WHO ARE ISRAEL? by J. H. Waggoner

Publishing Committee · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jan 26, 1860

WHO ARE ISRAEL?

By J. H. Waggoner

We have several times referred to the "two senses" in which the term Israel is used, citing to proof texts as it was necessary to sustain the particular points under examination. We deem it necessary, however, to give more direct and full proofs on that subject, from its great importance in this connection, even though a reference to many passages may appear like a repetition. Our only object is to place the truth before the reader in the clearest manner, and most easy to be understood.

The name of Israel is significant; it is an acquired name. 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. Before passing to consider more definitely the prophetic promises, we will examine the name under which the promises are claimed.

Every thing 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 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 prevailing) 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. ii, 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 the Greek or the Hottentot.

D. P. Hall, writing to prove that there are great and special blessings yet to be conferred on the literal descendants of Jacob, remarks on Eze. xxxvi:

“There are but three positions which can be taken in regard to this promise, and many others of like import; viz: They have been fulfilled in the past history of this nation; or they will be fulfilled to those who are Israelites in the highest sense, i. e., after the law of faith; or they remain to be fulfilled to the natural descendants. The last named position is the only one admissible in the scripture now under investigation.”

And again he quotes from Eze. xxxvii, and inserts an explanation in parentheses as follows:

“So shall they be my people, and I will be their God. And David (David 2d, Christ), my servant shall be a king over them, and they shall have one shepherd,” &c.

Here we notice that he has admitted that there are two senses in which the term Israel is used, but thinks (or rather decides) that it is not allowable to use it in the “highest sense.” Yet in quoting a parallel promise in which it is said David shall be king over them, he uses David in the “highest sense,” by referring it to Christ.

By what authority does he put “David 2d, Christ,” in the prophecy of Ezekiel, while he arbitrarily denies us the privilege of putting “Israel 2d, of faith,” in the same connection?

There are, by his own showing, two Israel's and two Davids; and David 1st has reigned over the first Israel, and now he contends that David 2d will also reign over the first Israel. But the first Israel and the reign of the first David belonged entirely to the first covenant, while the second Israel and “David 2d” are under the new. It is as impossible and absurd to connect the reign of David 2d with the first Israel, as it would be to connect the reign of David 1st with the second Israel. But such confusion is common with the advocates of the Age to Come. They seem to think that by quoting much Scripture they gain their point, entirely disregarding the connection, and the principles that govern its application.

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—ye 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. ix, 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 descendant of Abraham and Jacob is not a child of Abraham, nor counted for his seed; nor an Israelite, according to Rom. ix. He is not of that body, nor partaker of their promises. While the faithful, Gentile born, are Abraham's seed [Gal. iii, 7, 29; Rom. iv, 11; ix, 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. ii. 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 would be called an extravagant pretension by Age-to-Come 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. How, in the face of these positive declarations, the Age to Come advocates can think to sustain their positions is a mystery. What do they do with such testimony? Nothing at all. They pass it by and arbitrarily decide that the promises do not belong to “Israel in the highest sense!” We do not wonder that there is confusion amongst the believers in that doctrine. Denying first principles, passing by the most positive declarations, wrestling the promises from the gospel and placing them in a system which they are not slow to declare is abolished, they can no more hope to arrive at truth and unity than they could to arrive at perfection in numbers while denying that two and two make four.

We have shown the fallacy of restricting the phrase, “my people,” to the natural descendants of Jacob. But we are told that God's name was named on them; and so it was on “Jerusalem which now is” [see Jer. xxv, 29], yet she is rejected and so are her children. Gal. iv.

Instead of being the chosen of God—his people—the Saviour said to them, “Ye are of your Father the Devil.” They claim to be Jews, but they are not: they are of the synagogue of Satan. Rev. iii, 9.

It would not seem likely that any special promises or blessings were in reserve for the children of the Devil, as the Saviour termed the unbelieving Jews. But in belief they are in Christ, and we have fully shown that in Christ there are no special blessings. Therefore, the view we call in question is proved untrue.