier part the building and planting; an God be true. Scripture makes no actual record, other than prophetic, of the building and planting, since this was to take place in another land, and was consequently beyond the horizon and scope of the sacred historian. Now, what was it that was to be “builded and planted,” or rather to be rebuilded and transplanted? That which was to be rebuilded was the throne of David, styled by Amos, the Tabernacle of David. “In that day will I raise up the Tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will i-aise up its ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old: That they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen*

which are called by My name, saith the Lord that doeth this.” (Amos IX, 11 12). A tabernacle is really a tent, or moving habitation; the use of this word in connection with the throne of David is significant of the fact that David’s throne had no permanent home in Judah, with which house it was domiciled at the time of Zedekiah’s death. We have seen that at best the kingdom of Israel was merely represented in Judah by the loan of the kingdom tribe of Benjamin. This being so we should be prepared for its transference to its permanent place of abode. “-For thus saith the Lord: David shall never want a man to set upon the throne of the House of Israel.” Now if David’s House should never want a man it follows, of necessity, that man should never want a kingdom. But where? We answer, in the appointed place and over the appointed people. “Moreover, I will appoint a place for my People Israel, and will plant them, that they may dwell in a place of their own, and move no more; .... And when they (David’s) days be fulfilled and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers. I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom.” (Parts 7 Sam. 10 13). The throne had to undergo a process of overturning, the people of the kingdom a period of wandering until both ultimately arrived at the “appointed place.” The people of the kingdom arrived in a series of migrations, and when the kingdom was consolidated then arrived the stone as the symbol and emblem of its power; then came its scion of the royal house of David in the person of James V of Scotland who was crowned on the stone afore-mentioned as James I. over the United. Kingdom of Great Britain. Now I have not written the foregoing for the purpose of proving the British-Israel case. My chief concern at present is to show that as Christ came ■ to confirm the promises made to the fathers and died in order to satisfy the will of Jehovah, since “No will is of any effect or force until after the death of the testator.” There 'is strong presumptive evidence that the setting up of the Kingdom of Israel must have been the great motive actuating the uttered petitions: “Thy kingdom come on earth.” The Jew rightly expects the advent of the Messiah to be coincident with the setting up of the kingdom, though unfortunately for him it is Judah’s kingdom he thinks of; consequently the Christian message, while proclaiming that the king denies to him a kingdom other than the church, is a dead faith to him. In days of old Israel the kingdom had a church as working partner; neither of them entrenched upon the prerogatives and functions of the other. Today our Christian leaders say in effect that the church is the kingdom, a presumption which is not sustained when the Scriptures are logically interpreted*