British Israelism:
A serpent's tale?
(Part II)
WHO IS THE TRUE ISRAEL?
British-Israel theorists largely avoid the New Testament, because these scriptures provide an answer rather at odds with their theory.
The apostle Paul, John the Baptist and the Messiah himself are the star witnesses who testify where Israel is today. They also tell us when and how Israel was to receive those promises of Abraham that were not fulfilled in ancient times.
In Matthew 3 we find John the Baptist preaching to the Jewish religious elite. His words here must sound just as jarring to modern British Israelists as it did to the ancient Pharisees:
These Jews, as far as can be determined, were actual physical children of Abraham, and proud of it -- as proud as today's British Israelists are of their supposed lineage from the patriarch. John certainly did not deny their pedigree; rather, he denied that it mattered. Their elite bloodline, he said, was no better than a pile of stones on the dusty ground.
This absolutely contradicts the notion in race-obsessed British Israelism that Yahweh is limited to flesh and blood in fulfilling the Abrahamic promises. John's statement proves the contrary: Yahweh is not limited by flesh and blood.
Messiah, in one of his many confrontations with the religionists, again pierces their pride over their racial identity:
The clear implication is that not all of "Abraham's children" are Abraham's children.
Paul echoes this truth repeatedly in his epistles to the churches. Clearly and definitively, he answers the conundrum posed rhetorically by British Israelists: "If God is true and faithful, how come he never fulfilled all the Abrahamic promises anciently?"
But the answer is very different than that supplied by British Israelists who say, "why, of course, the promises must have been delayed 2,520 years and then fulfilled in Britain and America."
As if he were directly addressing British Israelists -- who claims that unless their theory is true, the word of Yahweh is of no effect -- Paul says in Romans 9:
Don't complain to me -- I didn't write it!
Paul wrote it. the Almighty One inspired it. You have to deal with it!
Membership in Abraham's family is not about fleshly bloodline. For, as Paul pointed out, even Esau was of Abraham's blood -- the firstborn, at that! -- yet was not counted as the seed to inherit the promises.
What makes one a genuine heir? We read this in chapter 4 of Romans:
Paul directly equates the "father of many nations" promise not to some modern British empire, not to America, not to any physical tribe or grouping of tribes, but to the status of Abraham as the father of all believers.
Paul does not exclude those bloodline Israelites who are faithful, but more significantly, he includes all gentile nations who would come to faith in Messiah and thereby, to sonship to Abraham.
Abraham is "the father of us all" through Messiah. Abraham is the "father of many nations" through Messiah.
Note also that when Paul discusses the Abrahamic promises he treats them as scripture treats them: as one package. He does not artificially bifurcate them into "spiritual stuff" for one group and "fun stuff" -- material riches, rulership and glory -- for the other! Not a single scripture indicates any such subdivision of the promises to Abraham. Not a single scripture indicates that there are two families of Abraham who receive different types of blessings.
In an earlier chapter Paul writes:
True Jews -- and by extension, true Israelites -- are circumcised in the heart.
Paul confirms this in several other writings:
REALLY, THAT SAYS IT ALL.
It's all you need to know!
The Pharisees, who had Abraham's blood, thought they were real children of Abraham by virtue of blood ties. So do the British Israelists. Scripture says this is not true.
The Pharisees, and the British Israelists, say it's the flesh that identifies an Israelite. Scripture says it's the heart.
The Pharisees and the British Israelists say being an Israelite is about having the luck to be born to the right set of parents. Scripture says it's about one's faith and works.
British Israelism says that to find Israel, look for great powerful empires praised of men. Scripture says the praise of true Israelites is "not of men, but of God."
Given these great contrasts, one would have to characterize British-Israelist authors' ignorance of scripture's definitive answer to the question of "Israel Identity" as a studied, willing ignorance.
BI can only exist in a New Testament-free vacuum, since the New Testament radically redefines -- or rather, refines or reveals -- the true definition of who is a son of Abraham: it's those who have the faith of Abraham and do the works of Abraham! The faithful and obedient, and no one else, constitute Abraham’s “many nations.”
Does the Almighty really have the right to declare this?
Does he indeed have the right to "[quicken] the dead, and [call] those things which be not as though they were” (Rom 4:17)?
Does he have the right to "disown" one group of Israelites due to their stubborn wickedness, and create a whole new Israel, as it were, from the stones of the ground -- from the Gentile nations who previously had not been his people?
Scripture says he can.
Scripture says he has already done so!
In Romans 9:25-26, Paul quotes from the first chapter of Hosea, the Eternal's rebuke and rejection of Israel, the spiritual "harlot":
Note that most translations render verse 6 in even stronger terms than the KJV: for example, the New American Standard version says: "Name her Lo-ruhamah, for I will no longer have compassion on the house of Israel, that I would ever forgive them."
At first glance, this seems paradoxical: How can he reject Israel, refuse to be their God, and refuse to ever forgive them in verse 9 -- yet turn around and say he will bless and prosper Israel in verse 10?
Paul explains this -- although not via the British-Israelist method of inserting a spurious 2,520 years after which all punishment is lifted and Israel can finally get about the business of owning the world! No, Paul explains it by applying verse 9 to the Israelites of flesh and verse 10 to the Israelites of faith.
For truly, Yahweh says, "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion." It's his prerogative! You and I have no more right to argue with him than a piece of clay has the right to argue with the potter (Rom. 9:21).
By the way, Paul, in speaking of plants and potters and clay, is no doubt referencing Jeremiah, who follows the analogy of the potter and the clay with this:
Because of their evil, Yahweh repented of the good wherewith he said he would benefit fleshly ten-tribed Israel. Truly,
The truth is every promise of Yahweh, who is righteous, is conditioned upon the faithful righteousness of the recipient.
Paul says that since natural Israel broke the terms and conditions of their covenant, they were broken off from the family tree of Abraham, and therefore, from the promises of sharing in his reward (Rom. 11:20, 21). Their name became Lo-ammi, "not my people." The Gentiles who believe on Messiah, likened to wild branches, were grafted into their place (v. 17). This adopted family became "the Israel of God" (Gal. 6:16) .
It's not as though the disobedient and wicked Israelites had not been explicitly warned about this.
The "householder," of course, is Yahweh. The "husbandmen" entrusted with the tending of his vineyard were the rulers of Israel and Judah. The servants sent directly by the householder were the prophets, who were rejected by the people at large and were mercilessly persecuted and killed by the rulers. The identity of the "son" hardly needs to be explained: here Messiah was prophesying his own murder at the hands of the very "husbandmen" he was addressing!
Indeed, the kingdom was taken away from those wicked men and given to "a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof."
Similarly, the book of Luke records Messiah saying:
The Israelites and Jews, who knew Yahweh first, shall be moved to the back of the line -- while people from the four corners of the earth who previously had not known Yahweh would now be moved to the front, with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob!
The following parable, the parable of the marriage feast, illustrates the same lesson. Those invited to the feast refuse to come, and even kill the king's servants...
Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy.
Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage.
So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests.
In another place, Messiah also prophesied a sweeping away of the tattered remnants of Jewish national sovereignty:
Which was itself an allusion to the prophesied punishments of Leviticus 26:
This plucking up and throwing down, or breaking off of physical Israel began with the northern ten tribes and was at last completed with the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple in A.D. 70.
The most telling parable Messiah told to illustrate this plucking up and throwing down is the parable of Lazarus and the rich man.
Now, Herbert Armstrong did a good job emphasizing what this parable does not teach (eternal torment of sinners in hellfire). But he didn't do nearly as good a job in telling us what the parable does teach! Perhaps that's because its true significance was highly problematic for his British Israel theory.
What to make of this parable? Well, we already know it doesn't teach conscious torture in hellfire. Since we know that souls don't go to heaven, this parable cannot be teaching that souls in heaven can hold conversations with souls in hell. Further study will reveal this parable has nothing to do with death, hell, or heaven at all.
A parable uses figures -- symbols -- to represent other things. In the same way that the parable of the sheep and the goats is not about the eternal fate of wooly four-legged animals, this parable is not about the state of dead persons.
I think it's pretty clear that the rich man and the beggar characters symbolize Jews and Gentiles.
One man is rich, clothed in purple and fine linen, and feasts sumptuously every day. Most tellingly, he calls Abraham his father. Judah, as the other tribes of Israel also had been, was spiritually and materially rich, blessed in every possible way. Judah was the royal house; hence the purple. Scattered among the Jews, of course, were the priestly tribe, the Levites -- hence the "fine linen," which was a part of the priestly garment. And as we have already seen, the Jews were enormously puffed up about having Abraham as their father!
The Gentiles, on the other hand, were spiritually poor, regarded by the Jews as second-class, even subhuman. Religious Jews of that day would neither associate with nor touch Gentiles, whom they regarded as unclean "dogs."
The two men "died" -- they underwent a change in state. Suddenly we see the beggar "in Abrahams' bosom": that is, enjoying a new, intimate relationship with Abraham. We have already seen, above, that by faith in Messiah, Gentiles become Abraham's sons.
The rich man, on the other hand, only gets "buried" in a grave. Seeing the Gentiles enjoying such intimacy with Abraham the Jews -- being dead spiritually, as well as buried nationally in the dusts of history -- are tormented! They call out to their "father," but Abraham brushes them off, saying, in essence: Too bad -- you had your chance!
In addition, Abraham says, there's a great gulf between the two groups. A great gulf of sorts does exist between righteousness by grace through faith, and righteousness by mere lawkeeping, which by comparison is like dirty rags! The righteousness of faith is what Abraham and the faithful Gentiles have, and what the unbelieving Jews, who rely on their ancestry and on the "righteousness of the law," lack.
The rich man mentions that somewhere, in "his father's house," he has five brothers. Why five? Now, if we recognize that the rich man actually represented the two tribes in Judea and Galilee -- Judah and Benjamin (with some Levites sprinkled among them), then the other five brothers would represent the ten tribes of the house of Israel.
The rich man implores Abraham to send the beggar to "testify" to the ten tribes. (The rich man "seems to think that he has some claims on [Lazarus], in return for his crumbs," notes the People's New Testament, while The Fourfold Gospel notes wryly, "The double attempt of the rich man to use Lazarus as his servant shows how hard it was for him to adjust himself to his new condition.") Abraham rebuffs the rich man's demand, saying the ten tribes already had Moses and the prophets.
The rich man urges that "if one went unto them from the dead," it would be different: they'd repent! But Abraham replies: They haven't listened to Moses and the prophets yet; so what good will it do to hear from one who rose from the dead?
Which, of course, is true.
One more thing about this parable: why did Messiah preface it with some talk about the law and the prophets? What was he getting at?
"The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it." He foreshadows the new dispensation being inaugurated, and seems to be warning the Pharisees, who considered themselves the most zealous of the Jews, that they were in danger of being left out of the real Kingdom!
For indeed, if we can learn anything from the parable of Lazarus and the rich man -- not to mention the rest of scripture -- it is that:
AMEN!
I think this is a good place to move on to Part III.
WHO IS THE TRUE ISRAEL?British-Israel theorists largely avoid the New Testament, because these scriptures provide an answer rather at odds with their theory.
The apostle Paul, John the Baptist and the Messiah himself are the star witnesses who testify where Israel is today. They also tell us when and how Israel was to receive those promises of Abraham that were not fulfilled in ancient times.
In Matthew 3 we find John the Baptist preaching to the Jewish religious elite. His words here must sound just as jarring to modern British Israelists as it did to the ancient Pharisees:
Mt3:7 But when he 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?
8 Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:
9 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.
10 And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
These Jews, as far as can be determined, were actual physical children of Abraham, and proud of it -- as proud as today's British Israelists are of their supposed lineage from the patriarch. John certainly did not deny their pedigree; rather, he denied that it mattered. Their elite bloodline, he said, was no better than a pile of stones on the dusty ground.
This absolutely contradicts the notion in race-obsessed British Israelism that Yahweh is limited to flesh and blood in fulfilling the Abrahamic promises. John's statement proves the contrary: Yahweh is not limited by flesh and blood.
Messiah, in one of his many confrontations with the religionists, again pierces their pride over their racial identity:
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. (John 8:39)
The clear implication is that not all of "Abraham's children" are Abraham's children.
Paul echoes this truth repeatedly in his epistles to the churches. Clearly and definitively, he answers the conundrum posed rhetorically by British Israelists: "If God is true and faithful, how come he never fulfilled all the Abrahamic promises anciently?"
But the answer is very different than that supplied by British Israelists who say, "why, of course, the promises must have been delayed 2,520 years and then fulfilled in Britain and America."
As if he were directly addressing British Israelists -- who claims that unless their theory is true, the word of Yahweh is of no effect -- Paul says in Romans 9:
Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect.
For they [are] not all Israel, which are of Israel;
Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, [are they] all children, but, "In Isaac shall thy seed be called."
That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these [are] not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.(Rom 9:6-8)
Don't complain to me -- I didn't write it!
Paul wrote it. the Almighty One inspired it. You have to deal with it!
Membership in Abraham's family is not about fleshly bloodline. For, as Paul pointed out, even Esau was of Abraham's blood -- the firstborn, at that! -- yet was not counted as the seed to inherit the promises.
What makes one a genuine heir? We read this in chapter 4 of Romans:
For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, [was] not toPaul says the promises of Abraham -- both of blessing many nations and fathering many nations -- are for those who are "of the faith of Abraham" -- not those merely of the blood of Abraham!
Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
Therefore [it is] of faith, that [it might be] by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,
(As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations, before him whom he believed, [even] God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.
Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many
nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be. (Rom. 4:13, 16-18)
Paul directly equates the "father of many nations" promise not to some modern British empire, not to America, not to any physical tribe or grouping of tribes, but to the status of Abraham as the father of all believers.
Paul does not exclude those bloodline Israelites who are faithful, but more significantly, he includes all gentile nations who would come to faith in Messiah and thereby, to sonship to Abraham.
Abraham is "the father of us all" through Messiah. Abraham is the "father of many nations" through Messiah.
Note also that when Paul discusses the Abrahamic promises he treats them as scripture treats them: as one package. He does not artificially bifurcate them into "spiritual stuff" for one group and "fun stuff" -- material riches, rulership and glory -- for the other! Not a single scripture indicates any such subdivision of the promises to Abraham. Not a single scripture indicates that there are two families of Abraham who receive different types of blessings.
In an earlier chapter Paul writes:
Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of
God ...
[but] if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? ...
For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither [is that] circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
But he [is] a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision [is that] of the heart, in the spirit, [and] not in the letter; whose praise [is] not of men, but of God. (Rom. 2:17, 28-29)
True Jews -- and by extension, true Israelites -- are circumcised in the heart.
Paul confirms this in several other writings:
Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.
Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.
And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, [saying], In thee shall all nations [Heb. goy, "heathens"] be blessed.
So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham. ...
That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. (Gal. 3:6-9, 14) ...
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 [literally, "sperm,"] and heirs according to the promise.
REALLY, THAT SAYS IT ALL.
It's all you need to know!
The Pharisees, who had Abraham's blood, thought they were real children of Abraham by virtue of blood ties. So do the British Israelists. Scripture says this is not true.
The Pharisees, and the British Israelists, say it's the flesh that identifies an Israelite. Scripture says it's the heart.
The Pharisees and the British Israelists say being an Israelite is about having the luck to be born to the right set of parents. Scripture says it's about one's faith and works.
British Israelism says that to find Israel, look for great powerful empires praised of men. Scripture says the praise of true Israelites is "not of men, but of God."
Given these great contrasts, one would have to characterize British-Israelist authors' ignorance of scripture's definitive answer to the question of "Israel Identity" as a studied, willing ignorance.
BI can only exist in a New Testament-free vacuum, since the New Testament radically redefines -- or rather, refines or reveals -- the true definition of who is a son of Abraham: it's those who have the faith of Abraham and do the works of Abraham! The faithful and obedient, and no one else, constitute Abraham’s “many nations.”
Does the Almighty really have the right to declare this?
Does he indeed have the right to "[quicken] the dead, and [call] those things which be not as though they were” (Rom 4:17)?
Does he have the right to "disown" one group of Israelites due to their stubborn wickedness, and create a whole new Israel, as it were, from the stones of the ground -- from the Gentile nations who previously had not been his people?
Scripture says he can.
Scripture says he has already done so!
In Romans 9:25-26, Paul quotes from the first chapter of Hosea, the Eternal's rebuke and rejection of Israel, the spiritual "harlot":
The beginning of the word of the LORD by Hosea. And the LORD said to Hosea, Go, take unto thee a wife of whoredoms and children of whoredoms: for the land hath committed great whoredom, departing from the LORD.
So he went and took Gomer the daughter of Diblaim; which conceived, and bare him a son.
And the LORD said unto him, Call his name Jezreel; for yet a little while, and I
will avenge the blood of Jezreel upon the house of Jehu, and will cause to cease the kingdom of the house of Israel. ...
And she conceived again, and bare a daughter. And [God] said unto him, Call her name Loruhamah: for I will no more have mercy upon the house of Israel; but I will utterly take them away.
"Then said God, Call his name Lo-ammi: for ye [Israel] are not my people, and I will not be your God.
Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sands of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.
(Hos. 1:6, 9-10)
Note that most translations render verse 6 in even stronger terms than the KJV: for example, the New American Standard version says: "Name her Lo-ruhamah, for I will no longer have compassion on the house of Israel, that I would ever forgive them."
At first glance, this seems paradoxical: How can he reject Israel, refuse to be their God, and refuse to ever forgive them in verse 9 -- yet turn around and say he will bless and prosper Israel in verse 10?
Paul explains this -- although not via the British-Israelist method of inserting a spurious 2,520 years after which all punishment is lifted and Israel can finally get about the business of owning the world! No, Paul explains it by applying verse 9 to the Israelites of flesh and verse 10 to the Israelites of faith.
What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of
mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.
And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.
(Rom. 9:22-26)
For truly, Yahweh says, "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion." It's his prerogative! You and I have no more right to argue with him than a piece of clay has the right to argue with the potter (Rom. 9:21).
By the way, Paul, in speaking of plants and potters and clay, is no doubt referencing Jeremiah, who follows the analogy of the potter and the clay with this:
And [at what] instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant [it];
If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them. (Jer. 18:9, 10)
Because of their evil, Yahweh repented of the good wherewith he said he would benefit fleshly ten-tribed Israel. Truly,
"Membership has its privileges,"
yet
"TERMS AND CONDITIONS APPLY."
yet
"TERMS AND CONDITIONS APPLY."
The truth is every promise of Yahweh, who is righteous, is conditioned upon the faithful righteousness of the recipient.
Paul says that since natural Israel broke the terms and conditions of their covenant, they were broken off from the family tree of Abraham, and therefore, from the promises of sharing in his reward (Rom. 11:20, 21). Their name became Lo-ammi, "not my people." The Gentiles who believe on Messiah, likened to wild branches, were grafted into their place (v. 17). This adopted family became "the Israel of God" (Gal. 6:16) .
It's not as though the disobedient and wicked Israelites had not been explicitly warned about this.
But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you toPaul explains that the Israelites' abasement, and the Gentiles' subsequent exaltation to their former position, was done to "provoke" the Israelites to jealousy (Rom. 11:11) and thus to repentance. This message appears repeatedly in Messiah's teaching toward the Jews (who were in large part descendants of the remnant of Israel/Judah who were spared and allowed to repatriate the land following the Babylonian captivity).
jealousy by [them that are] no people, [and] by a foolish nation I will anger
you.
But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought
me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me.
But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people. (Rom 10:19-21)
There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country:
And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen,
that they might receive the fruits of it.
And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another.
Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them likewise.
But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son. But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance.
And they caught him, and cast [him] out of the vineyard, and slew [him].
When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto
those husbandmen?
They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out [his] vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons.
Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and
given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
The "householder," of course, is Yahweh. The "husbandmen" entrusted with the tending of his vineyard were the rulers of Israel and Judah. The servants sent directly by the householder were the prophets, who were rejected by the people at large and were mercilessly persecuted and killed by the rulers. The identity of the "son" hardly needs to be explained: here Messiah was prophesying his own murder at the hands of the very "husbandmen" he was addressing!
Indeed, the kingdom was taken away from those wicked men and given to "a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof."
Similarly, the book of Luke records Messiah saying:
There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you [yourselves] thrust out.
And they shall come from the east, and [from] the west, and from the north, and [from] the south, and shall sit down in the kingdom of God. And, behold, there are last which shall be first, and there are first which shall be last. (Lk. 13:28-30)
The Israelites and Jews, who knew Yahweh first, shall be moved to the back of the line -- while people from the four corners of the earth who previously had not known Yahweh would now be moved to the front, with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob!
The following parable, the parable of the marriage feast, illustrates the same lesson. Those invited to the feast refuse to come, and even kill the king's servants...
This, of course, is exactly what happened to the Jews in A.D. 70. Armies were sent out, many were slain, and their city was burned. Exactly as prophesied, the Jews were replaced at the wedding feast by worthier guests:
But when the king heard [thereof], he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.
Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy.
Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage.
So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests.
In another place, Messiah also prophesied a sweeping away of the tattered remnants of Jewish national sovereignty:
O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, [thou] that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under [her] wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. (Matt. 23:37, 38)
Which was itself an allusion to the prophesied punishments of Leviticus 26:
I will bring the land into desolation: and your enemies which dwell therein
shall be astonished at it. And I will scatter you among the heathen, and will
draw out a sword after you: and your land shall be desolate, and your cities
waste . . . and ye shall perish among the heathen, and the land of your enemies
shall eat you up. And they that are left of you shall pine away in their
iniquity in your enemies' lands . . .
This plucking up and throwing down, or breaking off of physical Israel began with the northern ten tribes and was at last completed with the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple in A.D. 70.
The most telling parable Messiah told to illustrate this plucking up and throwing down is the parable of Lazarus and the rich man.
Now, Herbert Armstrong did a good job emphasizing what this parable does not teach (eternal torment of sinners in hellfire). But he didn't do nearly as good a job in telling us what the parable does teach! Perhaps that's because its true significance was highly problematic for his British Israel theory.
There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:
And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,
And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.
And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.
And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that [would come] from thence.
Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:
For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.
Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.
What to make of this parable? Well, we already know it doesn't teach conscious torture in hellfire. Since we know that souls don't go to heaven, this parable cannot be teaching that souls in heaven can hold conversations with souls in hell. Further study will reveal this parable has nothing to do with death, hell, or heaven at all.
A parable uses figures -- symbols -- to represent other things. In the same way that the parable of the sheep and the goats is not about the eternal fate of wooly four-legged animals, this parable is not about the state of dead persons.
I think it's pretty clear that the rich man and the beggar characters symbolize Jews and Gentiles.
One man is rich, clothed in purple and fine linen, and feasts sumptuously every day. Most tellingly, he calls Abraham his father. Judah, as the other tribes of Israel also had been, was spiritually and materially rich, blessed in every possible way. Judah was the royal house; hence the purple. Scattered among the Jews, of course, were the priestly tribe, the Levites -- hence the "fine linen," which was a part of the priestly garment. And as we have already seen, the Jews were enormously puffed up about having Abraham as their father!
The Gentiles, on the other hand, were spiritually poor, regarded by the Jews as second-class, even subhuman. Religious Jews of that day would neither associate with nor touch Gentiles, whom they regarded as unclean "dogs."
The two men "died" -- they underwent a change in state. Suddenly we see the beggar "in Abrahams' bosom": that is, enjoying a new, intimate relationship with Abraham. We have already seen, above, that by faith in Messiah, Gentiles become Abraham's sons.
The joys of Paradise were conceived of as those of a feast, and the expression
"Abraham's bosom" is taken from the custom of reclining on couches at feasts. As
a guest leaned upon his left arm, his neighbor on his left might easily lean
upon his bosom. Such a position of respect to the master of the house was one of
special honor, and indicated great intimacy (John 1:18; John 13:23). What higher
honor or joy could the Jew conceive of than such a condition of intimacy and
fellowship with Abraham, the great founder of their race (Matthew 8:11)?
( The Fourfold Gospel)
The rich man, on the other hand, only gets "buried" in a grave. Seeing the Gentiles enjoying such intimacy with Abraham the Jews -- being dead spiritually, as well as buried nationally in the dusts of history -- are tormented! They call out to their "father," but Abraham brushes them off, saying, in essence: Too bad -- you had your chance!
In addition, Abraham says, there's a great gulf between the two groups. A great gulf of sorts does exist between righteousness by grace through faith, and righteousness by mere lawkeeping, which by comparison is like dirty rags! The righteousness of faith is what Abraham and the faithful Gentiles have, and what the unbelieving Jews, who rely on their ancestry and on the "righteousness of the law," lack.
The rich man mentions that somewhere, in "his father's house," he has five brothers. Why five? Now, if we recognize that the rich man actually represented the two tribes in Judea and Galilee -- Judah and Benjamin (with some Levites sprinkled among them), then the other five brothers would represent the ten tribes of the house of Israel.
The rich man implores Abraham to send the beggar to "testify" to the ten tribes. (The rich man "seems to think that he has some claims on [Lazarus], in return for his crumbs," notes the People's New Testament, while The Fourfold Gospel notes wryly, "The double attempt of the rich man to use Lazarus as his servant shows how hard it was for him to adjust himself to his new condition.") Abraham rebuffs the rich man's demand, saying the ten tribes already had Moses and the prophets.
The rich man urges that "if one went unto them from the dead," it would be different: they'd repent! But Abraham replies: They haven't listened to Moses and the prophets yet; so what good will it do to hear from one who rose from the dead?
Which, of course, is true.
A real Lazarus soon "rose from the dead," but the sight of him by crowds of
people, inclined thereby to Christ, only crowned the unbelief and hastened the
murderous plots of the Pharisees against the Lord of glory; nor has His own
resurrection, far more overpowering, yet won over that "crooked and perverse
nation." (Jamieson, Fausset, Brown)
One more thing about this parable: why did Messiah preface it with some talk about the law and the prophets? What was he getting at?
"The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it." He foreshadows the new dispensation being inaugurated, and seems to be warning the Pharisees, who considered themselves the most zealous of the Jews, that they were in danger of being left out of the real Kingdom!
For indeed, if we can learn anything from the parable of Lazarus and the rich man -- not to mention the rest of scripture -- it is that:
“The Lord killeth, and maketh alive: he bringeth down to the grave, and bringeth up.
The Lord maketh poor, and maketh rich: he bringeth low, and lifteth up.
He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory.” (I Sam 2:6-8)
AMEN!
I think this is a good place to move on to Part III.
posted by Church Trek at 5:47 PM
<< Home