John Wilson, 1877
FIRST. - Twenty years ago a writer the
"RECORD" remarked: -
"A strong bias has lately been given to many spiritually-minded people
to alienate from the Gentiles the exceeding great and precious promises of the
Old Testament Scriptures."
REPLY. - There can be little doubt of the
extent of the evil, likewise that it is most dangerous to exalt any fleshly
relationship above that which our Saviour reckoned paramount, and possessed by "those
which hear the word of God and do it" (Luke 8:21). The most effectual
way of meeting the difficulty seems to be this, - allow your friend his desired
ground of "literal interpretation." What then? Are the Gentiles
excluded on that ground? Certainly not. The promise was not that Israel should
be exclusively blessed, but that in Abraham's seed "all the nations of
the earth" should be blessed (Gen. 22:15-18). This was also
contemplated when the land and the wide-spreading of his descendants was
promised to Jacob (Gen. 28:13, 14), "In thee and in thy seed shall all
the families of the earth be blessed."
The same spiritual blessings enjoyed by
Israel are promised to "the stranger" who lays hold upon the Lord's
covenant. (Isa. 56:3-7). Even in the land the same inheritance is appointed to
"the stranger sojourning in any of the tribes of Israel." (Ezek.
47:22, 23). Exaltation, except as placing in a position for higher and greater
service, is not more contemplated in the Old Testament for Israel than it is
for Christians in the New (Luke 22:25, 26).
The Birthright or heirship to the Promises
made to the Fathers was given to the GENTILES in a way in which it was never
bestowed upon the people called Jews. Jacob had the birthright which his
brother despised; and when he alienated it from Reuben, his own firstborn, he
transferred it to the sons of Joseph (1 Chron. 5:1, 2), especially to Ephraim,
the younger (Gen. 48:13-20), whose posterity he contemplated as
"Gentiles" when blessing him through the cross, saying "His
seed shall become a multitude of nations, - or as the same passage is
translated in Rom. 11:26, "Fullness of the Gentiles." As
distinguished even from his own brother Manasseh, and therefore much more from
the Jews, Ephraim was to become "a multitude of nations," or
Gentiles, who were to inherit the promises, and obtain and minister the
blessing to their brethren. "The multitude of nations," or
Gentiles who were to come of Ephraim, having been brought into the promised
blessing, "so all ISRAEL - the tribes of Israel his companions - "
shall be saved." (Ezek. 37:16-19; Rom. 11:25; Gen. 48:19, 20.)
Even after Ephraim was carried away by the
Assyrians and lost, or so broken as to be "not a people"
(Isa. 7:8), he was still considered by the Lord as His Firstborn (Jer. 31:8).
If the promises to Ephraim's descendants are to be fulfilled to those with regard
to whom they were made, then we need not look for their fulfillment in a people
called "Jews," for they never had that name. They were separated from
Judah at the death of Solomon, politically, religiously, and locally (I Kings
12.), and even "the whole seed of Ephraim" was carried away,
dispersed, and lost among the Gentiles more than a hundred years before "the
Jews" were carried to Babylon (Jer. 7:15, 2 Kings 17:24, 25).
The Heirs of the Promises made unto the
Fathers are, therefore, doubtless to be looked for among the GENTILES. To their
condition and name Ephraim was reduced when "backsliding Israel,"
as distinct from " treacherous Judah," was given a
"bill of divorce" and sent away (Jer. 3:8). Ephraim was
stripped of all wherein he might glory, and taken back to the land whence
Abraham had been called. Thence our ancestors commenced their wanderings in the
northern wilderness. The "Firstborn" of Israel was left
nothing to trust in but the free grace of God, according to which, through the
Cross, Ephraim had been given the Birthright (Gen. 48:13, 14). By the same free
grace the people who were put away under the old covenant were to be espoused
to the Lord in a "new and everlasting covenant" (Hos. 2:6-3;
Isa. 59.).
Not among the people generally called
"Israelites," then, need we expect to find those who were
emphatically appointed heirs of the promises. "The Jews" have their
own place in prophecy, but not that of the "Firstborn," which belongs
to the descendants of Ephraim, whose very name was given in the spirit of
prophecy, and means "I will bring forth fruits," the people
contemplated by our Lord when He said to the Jews, The kingdom of God shall
be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof (Matt.
21: 43).
If we can ascertain to whom has been given
that which was the chief advantage of the Jews, "the keeping of the
oracles of God," the ministration of the bread of life among the
nations; if we inquire whence came the multitude of Gentiles inhabiting these
islands, who have hence spread out to all "the ends of the
earth," and have been dealt with in providence as the Lord promised
to deal with the children of Joseph (Gen 49:22-26); and if we pursue the
subject far enough and carefully enough, we shall be in a fair way to see that
God can be rich in His grace to the Gentiles, and most literally true to the
promises made unto Abraham and his seed for ever.
SECOND. - "If this view is
generally accepted, by turning away the public attention from the Jews, the
interests of the Societies for their conversion may be seriously
affected."
Reply. - Is it not wonderful that Christians
should allow worldly considerations of expediency to influence them in the
reception or rejection of Scripture truth? If this be the truth respecting Israel,
it ought to be received, however it may affect the Jews' Societies; and if it
be not truth, it should be dealt with, not as being calculated either to
increase or lessen the income of any Society, but rather as not having
Scriptural warrant. Those who suggest such motives for the regulation of our
investigation of prophetic truth, do much to induce a suspicion of their own
insecure standing.
"Our Israelitish Origin" may
undermine the erroneous views of some respecting "the Jews," for it
shows the prior duty and importance of seeking the conversion of our own
people. But in doing this we are not the farther from promoting the conversion
of "the Jews;" rather we are removing one of the greatest
stumbling-blocks out of the way of both Gentile and Jew, and we are increasing
the instrumentality whereby God has declared His intention of operating for the
good of all.
Our view facilitates the conversion of the
Jews, because it enables us to approach them upon greater terms of equality,
and not as magnifying them in the flesh, which must always be a hindrance to
their embracing Christianity, whereby they lose that very caste on
account of which they are valued. It is surely better to invite "the
Jew" to join the commonwealth of Israel - to partake of the privileges of
Ephraim, "My Firstborn" - of being set among "the
children" of Joseph, whose is "the Birthright." (Compare
1 Chron. 5:2; Jer. 3:18, 19; 31:9.)
And it is not the case that those who are
most interested in "the Jews" have found their zeal lessened by this
view, of which we could give many notable instances where the spiritual footing
has been made more secure, because the ground had been cleared of some loose
insecure rubbish.
THIRD. - "Are you quite sure that
the so-called Scriptures are not a mere Jewish fabrication?"
REPLY. - 1. The Lord threatened the people
Of ISRAEL with four sore judgments on their land, in case of their denial of
His power, rejection of His authority, and oppression of the poor (Isa. 1:17).
And just as when, by obedience to His law, they sought to obtain His blessing,
the showers descended in their seasons, the land brought forth abundantly, and
they were protected by His mighty power from the inroads of the enemy; so, in
consequence of their disobedience, have all those threatened judgments,
"the sword, the famine, the pestilence, and the beasts of the earth,"
come upon them according to His word (Lev. 26.).
2. And at length, as had been threatened,
the enemy was allowed to prevail, not only to punish them in the land, but also
to carry them away so entirely from it, that to all human appearance they were
"lost" (2 Kings 17). More especially was this the case with regard to
" EPHRAIM and the Tribes of Israel, his companions," who constituted
the Kingdom of ISRAEL (Hos. 1:7).
3. As had been predicted, the Jews were
allowed to remain in the land, until, "their iniquity being full," they
were removed to Babylon for the space of seventy years (Jer. 29:10; Dan.
9:2); after which they were permitted to return, upon condition of defending
the poor and needy, and of being ready to receive and willing to obey the
Messiah when He should appear (Isa. 1; Mic. 5:2).
4. Messiah did appear in the time and place
predicted, as a Poor Man demanding simple justice, and an honest hearing for
the Truth; but the Jews would not hear. They hid as it were their faces from
Him (Isa. 53:3). They knew not the day of their visitation (Luke 19:24). And so
the same generation which had perpetrated the gross injustice of putting that Poor
Man to the accursed death of the cross, saw their temple and city destroyed as
foretold; while from that time to this the Jews have been as all their own
prophets had forewarned Deut. 4, 28, &c., &c.).
5. And it is not because the land of Israel
has been so crowded with inhabitants that there has been no room for them; for
it has been "lying desolate without them" (Jer. 26:43).
"The Lord hath removed men far
away, and there hath been a great forsaking in the midst of the land" (Isa. 6:12). The cities have been deserted, and the most
fertile fields untilled, ready to become the possession of whoever would
cultivate them. True, the curse has been upon the Land, as well as upon the
People. "Therefore the showers have been withholden, and there hath
been no latter rain" (Jer. 3:3), until now, that we are come to the
time which the Prophets thousands of years ago foretold, when the mountains
were to shoot forth their branches, and. bear their fruit for the
people of Israel, who are at hand to come (Ezek. 36:8).
Now if the Old Testament Scriptures were, as
you say, "a mere Jewish fabrication," is it at all likely that they
would have appointed to the Jews such a destiny as that people have exactly
fulfilled? In that case the Jews would have been much more likely to constitute
themselves heirs to the promises made to the Fathers.
Not so these Old Testament Scriptures, any
more than those of the New, which both plainly declare that the blessing in all
its fullness, temporal and spiritual, was to "come upon the head of
Joseph;" from whom the Jews of course are not descended (Gen.
49:22-26). We are told, 1 Chron. 5:, that "Judah prevailed above his
brethren, and of him came the Chief Ruler; but the Birthright was
Joseph's." On moral considerations the Birthright had been taken from
Reuben, and given to Ephraim and Manasseh, the sons of Joseph; but more
emphatically to Ephraim, the younger son (Gen. 48:15-20). And thus, when
speaking of the restoration of Israel, by the prophet JEREMIAH, the Lord says, "I
am a Father to Israel, and Ephraim is My firstborn" (31:9).
The Word of God-for the authenticity and
truth of which we are pleading - marks clearly the distinction between the
respective destinies of Judah and ISRAEL; the latter, under the name of
Ephraim, being cast out among the Gentiles and lost, as much as Joseph was when
he was carried down into Egypt. Our forefathers came from the borders of the
Caspian Sea; from the very neighborhood where these children of Ephraim were
lost when they were carried away from their land by the Assyrians between two
and three thousand years ago.
And manifestly to us have been fulfilled the
promises which we read in the Bible were made to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph,
and Ephraim; which spoke of our growing into " A MULTITUDE OF NATIONS,"
of possessing "THE GATES" of our enemies, and of being the means Of
BLESSING TO ALL THE NATIONS OF THE EARTH (Gen. 22:16-18; 48:15-20).
FOURTH. What evidence have we that the
Scriptures are a Revelation from the Eternal?
REPLY. - 1. EGYPT, which enslaved the nation
of Israel in its infancy, and compelled that people to cast their children into
the river Nile, had that same river turned into blood, and its king and all his
host drowned in the Red Sea (Exod, 1:22; 8:19-25; 14:28). And, as was
threatened, Egypt has been left to become "the basest of
kingdoms" (Ezek. 29:15); so that no one could be a ruler there except
as having been previously sold for a slave. Such was the dominion of the
Mamelukes, which existed till our own day. [ABCOG: Even modern Egypt is ruled
by ethnic Arabs, not ethnic Egyptians].
2. Of NINEVEH, the capital of ASSYRIA (by
whose power the Ten Tribes of Israel were carried captive, and as it were put
in "graves," - Ezek. 37.), it was said thousands of years
ago, "I will make thy grave, for thou art vile" (Nah. 1:14);
and there it lay from soon after the time that Israel were carried thither by
the Assyrians until our own day, when it has been disentombed by Englishmen!
3. We might thus not only take the beginning
and the end of Israel, EGYPT on the south and ASSYRiA to the north of their
land, but also the various countries circling around them, to see how
remarkably retributive have been the dealings of God; which, although as
regular as what are called the physical laws, are evidently higher than these,
and require us to think of a Moral Intelligence as speaking from the beginning,
and working throughout all ages in the succession of empires from BABYLON to
ROME, and from TYRE to these "ISLES OF TARSHISH," the traffic of which
TYRE attempted to monopolize to itself. And now these same BRITISH ISLES are as
"the ends of the earth" were promised to be; while TYRE, as
was threatened, is now "like the top of a rock - " (Ezek.
26:4-11; Deut. 33:17). [ABCOG: the story of Tyre is complex, as is its
geography.]
FIFTH. If your view be true, surely it
would have been found out before?
REPLY. - In that case the judgment written
against Israel would not have been so remarkably fulfilled (Lev. 26:18, 21, 24,
28). They were to be punished "seven times" for their sins by being
cast out of the Lord's land, lost, dead, and put into graves (Ezek. 37.). Seven
times 360 make 2,520 years, according to the symbolic language Of prophecy of a
day for a year [ABCOG: the ideal year has 360 days]. And it is now more than
that time since Ephraim was "lost" among the Gentiles. We have,
therefore, come to the time when Israel should be known, and Ephraim the
Prodigal Son should come to himself. (See "Lectures on our Israelitish
Origin," 5th edition.)
SIXTH. "The Lost Tribes are where
God says: in Assyria."
REPLY. - True, God says (Isa. 27:13), "They
shall come which were ready to perish in the land of Assyria," which
may hereafter be fulfilled in the Nestorians; but these people do not come up
to the predictions respecting EPHRAIM, to which they do not even pretend to
belong, but rather to the tribe of Naphtali. The people of whom it can be said,
"The nations shall see and be confounded at all their might"
(Mic. 7:16), must be in a far different position from that of the Nestorians or
any people like them.
The great restoration of Israel is to be
from other quarters than Assyria (Isa. 48:5), "I will bring thy seed
from the EAST and gather thee from the WEST," where we ourselves are.
They are not spoken of ... as a people called by the name of the Lord, and
created for His glory. Compare therewith 1 Pet. 4:14.
Ephraim was to be so "broken"
as to be "not a people" (Isa. 7:8). When cast out among the
Gentiles, of course they could not be known as the people of promise. But they
were to be known by that which is better than a name; by the blessing to extend
to "the utmost bound of the everlasting hills."
Notwithstanding all the obstacles presented by either Pagan or Papal Rome - the
seven-hilled city which has been called Eternal - the blessing was to "come
upon the head of Joseph, and upon the crown of the head of him that was
separate from his brethren" (Gen. 49:25, 26; Deut. 33:16).
SEVENTH. Drs. Grant and Buchanan, Sir G.
Rose, Messrs. Samuel, Finn, Layard, and others, have written on the Israelitish
origin of different portions of the human race; therefore "our Israelitish
origin" was not required to account for the lost tribes of Israel.
REPLY. - We are not aware that any have
attempted to find the "multitude of nations" promised to
come of Ephraim; except those who hold with the Mormons about the North
American Indians; but these, so far from increasing and filling the face of the
world with fruit (Isa. 27:6), are comparatively few in number, are neither
blessed, nor show a capacity for ministering blessing to others, and are being
rapidly supplanted by the race we identify with Ephraim.
[ABCOG: rather Manasseh].
EIGHTH. "There is not a single text
which points to any of the tribes so mixing with Gentiles as to beget a new legitimate
nation."
REPLY. - Most certain it is, that within
sixty-five years from the giving forth of the prophecy in Isa. 7:8, Ephraim was
to be so "broken that he should not be a people;" and that
of him it is said in Hos. 7:8, "Ephraim he hath mixed himself among
the peoples." If Ephraim was soon to be broken so as not to be a
people, and was at the same time to be MIXED among the peoples; then even the
Firstborn of Israel must of course have been mixed among the Gentiles; and most
probably "the tribes of Israel his companions" were mixed in
the same way.
But although Ephraim was to be thus mixed up
among the Gentiles, and was to be "so broken as not to be a
people," was he therefore also to lose his birthright?
No; for long after these words were spoken,
the position of the firstborn is recognized as being reserved for Ephraim (Jer.
31:9). In the yet future restoration, the Lord will be able to say, "I
am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn." Notwithstanding,
his being "mixed" among the Gentiles, Ephraim is still the
heir to the promises, and may most reasonably be expected to prove himself the
nation to whom has come "the Kingdom" which, according to our Lord's
prediction, was taken from the Jews (Matt. 21:43). What nation can this be but
that of Ephraim, whose very name means "I will bring forth
fruits", and that to which the blessing was promised (Gen. 48:16-20).
This nation is clearly to be distinguished
from "the Jews," the people from whom the Kingdom was to be taken.
Now of what great advantage had the Jews been deprived? Unto them had been
committed the Oracles of God (Rom. 3:1, 2). The ministration of the Word - the
bringing forth "the fruits of the Kingdom" - was to pass
away from them; and unto what we call the Anglo-Saxon race has been committed
the stewardship of "the Oracles of God" - the distribution of the
bread of life to the whole human family: - to the people we identify with
Ephraim.
In the future restoration to the land, those
with whom Sion is to be adorned as with a bridal dress are to be a
comparatively new and unlooked-for people, whose connection with the Fathers
had been lost sight of (Isa. 49:18-21). The people who were lost as having been
made "NOT MY PEOPLE" - Lo-ammi - are to be found "sons
of the living God" (Hos. 1:6-10; Isa. 7:8).
Judah and Ephraim are clearly distinguished
from each other, both under the Mosaic dispensation, and since the coming of
Christ. The Lord had not mercy upon Israel while they were under the
[ABCOG: penalty of breaking the] law; but He had mercy upon the house of
Judah. Their cases were different after the rejection of Messiah by the Jews.
"The Kingdom" was taken from "treacherous Judah," and the Word
was sent away into the north country after "backsliding Israel "
(Jer. 3:11-17).
NINTH - Though the Saxons came out of
Assyria, where Israel were lost, this is no proof that the Saxons have sprung
from Israel; any more than it would prove a family to be of negro descent, to
show that it came from, the West Indies, to which negro slaves had been
deported.
REPLY. - True, our Israelitish origin cannot
be proved from the simple fact that our Saxon forefathers came from where
Israel were lost. But this fact shows the possibility of our being descended
from Israel. It amounts to still more when we consider that from Israel were to
come a seed to be sown over the earth; while of Nineveh (Assyria) it is said
(Nah. 1:14), "The Lord hath given commandment concerning thee, that no
more of thy name be sown; I will make thy-grave; for thou art vile." Therefore,
when after this we find a people coming out of Assyria to be most extensively "sown"
over the earth, appointed to fill the waste places thereof with fruit, of whom
God has been pleased to make up the great body of His most faithful witnesses
to Jew and Gentile, and has given them multiplicity, supplanting power, and the
ministration of blessing such as He only promised to give to Ephraim, we may
well suppose them to have sprung from those Israelites who were carried captive
into Assyria, whom the Lord was to "sow to Himself in the earth,"
and who were to "fill the face of the world with fruit"
(Isa. 27:6).
In dealing with historic facts we must be
regardful of the providential laws revealed in the Scriptures. Thus we find God
saying to Israel (Jer. 30:11), "Though I make a full end of all
nations whither I have scattered thee, yet will I not make a full end of thee;
but I will correct thee in measure, and will not leave thee altogether
unpunished." As God is true, no nations among whom Israel has been
cast can entirely supplant them; but, on the contrary, Israel are themselves to
supplant others.
Even when "corrected in
measure" and cut off as to name, and to appearance lost among the
nations, Israel were to continue throughout all changes (Deut. 33:17; Jer.
33:20-26).
TENTH. "DID THE TEN TRIBES NOT RETURN
WITH THE JEWS FROM BABYLON? TWELVE BULLOCKS AND OTHER ANIMALS WERE THEN OFFERED
FOR ALL ISRAEL AS A SIN OFFERING" (Ezra 8:35).
REPLY. - The following considerations lead
to the conviction that Ephraim, who had been carried into Assyria, did not
return with the Jews from Babylon.
1st. Comparatively few of even the Jews
returned; and the Scriptures make no mention of others being among them, save
descendants of those who had been carried captive to Babylon as belonging to
the house, although not all to the tribe of JUDAH.
2nd. At the time of that restoration,
EPHRAIM's return from Babylon would have been inconsistent with the Lord's
purpose regarding him and his companions (Jer. 3.). They were "put
away" under the law of Moses, that they might become the Lord's
people according to the gospel (Isa. 54; Hos. 1:2). Having been lost as "children
of Israel" they were to be found "sons of the living
God" (Hos. 1:6, 7, 10).
3rd. The Prophets speak of the restoration
Of ISRAEL as something very different from the return of the Jews from Babylon
(Isa. 49; Jer. 30.).
4th. In the promised restoration Judah is to
return with Israel, and Ephraim is recognized as the firstborn (Jer.
3:18; 31:9), whereas upon that from Babylon, Judah and Benjamin are spoken of
as constituting, the body of the people returning from the captivity (Ezra
10:9). Ephraim is not once mentioned either as restoring his brethren or as
being himself restored.
5th. After the restoration from Babylon had
taken place, Zechariah prophesied (chap. 10:6-12) the return of Ephraim as
still future, after they bad been sown among the people.
6th. As regards the animals being presented
as a sin offering for all Israel at the restoration from Babylon, what proof
have we that the number of sacrifices was changed at the separation of the two
houses under Rehoboam, or after the captivity Of ISRAEL to Assyria? Were no
people remembered in sacrifice but those in the land? See for example the case
of the Spartans (1 Macc. 12).
7th. Even after EPHRAIM was lost, he is
spoken of as the firstborn, to whom the Promises made to the Fathers primarily
belonged (Jer. 31:9). If Ephraim's case had been an unnoticed accompaniment to
that of Judah: if he had been made a subject people along with the Jews, he
could scarcely have grown into the promised multitude of nations distinguished,
for the privileges bestowed upon them, as (through grace) inheriting the
promises made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
8th. The JEWS, who know they can never
return to blessing, except as in connection with the Heir, make no claim to
having been joined by Ephraim at their return from Babylon.
9th. After their return, Samaria, the
capital city of Ephraim and of the house of Israel, remained in possession of
the mixed people placed there by the king of Assyria (2 Kings 17:26, 27) And
even the more northern parts of the land of Israel came into the possession of
the Jews.
All the circumstances of the case are
evidence that Israel, and especially EPHRAIM, did not return with the Jews from
Babylon. THE RESTORATION OF ISRAEL TO THE LAND HAS THEREFORE NOT YET TAKEN
PLACE. (See also "Standard of Israel," Vol. 1.)
from Sixty
Anglo-Israel Difficulties Answered. Chiefly from the Correspondence of the
late John Wilson, compiled by his daughter. London: S. W. Partridge and
Co., 9, Paternoster Row. 1877
John Wilson, 1877. Sixty Anglo-Israel
Difficulties Answered