The varying religions and beliefs of the peoples of the world have been
classified by historians both racially and geographically. it is, in
general, understood that the peoples of China, Japan, Siam, Burma, etc.,
are Buddhists; that Brahminism and Hinduism are found among the peoples
of India; that Mohammedanism has its world centre in Arabia, and that
Judaism is the faith of dispersed world Jewry. If one asks where
Christianity is centred the answer is, obviously, in Britain and
America, that is, among the Anglo-Saxon peoples. It is from
Anglo-Saxondom that Christianity has been propagated and the Bible given
to all nations in their respective languages and dialects. The preaching
of the Christian Gospel has been the task of the English-speaking
peoples.
The Word of God-The Bible
The Bible has been the basis of world evangelism, and ever since its
translation into modern speech Britain has, for the main part, been its
custodian. The first people in the world nationally to become Christian
were the British. Yet Christianity did not originate in the British
Isles but in Asia Minor, as recorded in the New Testament.
Following Pentecost, there came the missionary journeys of the
Apostles, resulting in the springing into being of small Christian
communities in Asia Minor, to which in due course the Epistles, which
form the greater part of our New Testament, were addressed, the Book of
Revelation names seven. When, however, the Good News spread beyond the
borders of Asia Minor and reached Britain the British were the first to
accept it as their national belief, becoming the focal centre and
exponents of world Christianity.
But one has to look further back for the earliest roots of Christianity.
These are found in the Old Testament. The House of Jacob, better known,
perhaps. as the children of Israel, after their emancipation from the
land of Egypt, became the recipients of a Divine revelation in which
was embodied all those types and prefiguring emblems which foreshadowed
the basic structure of the coming Christian faith. This fact is commonly
accepted by all theologians.
One may say that Israel, as regards its worship, was pre-Christian.
Their whole ordinances and religious ritual pointed to the advent of
a Messiah Whom history has subsequently acclaimed as the Founder of
Christianity. The worship of Israel embodied the fundamentals of all
subsequent Christian belief. For example, the priesthood was anti-typical
of Christ's High Priesthood; the atonement and sin-offerings pointed
to His sacrificial death as 'the Lamb of God bearing away the sin of
the world'; the shewbread and the candelabrum of the sanctuary typified
His being, respectively, 'the Bread of Life' and 'the Light of the World'.
Even the minutest details and colour scheme, all 'according to the pattern
shown in the Mount', pointed to some aspect or another of Christ's person
or work. Thus Christianity was conceived in the womb of Israel. Although
this great fact cannot be, disputed, it is one of the inexplicable anomalies
of religious history that, as promulgated by the theologians, theology
has systematically by-passed Israel.
This strange repudiation of the source from which Christianity has
emanated is due almost entirely to the fallacious belief that Israel,
the House of Jacob, was a Jewish institution. A belief which, in spite
of its having the sanction of religious orthodoxy, has no foundation
whatever in fact.
World Centre of Christianity
One of the most potent arguments in favour of the growing belief that
Anglo-Saxondom is the modern representative of Israel is to be found in
the fact that it is today the world centre and nucleus of Christianity
as foreshadowed in the ritual and ordinances of Israel's earliest
worship. No argument could certainly be clearer in proof of the existing
difference between Israel and Jewry. The Jews' rejection of the Messiah
placed them outside Christianity while the major portion of the House of
Jacob is found today within it.
In view of the clearest possible Bible teaching, Christianity dare
no more bypass Israel than it dare by-pass the Cross of the Redeemer
of Israel or His empty tomb, for the simple and most obvious reason
that both that redemptive sacrifice and that sign of His resurrection
are, by Divine appointment, placed within the prescribed orbit of the
House of Jacob.
This should in itself be a sufficient reason to convince any logical
and unbiased thinker that the Biblical record unequivocally indicates
that at no time whatever has the whole House of Jacob been incorporated
in Jewry, nor has Jewry ever been the whole of Israel. Without the House
of Jacob there would have been no Christ, and without Christ no Christianity.
Had Jewry contained within its orbit the whole of Israel, the world
today would have been without the Christian faith.
The Old and New Testaments
The Holy Scriptures in their book-form are divided into two sections,
the Old Testament and the New Testament, or the Old Covenant and the New
Covenant-the terms are identical and interchangeable.
The first tells of a covenant made by God with the children of Israel
(House of Jacob) three -months after the Exodus from Egypt. It is known
as the Mosaic covenant, because Moses was its mediator. Jewry was not in
existence when it was made. It was subsequently broken by the House of
Jacob. One of the consequences of its violation was the punitive
captivities which befell the two respective sections of the people after
its division, then known as the House of Judah and the House of Israel,
the southern and the northern kingdoms. Jewry was not in existence when
the division took place.
Some centuries later God announced His intention of making a New Covenant
with both sections and thus renewing the broken relationship. This announcement
is to be found in Jeremiah 31:27-37. We note that it is a communication
to both houses, that is, it is ultimately to include the whole House
of Jacob in its scope. But in the detailed description of what was to
be embodied in the New Covenant there is a significant omission.
It is not stated what is to be the nature of the covenant to he made
with the House of Judah.. only that to be made with the House of Israel,
the major portion of the House of Jacob, is outlined. The subsequent
rejection of the Messiah by the Jewish, section of the House of Judah
gives the reason for the omission.
History now bridges . an intervening period of some 700 to 800 years,
and resumes the story thread after the advent of Jesus the Christ. A
New Testament writer picks up the thread and quotes verbatim the statement
made through the prophet Jeremiah. This is recorded in the Epistle to
the Hebrews 8:1-13.
The vital implication of this has for some inexplicable reason been
overlooked by the majority of Bible expositors, and as a consequence
the salient point has been entirely neglected. If any statement in the
Bible is unequivocally explicit and clear it is that the New Covenant
is made with the same people as the Old, namely, with the House of Israel.
The vital omission is again included in the citation.
There can be no mistake as to what is implied and included in this
New Covenant with the House of Israel. Here we see emerging the early
beginnings of world. Christianity vested in Israel. Hebrews 9 and other
chapters leave no doubt about this. Here is the New Covenant of which
Christ is the Mediator and which therefore bears His Name, henceforth
to be known as the Christian or Christ Covenant, as the former bore
the name of Moses, its mediator. We are faced with the accomplished
fact of the mediation of the Christian Covenant, under which those with
whom it is made become the Christian people of the latter days.
The Link Between
During the ensuing centuries we are directed to the reappearance of the
House of Israel as the custodian of Christianity and its propagator to
the nations of the world. Here, then, is the link between Israel and Christianity
to the self-exclusion of the Jew, who by his rejection of the Founder
of Christianity placed himself outside its orbit and still remains one
of those peoples to whom his brethren are carrying God's message of reconciliation.
Christian Israel-not spiritual Israel; the term is not employed in the
Bible, because Israel exists literally and nationally-has the corroboration
of history during this so-called Christian era. Paul summarizes it in
Romans 9:4-9. When was this Christian Covenant inaugurated?
The Synoptic Gospels record the inauguration of the New Covenant by our Lord
Himself. It was the final climax of the last Passover when, after the
feast was concluded, Jesus took the cup and, bidding all His disciples
drink of it, passed it to them with the memorable words: 'This is the
new testament in my blood' (see Luke 22: I20, with the other Gospels;
also Paul's elucidation in 1 Cor. 11:23-29, and many other references
in the New Testament). Truly 'Christ our passover has been sacrificed
for us', and in commemoration of that sacrifice the Lord's. people observe
their Christian Communion service. Yet how few realize when they remember
His death in this appointed way that they are commemorating the New
Covenant made with the House of Israel whereby Israel became Christian.
Yes, national Christian Israel, if words have any meaning at all, and
God always says exactly what He means and means exactly what He says.
The Christian Nation
There are those who object to the term 'Christian nation', failing
to understand that a Christian nation does not imply or necessarily
mean that every individual of whom it is comprised is enjoying the Christian
experience of forgiveness and peace. The nation of Israel in the Old
Testament was no more 'religious' as regards every individual in it
than is nominally Christian Britain of today. That did not make them
any the less 'God's people' then, neither does it make Israel-Britain
under the New Christian Covenant any less 'God's people' now. As a matter
of fact, God says that under this New Covenant they are 'My people'.
As in the old as well as in the new, it is the individual who comes
first to the experience of God's love before that experience becomes
national. That it is to become so is explicitly stated. Read it again
carefully.
Surely the Book of Common Prayer as used in the National Church of
England is meaningless unless those who use its liturgy are Israel? Its
constant reference to Israel and its whole assumption of the nation's
past connection with God's people of the Old Testament is evidence
enough that its authors knew their origin. If this is not so, and if
those who use its language and attend its memorial Communion Service are
not Israel, then one may well ask what right they have to either that
form of worship or to commemorate a covenant which was made with a
people of whom they are not a part? This applies equally to every form
of Christian public worship and to every Communion Service held in any
or every Christian community. Taken in its correct setting, there is no
clash at all.
Here is a Christian nation (Israel) worshipping in the belief and recognition
that they are under the New Covenant. The only really serious question
that arises concerns those who are not of Israel, but who worship with
Israel. Have these, who have no racial or national link with Israel,
but who have received the Christian proclamation and been led to Christ,
the same right to worship and commemorate as has Israel? The answer
is, unhesitatingly, a perfect right, because in the terms of Galatians
3:26-29, being 'Christ's', they have become 'Abraham's seed, and heirs
according to the promise'. By adoption they are within the New Covenant,
an adoption based on their having become 'Christ's', Who is the Mediator
of the New Covenant with the House of Israel. To be 'Christ's' is to
have entered the orbit of 'the Israel of God'.
Is this New Covenant now in Force?
Hebrews 9 answers this question. A covenant or testament requires the
'death of the testator' to ratify it and make it valid. Even the Old
Covenant had to be ratified by the death of a substitute before it became
alive. This is explained in both Leviticus and Hebrews. Christ's death
ratified the New Covenant. For over 1900 years it has been in force,
and is the reason and explanation of Israel-Britain's present position
in the world and her many and wonderful deliverances from attempts to
destroy her. The days have yet to come when in all its fullness it will
be experienced nationally, and 'all, from the least to the greatest,
know him' and realize that He has forgiven their iniquities and will
remember their sins no more. That day will surely dawn.
Christ and Israel are Inseparable
The failure to recognize this Divine partnership and the confusing of
Israel with Jewry have led to the general acceptance of the fallacy that
Christianity was brought to us from Rome. Why is the Church so reluctant
to admit that in these isles there existed a strong British Christian
Church six hundred years before Augustine was sent by Rome? During all
the early centuries that Rome was pagan the British people were
Christian. Study the story of Glastonbury. 'Israel in the isles, the
people from afar', had welcomed the Christian proclamation centuries
before Rome had heard it. It was from Britain that Christianity went to
Rome. The people with whom the New Covenant was to be made had been
gathered into the 'appointed place' in readiness for its coming. Does
one ask why Christianity and Israel are not associated in name? The
answer is that Israel today functions under a Divinely-sanctioned alias.
Under the New Covenant there was to be a new name until the time
should come when Israel would honour the name she had dishonoured among
the nations under the old. The theological assumption that God wound up
the affairs of national Israel and substituted the 'Church' in its place
has no Biblical sanction or authority whatever. What actually happened
was that God recovenanted Israel, whereby she became the Christian
'People of God'. In due time the alias under which she is known will be
removed and her true identity disclosed. Today the identity of Israel
embodied in Anglo-Saxondom offers a key to Holy Scripture, in particular
to the interpretation of its prophetical statements, and is the
explanation of how and why world evangelization, the preaching of the
good news of the Kingdom of God to every nation on earth, has fallen to
the lot of the English-speaking race.
The People of the Book have fulfilled the programme of the Book as
God's servant nation. That they have done and are still doing so, in
ignorance of their true identity and in spite of their imperfections,
only serves to demonstrate the power of God and magnify His love and
grace. Truly 'this is the Lord's doing; it is marvellous in our eyes'.
