THE LOST TRIBES | AdventAI

Seventh-day Adventist Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Nov 10, 1881

THE LOST TRIBES.

THE Banner of Israel, published in London, England, attempted to reply to our comments on the pamphlets concerning the lost tribes; but, as far as meeting the points made against their theory, the reply is a failure. The editor, who appears to be the writer of the pamphlets, says:—

“The notice, an editorial, appeared on ‘fifth-day, May 12, 1881,’ which, we suppose, meant Thursday. Why it should be called fifth-day instead of Thursday, we are unable to conjecture.”

This is good proof that he is not an Israelite—not of the Hebrew stock. Can a true Israelite be so ignorant of the Hebrew Scriptures and Hebrew traditions as not to know what “fifth-day” means? Must we use the language of gentile mythology to be understood by this self-styled Jew? We advise him to look up an old Mosaic account of creation, and read the first chapter of the book called Berashith, and he will not need to “suppose” what fifth-day means.

He takes issue with us on the new covenant, denying that it is yet made. He might, with equal propriety, deny that the first covenant was ever made; for every step that was taken to establish the first, was taken to establish the second. Every provision made for the first was made for the second.

1. Both were ordained in the hands of a mediator.

2. Both were dedicated, or established, with blood. Heb. 9:18. When the first was confirmed, Moses said, “Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord hath made with you.” Ex. 24:8. When the new covenant was confirmed, Jesus said: This is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many.” Matt. 26:28.

3. Paul said that a covenant is of force after men are dead; and this he spoke in reference to Christ as mediator of the new covenant. As the blood of bulls and goats ratified the first covenant, so the blood of Christ—his death—ratified the second.

4. The first covenant had a sanctuary and a service of priesthood therein. So has the second; for Christ is a priest in the Sanctuary where he has entered by his own blood. Heb. 8:1–5; 9:24–26.

5. Paul declares that the first covenant has passed away; it was abolished; its sacrifices were rejected; its priesthood no longer serves.

The Banner takes upon itself a difficult task in this denial. It must show where we are; whether we are under any covenant at all; whether Christ is or is not a priest—“a minister of the sanctuary;” whether he is or is not “the mediator of a better covenant;” whether it was (has been) established upon better promises, or remains to be; whose death will ratify it when it is established; by what blood will it be dedicated; if it will have any priestly service, and what will be the order of its priesthood. All this is easy of solution admitting the fact, which the Scriptures make evident, that we are under the new covenant. We invite him to try to reconcile the Scripture statements here referred to with his denial.

The editor of the Banner entirely misapprehends the promise in Jer. 31:31–34. He thinks when this promise of the new covenant is fulfilled every Englishman will know the Lord! The reception of the blessings of the new covenant is an individual work; it is of faith—not of birth. The terms of this covenant, as Paul shows, do not embrace all who are “of Israel,” but those only who accept it, and this without any regard to national descent. All the world, or all of any nation, will not “know the Lord” in the sense of the promise; but those referred to, in whose hearts is written his law. But this is a personal work—a work of faith. John says: “Hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.” 1 John 2:3. Such are in the new covenant—they know the Lord. We hope the editor will follow up this covenant question, and define his position clearly. If the new covenant has not been made we wish to be informed how it will be made, and who will be its mediator, etc. Again he says:—

“Christ's mission to the lost sheep of the house of Israel only, and his journeyings to seek them only, did not exhaust his mercies to that race; else, where would be the remnant of whom Paul wrote in Heb. 8:10, to whom the blessings were yet future in A. D. 64?”

If he could successfully meet the issue which was raised, why evade it by assailing one which never was raised? We did not intimate that the work of Christ and of his apostles exhausted his mercies to that race; we never believed it; that question was not in issue. The question is this: Did they go and preach to the lost sheep of the house of Israel? If not, they did not fulfill their mission. If they did, then these lost sheep were in Palestine, and not lost at all in the sense in which the Anglo-Israelists use the term. And this question: Are the promises to Israel as a nation yet to be fulfilled? or are the gentiles fellow-heirs and partakers of the same promises? If the latter be true, then Hebrews by birth may be accepted of God only on the same conditions on which gentiles are accepted, namely, acceptance of Christ by faith. This is, indeed, the case, and therefore there is no advantage in proving one's self the seed of Abraham “according to the flesh.”

It was our intention in comparing the prophecies of Jeremiah and of Daniel with the facts of the New Testament, to show that Christ and the apostles preached “only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” in order to fulfill the promise made to Daniel, that the Messiah should confirm the new covenant with many of Daniel's people for one week—the last of the seventy which were “cut off” upon that people. Paul said “it was necessary” that the gospel should first be preached to them; not because they needed salvation more than the gentiles; not because Christ did not come to bring salvation to the gentiles; but because this prophecy of confirming the covenant during that week must be fulfilled. When it was thus confirmed to many of the house of Israel and the house of Judah, then the apostles turned to the gentiles; then the middle wall of partition was fully removed; Jews and gentiles were made “both one,” in the gospel; all special and national privileges to the Jews were forever done away. Now the gentiles are “fellow-heirs, and of the same body.”

The following paragraph from the Banner is interesting:—

“The editor's avowed unconcern for God's glory in the matter of the discovery of the lost sons of God (his first-born, Ephraim) is on a par with the selfish satisfaction he expresses that he himself is a son of Abraham and partaker of the promises in Christ. But the promises in Christ are those God gave “to Abraham and his seed forever,” and we opine that if our editor is not one of Abraham's seed, a Hebrew by birth, or, at least, by adoption, he is not yet one with the Hebrew God-man.”

We are not at all unconcerned for God's glory; but it is yet to be proved that we shall glorify God by confessing that the English people are the direct descendants of Abraham, or in looking for those descendants anywhere. Nor do we see any selfishness in expressing our satisfaction that we are a son of Abraham through faith in Christ. This is according to our idea of glorifying God. And it is a sufficient condemnation of his theory that he condemns this expression. And here the editor raises another false issue. We never intimated, nor believed, that any one will be “one with the Hebrew God-man,” who is not of Abraham's seed. But his language surely does imply that to be Abraham's seed by adoption is quite secondary to being his seed by birth. “If our editor is not one of Abraham's seed, a Hebrew by birth, or, at least, by adoption, he is not yet one with the Hebrew God-man.” Now the question: Are there two ways of being Abraham's seed with the Hebrew God-man, that is, in Christ? Is “by birth” one way of being Christ's, and “at least by adoption,” another way? Will the Banner distinctly explain its language? We affirm that there is no way of being or becoming Abraham's seed “with” Christ—properly in Christ—but that of faith and adoption. “If ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.” “They which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.” In this condition “there is neither Jew nor Greek.” The Banner speaks of “the lost sons of God.” Will it please to read: “They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God.” “He that is born after the flesh” may become a child of God by faith in Christ; so may a gentile. One has no claim above another. So far from seeking God's glory in this “identity” theory, it really denies the gospel of the Son of God. The next paragraph of the Banner's reply is equally strange:—

“To make sure even of his adoption, the Hebrew root-tree must be found and identified. But this is just the thing he declares he cares nothing for! though the Saviour he says he loves tells us “his whole heart and his whole soul” is set upon the inquiry, the discovery, and the restoration to honor and glory of his chosen people, twelve-tribed Israel.”

So then it appears that we cannot be sure that we are Christ's unless we are able to identify the literal descendants of Abraham! If this is not belittling faith in Christ we know not what could be. If we are Christ's then our adoption is sure; but this, the Banner thinks cannot be assured unless we know that the English are “the lost tribes!” We pass this as a rare instance of fanaticism.

He refers to two bishops who, he says, thought that Peter addressed the ten tribes in dispersion; but he does not notice the fact to which we referred, that Peter addressed those who had obtained the “precious faith” with him; who were “established in the present truth;” and to whom had been made known “the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ;” who, in their afflictions, were partakers of Christ's sufferings, etc. Not very much “lost” when Peter addressed them.

Few readers would ever imagine how the editor of the Banner meets our calling attention to the fact that James addressed “the twelve tribes scattered abroad,” instead of the “ten tribes,” as his pamphlet asserted. He says:—

“St. James spoke of the twelve tribes as under dispersion in his day. If so, the ten (included in the twelve) were part of the diaspora, and we were right, therefore, in so describing them as mentioned by St. James. There are eleven lost or hidden tribes, and we believe a quota of Judah, too, were dispersed with them (Jer. 30), making ours in truth a microcosm of twelve tribes in Britain, lost or gentiled.”

His pamphlet said that James addressed the ten lost tribes. We pointed out the falsity of the statement,—that he addressed “the twelve tribes,” but not lost ones,—and the editor is thereby strengthened in his pet theory; for how could he address the twelve and not address the ten? Was he not right in his statement of “the ten,” seeing the ten were included in the twelve?

The editor may think this reply is ingenious, but it is far from ingenuous. It certainly looks like a determination on his part to have his own way—proof or no proof. And finally he says:—

“In regard to the Cui Bono argument contained in the penultimate paragraph of our opponent, all we can say is, that the bonum of the discovery, or identity, of “Israel in Britain” is God's glory, since he requires Israel to be found to prove the stupendous fact that he is God (Isa. 43:12).”

We read that “every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.” That in “the blood of the Lamb and the word of their testimony” is the power of the saints. But such testimony as this is worth comparatively nothing with the Anglo-Israelists. The summum bonum—the all in all—with them is to confess “the identity of Israel in Britain.” Without this we cannot prove that Jehovah is God; without this we can have no assurance of our interest in Christ; without this we cannot know that we are Abraham's seed by faith; in fact, without this all the truths and promises of the gospel of the Son of God are a nullity. We have been brought into contact with many delusions in these last days; but none to exceed this in blindness as to the grace of God in the gospel of Christ.