p. 1 | The True Israel by George I. Butler

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jan 16, 1872

The True Israel.

By George I. Butler

BY ELD. GEO. I. BUTLER.

Who constitute the true Israel of God, to whom the promises are made in the Bible of great blessings in the future? The question is one of importance. The religious world has been perplexed over it, and to-day are divided upon it, and to Adventists especially is a proper answer desirable. For if the descendants of Abraham according to the flesh are yet all to return to the land of Palestine before Christ makes his second appearance on the earth, as some would have us believe, we should desire to know at once who they are, how many are included, and what are the prospects of their soon returning, since upon the nearness of that event would depend the nearness of the appearing of our blessed Lord.

So far as I know, there are but two answers to the question ever given. 1. The seed according to the flesh, those who are known as Jews the world over. 2. Those under the old dispensation, of the lineal descendants of Abraham, who believed and lived as Abraham did, and those united to them by circumcision of the Gentile nations, who lived in the same manner, and in the new dispensation every true Christian, whether descended from Jacob through the flesh or not. We believe the latter answer to be correct, and shall give some of our reasons for thinking so in this article.

But first, let us notice some conclusions which necessarily follow, if the first answer be the correct one, and a man is an Israelite in the sense of being entitled to the promises by virtue of the fact that Abraham was his ancestor.

1. Character has nothing to do with it, for we know that among those thus descended are pagans, atheists, infidels, and men of all characters; for it is notorious that all these classes have been found among them, and are yet.

2. The children of the lost ten tribes who were given over to heathenism before they left their own land, and who have undoubtedly been swallowed up and incorporated into those nations among whom they were scattered, will come in for their share as well as those known as Jews, for they are just as really descended from Abraham as the others. We are not authorized in the Scriptures to separate those from the Jews: they come in just as really for a part in the promises as they. The Jews were descended from Judah, and the other sons were as really a part of Israel as he. So in the gathering some are looking for before the coming of Christ, every descendant of Jacob throughout the earth, whether known to man to have thus descended or not, must, according to this logic, be gathered to the land of Palestine. A very numerous, and we should say rather a motley, company, for so small a country as Palestine.

3. And as the apostle Paul says, “All Israel shall be saved,” it follows, from this position, that every descendant of Jacob who has ever lived in the past, will be saved, including Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, the millions who fell in the wilderness, the hosts of idolators who bowed the knee to Baal, and caused their children to pass through the fire, wicked Ahab, with Jeroboam who caused Israel to sin, those who put to death God’s prophets, Judas Iscariot, those who crucified the Lord of glory, and all the thousands who perished at the destruction of Jerusalem; and, in short, the greatest sinners the world has ever seen; for these were the literal descendants according to the flesh.

4. And if fleshly descent thus decides the question, why should not all the Arabs, those who came from Ishmael, another of Abraham’s sons, and those who came by Keturah, Abraham’s last wife, and all the Edomites, those descended from Esau, Isaac’s other son, be reckoned in as entitled to the promises? Does not the very fact that these were not reckoned show that some other principle besides lineal descent decides the question as to who are Israelites?

But it may be said that though the literal seed constitute the real Israel, only those of them who are truly good will inherit the promises, but that before they return to the land of their fathers they will be converted, and then it will be consistent for God to bless them. To which we reply, This grants the very point at issue; for in that case, belonging to Israel would be of no benefit so far as receiving the promises was concerned. They would only be given to those which had the requisite character after all, showing that it was character really that God looks at and blesses, and not a descent according to the flesh. And what evidence is there that the Jews, as a nation, are any nearer conversion now than they were eighteen centuries ago? Is the light of truth shining brighter? Are the means more powerful than those employed by Christ and the apostles? Is a nation, which has closed its eyes and ears stubbornly so long, likely to be in a favorable condition to be impressed easily? Do we not know it is just the contrary? And that, as a nation, they have given themselves up to money-making, and as really worship the golden calf as their ancestors in the wilderness? Will God force them to receive the truth whether they will or not? He has never yet adopted this course of action, and should he do it now, he would become what he says he is not, a “respecter of persons.” What claims have the Jews as a people, in reason, to special blessings at the hand of God? The only reason that could be assigned would be that of fleshly descent, and this would bring in many of the most abominable characters the world has ever seen, whose sins are greater because of the special light they had.

But it will be said, “The Jews must return and have special blessings, because the word of God has said so.” Well, that turns entirely upon the question, Who are the true Israel of God to whom these promises are made? It is simply begging the question to assume that it is confined to the literal seed, when, as we shall show, there is far more reason to take the other view, and that the literal seed have nothing to do with the promises by virtue of their descent.

And now let us examine the other side of the question, to ascertain by the Old and the New Testament both, who are those to whom the promises are made. As we are Christians, of course we need the comments of the inspired writers of the New Testament, to ascertain what are meant by the terms employed by writers of the Old. We freely grant, of course, that the terms Jew, Judah, Jerusalem, Israel, Jacob, and others, are many times employed to denote the literal seed alone. But we do claim that they cannot be confined to that people exclusively, but also refer to the true children of God, Gentiles as well as Jews; and only in this latter sense when they are spoken of as entitled to the promises.

We shall now try to show that it was because of certain traits of character that Abraham and Israel were chosen at the first. Why did God select Abraham? “He believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” Gal. 3: 6. “Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.” Gen. 26: 5. “For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord, to do justice and judgment; that the Lord may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him.” Gen. 18: 19. Here, in this last quotation, the blessings promised to Abraham’s children are made contingent upon their living out the same principles he had illustrated and taught them. If they did not do it, he would not give them those blessings is the plain inference. Did Abraham’s relatives serve God as he did? Says Joshua to the twelve tribes: “Your fathers dwelt on the other side of the flood in old time, even Terah, the father of Abraham, and the father of Nachor; and they served other gods.” Josh. 24: 2.

From all these testimonies, it is plain that the reason why Abraham was selected from all others was because he alone was faithful to his Creator; and being of such character in a time of almost universal apostasy fitted him to be called the “father of the faithful.” Why was Jacob chosen instead of his elder brother Esau? We answer, Because of difference in character. Esau was “a profane person,” that is, one who had little regard for sacred things. His selling his birthright for a mess of pottage proves this. God, foreseeing this, said, even before their birth, “The elder shall serve the younger.” Gen. 25: 23.

Jacob’s name was changed to Israel because “as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed.” Gen. 32: 28. Here we see the significance of the name Israel, and why this is chosen as the name of those to whom the blessings promised will be given: those who “prevail” with God, and only such. They are “Israelites indeed.” John 1: 47. Others may have the name, but not be so in reality.

This principle of choice is every way consistent with the character of God. From Abraham’s time, because of the apostasy of all others, his literal seed according to the flesh were separated out from the nations about them by the rite of circumcision, and afterwards by other peculiar laws, that the knowledge of the true God might be preserved in the earth, and they kept from the influence of idolatry. These descendants were called Israel, to distinguish them from the nations around them. They of course enjoyed special blessings of light, because of the giving of the law and the association of those among them who were truly servants of God, and because of the many warnings of prophets and teachers sent of Heaven. But we do emphatically deny that a single one of the literal seed will be entitled to any future blessing because of this fact. Personal character then as well as now will decide the question of who belong to the “true Israel of God” and who are entitled to the fulfillment of the promises. The very fact that whenever they rebelled and wandered into idolatry, God withdrew from them many of the temporal blessings which they were then enjoying, and refused to give them again until they repented and turned unto him, is proof enough that he will not in the future give those greater blessings which are to be bestowed upon the “true Israel.” How many times we read the expression, “cut off from his people,” in the Levitical laws. If persons transgressed some of the laws given by the Lord at that time, they were to be thus “cut off from their people.” I might give scores of texts where this expression occurs. Does not this show that they were not then to be regarded as a part of the “true Israel?” and would they not yet remain just as really descended from Abraham as they who continued faithful? This positively shows that literal descent does not decide the question at all.

Again, the fact that provision was made in the law of Moses for Gentiles to unite with, and become a part of, Israel by circumcision, is good evidence that it was not literal descent from Abraham that made a man an Israelite, for he would have no more of Abraham’s blood in his veins after his circumcision than before. That nation were receiving constant accessions of this kind. When they went up out of Egypt we learn that a “mixed multitude” went with them. These were not of the literal seed. And Moses gives his father-in-law, Hobab, a Midianite, a hearty invitation to go with them to the promised land, in these words: “Come thou with us, and we will do thee good; for the Lord hath spoken good concerning Israel.” Num. 10: 29. What benefit would this be to him? Why, by going, he, although not having a drop of Abraham’s blood in his veins, would become incorporated with Israel and have a share in all their blessings. So of Rahab, and no doubt thousands of others in no way related to the literal seed. But, says one, if this be true, why was it so important for the Jews to preserve their genealogical tables so carefully and trace their descent from Abraham? I answer, one important reason was that the promised Messiah was to be of the “seed of Abraham according to the flesh.” And in no other way could this be shown but in keeping a record in many families, so there should be no doubt upon this point. Again, especially with those descended from the tribe of Levi, who had the sacred offices of religion to attend to, the law required that only such as were thus descended should have part in these offices. How could this be ascertained? Only by keeping a record. Then a third reason why it was necessary to keep these tables was that as the Lord had given special laws by which Gentiles might become united, of course these were obligatory till abolished, and a record was necessary that none should come in but in the lawful manner. But after the crucifixion of Christ and the abolition of the Mosaic law, we see no benefit from those tables being further kept.

Thus we have taken a brief glance at the rise of the Jewish nation and the reasons which entered into the selection of Abraham and Israel, and have seen that it was character alone that decided their being chosen; and after glancing at their descendants we observe many reasons which prove that the same principle continued to have force. It seems to us that God’s people stood much on the same ground as now. In this dispensation, multitudes unite themselves to the organized church, and call themselves, and are called by others, Christians, when it is evident God does not own them as his people; while at the same time through these bodies are scattered souls whom Christ recognizes as his true people. So in the old dispensation, the nation, with those who united with it, according to the established laws of that dispensation, were known as Israel; while the great mass of them God did not acknowledge. Yet he had a chosen few who

walked in the steps of faithful Abraham whom he did acknowledge as the “true Israel” of God.

We now come to the special light of the writers of the gospel dispensation. On this and many other subjects all will admit there is a degree of doubt and uncertainty in the Old Testament writings, and that we need the comments of the writers of the New. And as they were inspired by the same Spirit, and as that Spirit was given in greater measure, we should welcome their expositions with gladness. Let us then examine their testimony.

Matt. 3: 7–9: “But when he [John the Baptist] saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance; and think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father; for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.” We here observe that these two classes were the special religionists of that age, and they evidently felt much exalted that they were descended from Abraham according to the flesh, thinking as many do now that that fact would be of great benefit to them, and that their possessing an evil character would not affect the fact that they were entitled to blessings by virtue of their descent. But John strikes at the very root of their notion, and shows that true repentance is necessary, and that their lives must be right or that fact would not benefit them; and so far as being children of Abraham, God, who made man originally from dust, could take the stones before them and make children unto Abraham. Had God done this which John says he could do, these newly created children of Abraham would certainly not be descended from him according to the flesh; so we conclude that lineal descent is not necessary to make a man a child of Abraham in the Bible sense. And observe further, this was before those special laws were abolished which made them a separate people; and if such was the case then, how much more when those peculiar barriers were broken down.

“Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!” John 1: 47. Here we see Christ recognizes the distinction we have already noticed. Some are called Israelites in name; while there are some, like Nathanael, who are such “indeed.” And this one was without “guile,” showing that the character decides the question of the genuine article.

They [the Jews] answered him, We be Abraham’s seed, and were never in bondage to any man; how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free? Says the Saviour, “I know that ye are Abraham’s seed [i. e. literally descended from him]; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you. I speak that which I have seen with my Father; and ye do that which ye have seen with your father. They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham. But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God; this did not Abraham. Ye do the deeds of your Father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.” Jesus said unto them, “Ye are of your father the devil.” John 8: 33, 37–41, 44.

We call this a decisive testimony, and it comes from the Son of God, the light of both dispensations. Here were the literal Jews, proud of their ancestor Abraham, and trusting in that fact. So far as literal descent was concerned, their genealogy was untarnished. “They were not born of fornication.” Jesus himself says, “I know that ye are Abraham’s seed.” They had their family records preserved through which they proved their ancestry. But the Saviour tells them plainly that they were not the “children of Abraham” in the true sense. The children of Abraham would do as he did. In order then to belong to his seed, according to the Saviour, we must possess the same character. Their actions were the test which determined where they belonged. They were children of the devil. Their literal descent did not make them true Israelites at all. And this we observe was before the “middle wall of partition” was broken down in the Jewish dispensation.

Take this with the testimony of John the Baptist, which we have noticed, and we have these two facts: Real children of Abraham could be “raised up” who never had any fleshly descent from him, and those who have the clearest claims to such descent were not reckoned as his children at all unless possessing the requisite character.

Says the apostle Paul, “In Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.” Gal. 6: 15, 16. Instead of “and upon the Israel of God,” Whiting renders it “even on the Israel of God.” The Greek conjunction kai, according to Greenfield, may be rendered “even” as well as “and,” and it is very evident that Whiting has given the true idea of the apostle. Circumcision, he tells us, is of no consequence whatever. Heretofore, those who practiced it, and were separated from others by it, and known by name as Israel, might be excused for thinking it gave them an apparent right to the title, although we have seen that in that dispensation it did not constitute them “true Israel;” but now, since it is of no consequence at all, what excuse can there be for those who still tell us it makes a man an Israelite?

How plainly the apostle recognizes the great principle we have been noticing: “As many as walk according to this rule (doubtless referring back to what he says in verse 10, ‘Let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith’), peace be on them, even on the Israel of God.” It is such as these, then, who walk by this rule, who are the real “Israel of God,” and no others.

In this same epistle, we read again, “For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” Gal. 3: 27–29. We inquire in what sense these different classes were “one in Christ Jesus.” We know that in the minds of men, national, social, and sexual distinctions have still been maintained. But we understand that in the mind of God each one of these classes stands upon the same ground. He is no respecter of persons, or nations any more. Each one may come to him through Jesus, our Lord, and be just as freely accepted as the other. And especially is this true in reference to the future promises of God given to Abraham’s seed, every one who is Christ’s will share in these promises. And, if to be Christ’s entitles a person to be considered of the true seed, evidently, not to be his, will shut us away from them. So, then, those who have, above all others, hated Christ, putting him to death, persecuting his disciples, and instilling into their children—even with their mother’s milk—the most intense hatred of him, I mean the Jewish nation, certainly they have no part in these promises which Paul tells us Christ’s disciples are “heirs” of. National distinctions, then, are gone in the mind of God, and to be a true disciple of Christ gives us a claim to the future promises.

And yet, in plain view of such testimony as this, we find people standing up and telling the people that those distinctions continue in full force, and that the fleshly seed, with eighteen hundred years of concentrated detestation of Christ culminating on this generation, are soon to take exclusive possession of these promises made to Abraham.

“That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world. But now, in Christ Jesus, ye, who sometimes were far off, are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace.” “Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God.” “That the Gentiles should be fellow-heirs, and of the same body,” &c. Eph. 2: 12–15, 19; 3: 6. We have here two classes: 1. “The commonwealth of Israel,” explained in the same connection by the apostle to be “saints,” and the “household of God.” 2. Those who are called “aliens,” “strangers,” and “foreigners.” These are said to be separated from each other by a “middle wall of partition,” or certain “commandments contained in ordinances. This first class have some very precious things, certain “covenants of promise,” a “hope,” and a “God,” and a “Christ;” while the second class are shut out of these by this “wall of partition.” Christ comes and dies, and, as a consequence, what follows? Let us illustrate. There are two flocks of sheep, one, in a beautiful pasture of clover where they can thrive; the other, in a barren waste, trampled and burned. The fence between them is taken away, and the consequence of course is that those in the poor pasture at once go in where there is food to be obtained. So those who are “made nigh by the blood of Christ,” enter into all the blessings “promised” to the “commonwealth of Israel.” The only barrier, then, that ever existed between Israel and Gentiles has been broken down by the death of Christ. Who is he that shall rise up and declare that this wall is still keeping the two apart when the great apostle says “both” parties are made “one.” It is folly. There is not the slightest intimation in the Scripture that this “broken wall” is ever to be erected again, and no one attempts to find any. There were never two walls separating these two parties. Then if a person denies that these classes have become one, does he not deny the apostle’s declaration? Let us notice what the apostle calls the first class. He calls them “saints,” and the “household of God.” This is strong evidence that our position is correct, and that in the old dispensation, before the breaking down of this “wall” between the two, the only ones ever recognized as “true Israel” were children of God. What is the meaning of the word “saint”? “A holy or godly person; one eminent for piety.” Webster. This term never could embrace wicked Jews such as the majority of that nation have always been composed of. Only that portion of them who have been truly good, then, are recognized by the apostle as the “commonwealth of Israel.” With these, the Gentiles who are true Christians become “fellow-heirs,” that is, heirs to the same promises.

(Concluded next week.)