The Kingdom of God, No. 11 by Joseph Harvey Waggoner

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jun 16, 1874

The Kingdom of God.—No. 11.

By Joseph Harvey Waggoner

Thus it is made plain by the Scriptures that the New Covenant has been made; that it was made with Israel and Judah; and that the middle wall of partition has been broken down so that the Gentiles are placed on an equality with them, and made partakers of the same promises.

Now the whole theory of the return of the Jews, and of their restoration to eminence, or of special blessings being reserved for them, rests on the supposition that there are a class of promises recorded in the Bible belonging to them exclusively. But two points should be considered on that subject, to wit: (1.) Whether these promises were conditional, and (2.) Under which of the two covenants the special blessings were to be conferred on them.

Jesus Christ, the Son of God, first revealed as “the seed of the woman,” is the only source of blessings to man since the fall. By the free grace of the Father he was promised and given to man as the only way of life; and this promise and gift was without any condition whatever. God never promised to let his Son die for the world provided that the world would do certain things or fulfill certain conditions. But having opened the way of life through his blood, every blessing promised through him is placed on conditions. As our present investigation relates to the first covenant with Israel, under which the special promises to them were given, we will look at the evidences of their being conditional. God chose the children of Israel to be his people because of the love he had to

their fathers; but their fathers obtained the blessings by faithful obedience, and continued obedience was necessary on the part of the children to retain the promises. When God required Pharaoh to let them go, it was not merely that he might bless them, but that they might serve him. Ex. 10:3. Also he said unto them, “If ye will obey my voice indeed and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me,” &c. Ex. 19:5–8.

As the blessings set before them were conditional they could claim them only on fulfillment of the conditions. But the Scriptures abundantly prove that they were “a disobedient and gainsaying people.” Therefore, it must be admitted that they can receive nothing in the future for any consideration rendered in the past. And therefore, again, if any promise is fulfilled to them in the future, it must be on the future performance of the conditions on which such promise is based. Otherwise the promise is forfeited, and cannot be fulfilled.

And not only is it true that they have forfeited the blessings there promised, but the covenant has been abolished, and has passed away. The Lord gave as a reason for making a new covenant with them, that they had broken the other. Although he had promised to be their God, and that they should be to him a peculiar treasure above all people, yet by reason of their rebellion, he could not consistently perform his promise, and so he “regarded them not.” As transgressors of his law, they were not peculiar; they were not holy; but were like other sinful nations. And if they had any claim under that covenant, it could not have been abolished without infringing on their rights. Surely, it is plain enough that, to secure the promises, they must comply with the conditions of the new covenant, the only one that can possibly convey a good and valid title to any blessing.

We say that in the gospel there are no special privileges; and the gospel is the means whereby this equality before God is effected. Paul declares that the Gentiles are fellow-heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel. Eph. 3:6. Thus the gospel of Christ produces a union of Jew and Gentile, and it is effected by his “having abolished in his flesh the law of commandments contained in ordinances: for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace.” Chap. 2:15.

As long as the law of commandments contained in ordinances existed, so long was a distinction recognized between Jew and Gentile; but the middle wall was broken down and both are made one; “for there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female [in the purposes or promises of God]; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” Gal. 3:28. Paul’s rebuke to Peter has a bearing on this point. Peter was virtually acknowledging the distinction as yet existing, by conforming to that which had marked such a distinction; but Paul says, “If I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.” Chap. 2:18.

The several points proved in this argument are as follows. (1.) They forfeited all claims under that covenant. (2.) That has passed away and been superseded by the new. (3.) It is an offense against the new covenant, or the gospel, to revive or “build again” the old. Gal. 2:18. (4.) The priests, or mediators of that covenant, could not take away their sins, Heb. 10:1–4, and, therefore, they could not recover under it what they lost by transgression. We cannot see what further is necessary to settle this question. If they by transgression forfeited everything under the old covenant, if that covenant has passed away and cannot be restored, and if they have no special promises in the new, where shall we look to establish their claim? Evidently no foundation for such a claim exists in the Bible.

And still a query may arise in regard to certain promises to Israel, such as their being gathered to their own land, which seem to look to the future for fulfillment. And some will wonder how these can be harmonized with the view here taken, and whether we believe in these promises. We accept these promises fully, and believe they will have a perfect fulfillment in the future. But the inquirer will please bear in mind that there are two Israels, and two gatherings of Israel spoken of in the Scriptures. We will notice both.

The name “Israel” is significant. It is an acquired name, and does not belong to the Jews “according to the flesh,” in the gospel dispensation, in its true significance. Jacob received it because he prevailed with God. Afterward it became a family and national name, but the Scriptures show that God kept its significance in view; especially is this plain in the New Testament. Hence it came to be used in two senses. Not observing this fact, many have erred concerning God’s purposes.

Everything peculiar to the Jewish system was typical; and every term by which a type is designated must be used in two senses, one referring to the type, the other to the antitype. It is not difficult to determine in what sense a term is used if we keep in view its relation to first principles, or observe to what covenant it belongs. The following are instances: Israel according to the flesh, Jews outwardly, Palestine under the curse, the sanctuary or pattern of heavenly things, Jerusalem which now is, and circumcision outward in the flesh. These are all peculiar to the first covenant. On the other hand, we find Israel (the prevailers), the faithful children of promise, Jews inwardly, an incorruptible, undefiled, and eternal inheritance, the heavenly sanctuary, Jerusalem which is above, and circumcision of the heart, in the Spirit. These are of the new covenant. These two classes belong to two different systems; one of enmity—the other of peace (Eph. 2:14, 15); and each has its own place in its own system, and cannot be transferred to the other by any means. So that he who is outwardly a Jew, an Israelite according to the flesh, can no more take his place in the other class, or gospel system, without becoming Abraham’s seed by faith in Christ, than can the Greek or the Hottentot.

It is often asserted that Gentiles by birth can have no right whatever to the name of Israel. But this is not in accordance with the Scriptures. Notice what Paul says to the Ephesians—we were aliens from the commonwealth of Israel. But what do they become when they are no more strangers, or aliens and foreigners? Take our own nation for an illustration. Here are individuals born in different countries; aliens and foreigners by birth. But they come to our shores, and by virtue of the naturalization laws they cease to be strangers or aliens, but are constituted American citizens. They are Americans by adoption; and in any transaction of, or with, the government they would not be styled or treated as English, French, or Germans, though they were born in England, France, or Germany. So, says Paul to the believing Gentiles, “Ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens”—of what?—“of the commonwealth of Israel.” They are Israelites by adoption: they are of “the same body”; they are no more two, but one in Christ.

Again, Paul says in Rom. 9, that “they are not all Israel which are of Israel.” Now it is evident that if the term Israel was strictly a national name, indicating the origin or birth of him who bore it, as our opponents claim, this declaration of Scripture could not be true, for then they who are of Israel would all be Israel, and no others.

We notice here that in the plan of the gospel there is a change in the relation of both Jews and Gentiles; that is, of such as are Jews and Gentiles by birth or descent. Thus, the unbelieving descendants of Abraham and Jacob are not children of Abraham, nor counted for his seed; nor Israelites, according to Rom. 9. They are not of that body, nor partakers of their promises. While the faithful, though Gentile born, are Abraham’s seed (Gal. 3:7, 29; Rom. 4:11; 9:6–8), and citizens of the commonwealth of Israel, of the same body, partakers of the same promises.

There is a very specific declaration respecting each class in Rom. 2. Circumcision distinguished between the Jews and the Gentiles. “Uncircumcision which is by nature,” certainly refers to Gentiles. And if the circumcised (i. e., the Jew) be a breaker of the law, his circumcision is made uncircumcision; that is, his claim to the title of a Jew is reversed, and he is counted a Gentile. But if the uncircumcision (i. e., the Gentile) keep the righteousness of the law, his uncircumcision is counted for circumcision; that is, his Gentile origin is set aside, and he is counted for a Jew. This might be called an extravagant pretension by Judaizers, but Paul does not leave it indefinite or open to cavil, but plainly says, “FOR HE IS NOT A JEW WHICH IS ONE OUTWARDLY,” that is, by birth or natural descent: “BUT HE IS A JEW WHICH IS ONE INWARDLY,” that is, of faith, whether circumcised or uncircumcised—whether Jew or Gentile by birth.

Proofs on this subject might be given at greater length, but we think this is sufficient. And now, having established the truth that there are two Israels, we are prepared to examine the question of the two gatherings of Israel.

J. H. Waggoner.