"The Lost Ten Tribes of Israel.”

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume III, Issue 352, 17 September 1889, Page 3

"The Lost Ten Tribes of Israel.”

[to the editor.] Sib,—Attracted bv an advertisement in your columns, that Mr Hare would deliver a lecture on thia subject in the Theatre Boyal, a few Sunday evenings ago, I attended and listened with great interest to that gentleman’s very able lecture; but must confess that at the close I did not feel convinced by the arguments adduced, and thetextsquoted, that Mr Hare was correct in his conclusion, •• that the ten tribes were never * lost,’ but that the restoration which took place when the decree of Artaxerxes was issued included the whole of those who were taken away, both at the Assyrian and Babylonish captivity, and that consequently all the prophesies bear. Ing on this subject have received their fulfilment."

Although it may ba well to avoid discusBinns on theological subjects in the public press, yet still, as this subject has also a very important historical bearing, I trust you will allow me to state, as briefly as possible, a few objections to Mr Hare'a theory. First, to deal with the historical facts of the subject. The twelve tribes were once united under one king, but afterwards became divided into two kingdoms, the House of Israel, under King Jerebnam, and the House of Judah, under King Reheboam. The House of Judah was composed of two tribes, i.e., Judah and Levi, who are the Jews of the present day, and have never been ■ lost.’ Up to the time of the siege of Jerusalem by Titus, Judah had also amongst them the tribe of Benjamin, this one tribe being left as a * light ’ in Jerusalem, but they separated from Judah prior to this siege, by virtue of a prophecy commanding them to do so—Jer, vi, 1. The House of Israel went into captivity about 725. The Babylonish captivity of Judah did not take place till about 134 years after B,C. 688, and then only for 70 years, and the records of Scripture which include the return of the Jews from Babylon declare most antpbatioally that though the Jews had returned from the Babylonish captivity, the ton tribes had not, ■So was Israel carried away out of their own land to Assyria unto fhia day' (2 Kings, xvn, 23; 1 Chron., v, ea>, which can only mean that up to the day that these historical books were compiled Israel had not returned, but were still in the > cities of the Medes' (2 Kings, xvn, 6), and they remained in the region of Media even in the days of Christ and the times of the Apostles, because when they (the Apostles) were commanded, * Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not; but go rather to the lost sheep Of the House of Israel,’ they went to this very region of Media, thenee to Pampbylice, Galatia, Cappadocia, Bitbynia, Illyricum, and by the region of the Engine Sea. Josephus says: * But these, the entire body of the people of Israel, remained in that country (Media), wherefore there are but two tribes Subject to the Bomans, while the ten tribes are beyond the Euphrates till now, and are an immense multitude not to be estimated by ppm ben. 1 By these two witnesses, sacred and secular historians, we gather that the exiled House of Israel was in the days of the apostles about the region of Media. Nebemiah gives a list of the chief men who returned from the Babylonish captivity, and thia list is composed entirely of the three tribes Judah, Levi, and Benjamin, from which we conclude that only three tribes ever returned, The Jews themselves openly declare that they are not now in union with the lost ten tribes, one of their choicest hopes being that some day they will be found and become re-united to them. In their synagogues to the present day they have regularly appointed services at certain seasons, when they declare before God, their belief, that the whole twelve tribes pre still in existence, clinging by ceremonies and rites to the special number of twelve, although they are deeply conscious that ten of their tribes are absent and at present * lost.’ A common mistake, with even Biblical students, is to conclude that when God speaks in prophecy to the House of Israel he always refers to the Jews. It is true that Scripture sometimes speaks of Judah under the term of -Israelites, especially the prophet Ezekiel, yet When it becomes needful to distinguish the tan tribes from Judah it is done by using the terms • all Israel,’ * the whole House of Israel,' * the House of Israel wholly,' The terms are copyright to Israel and are never applied to Judah, The Ten Tribes are at the present time inheriting an entirely different class of prophecies to those that now apply to the Jews. As those applying to Judah are known by us to have an actual fulfilment among the Jews at the present day, it is only logical to conclude that the prophecies as to Israel must also be having an equally positive and literal fulfilment. The distinction of ■ Israel' from * Judah ’ is shewn by the following illustrations taken from the Prophets, which apply respectively to each House during their time of exile. Each class must receive fulfilment contemporaneously with each other, therefore while Israel was under blessings, Judah at the same time must be under curses. Israel when lost was to become— Unknown in name— Ht». l.fl, Isa. I.XV-1S A multitudinous people—Hot. 1 IQ Strong in power—lsa. LXIX-23 A monarchy— do 1.8

An Island nation do. LXIV-13 A Christian people do. 15.17 The chief of nations—Micah. V-8 They should eat, drink, rejoice, sing of heart, and called by another name, Hoc. 1.9, Hos. 5.17, i.e., should not be known by their old name Isa. LXIX-10. Judah when dispersed was to be— Known as a by-word—Jer. xxrv-Q Few. Bereft of children „ XV-" Without might „ xix-7 Without a Government „ xvn-4 Under the Mosaic law „ XIV-12 A trembling faint-hearted people—Jer. XXXV-17 Should be hungry, thirsty, ashamed, cry for sorrow Of heart, and should howl for vexation of spirit—lsa. !XV-l?rW Should leave their name for a curse, 1.e., should be known by their old name—lsa lxv-13 to 15 Israel's captivity was complete, so complete that there was not a single Israelite left to I teach the Gentile people (who had bean imported into Palestine), about the God of Israel, and when tbese Gentiles entreated that soma Israelites might return to teach them, the King of Assyria only allowed one man for this work (see 2 Kings, xvii, IS, 27.) The Babylonish captivity of Judah was not complete, but partial—the poor of the land were left behind (Jer, XL, 7.) Israel never returned—2 Kings, Xvii, 23. Judah did return—Neb, vii, fi, The ten tribes were exiled, but hot literally Ipst, in the days of the Apostles. This is evident from the fact that when they were sent after them they found them in the region plready indicated, with their synagogues abounding everywhere. The Gentiles could have nothing to do with synagogues—therefore as an institution they could only belong to Israel. Why were they in this locality so long after exile ? Because they were waiting for redemption from the Mosaic law, and this could pot take place until after Christ's death, because redemption Could only come to them bom that event. His grand mission was to I redeem Israel,' He himself says >I am not cent but unto the lost sheep of the House of Israel,' Scripture declares that 'He was a light to lighten the Gentiles *; but also, 1 the glory of his people Israel,' and, again, that > the law was until John,’ i.e,, until the days of Christ, Bo that it was right that the Apostlei should find them Itjll under the law 61 Moses, Which they did, for we read of them rtncestly contending for wymg great stress upon genealogy. wM--, plainly indicates that tfasy wam- 1 nn t Mme ba found all*—* . . . WBDB o , og to the Mosaic institutions, a very special one being that of keeping their different tribesbips separate and distinct.

But the time was at hand when they were to lose their identity, and bow could this be accomplished 1 Mainly by giving up circumcision and genealogy. If these two rites were maintained it would have become utterly impossible for this people ever to become lost, Because in themselves they would have vigorously preserved their identity, St. Paul knew this, hence he enjoins them with the voice of authority to giva up circumcision and to forego the perpetuation of genealogy. 1 Avoid foolish questions and genealogies,’ ‘ Neither give bead to tables and endless genealogies,' 1 Cor., vii, 19 ; Titus, iii, 91 1 Tim, i; 4 Titus, i, 14, No such tribeship being now known upon the face of the earth is presumptive proof that Paul'a commands were abided Singe, Iron this point el tiM«

different tribes would drift away from each other, and, losing trace of their ancestry, would become as distinct peoples without having any idea of a common origin, and in this way would their identity be destroyed, and they would become ‘ lost' until God’s time arrived to remove from them their blindness.—Bom., xi, 25. I do not propose to lengthen this review by attempting to prove any of the various theories that have been advanced as to the present identity of the lost tribes, but I cannot accept Mr Hare’s theory that Israel did return to Palestine when the Jews or Judah returned from captivity. It so, it must have been miraculous if the ancestry of Israel had been forgotten in the short space of time between the Assyrian and Babylonish captivities, and the declaration of the Almighty would have received no fulfilment whatever, because it their name had not bsen lost up to the date of the return from Babylon, then they are mixed up with the Jews to this day, so that they could never have been called by * another name,' which would betantamount to stamping Isaiah, David, Jeremiah, IJosea, etc., etc,, false prophets, because all these prophets unite in stating that Israel ‘should be lost, which never could have been the case it they returned at the time of the return of the Jews from Babylon, Few of the birthright promises were realised to Israel when they were in the land of Palestine. Their seed was not then *as the stars of heaven,’ or ‘as the dust of the earth for multitude;’ neither had they become ' a nation and a company of nations,' ‘Thy seed shall possess the gates of thy enemies.'

Isaiah says, ‘ Thou shalt break forth on the right hand and on the left, thy seed shall inherit the Gentiles, and make the desolate cities to be inhabited.’ These passages cannot apply to the Jews. They have never possessed inheritances, have never been over populous, or founded colonies; they were not to be, but according to Jer. xv., 7, they were to be ' few in number.' They are not now much over 5,000,000 in all parts of the globe. The physiognomy of Israel must have become materially different from that of Judah, because the Jews wore destined to be known throughout the world as a mocking, a taunt, a by-word (Jer. xxtv., 9) and this was to be effected in the words of Scripture by • the show of their countenance witnessing against them ’ (Isa. iii., 9), whereas Israel was to be ‘unknown,’ and of course if their countenance was to witness against them as well as the Jews, then Israel could never have become ‘ losttherefore anthropologically, it would be impossible that Israel could be found with the same physiognomy as the Jews. Israel Is nowhere spoken of in Scripture as a‘Church,’ but always as a 'Nation,' and the term ‘Spiritual Israel ’ has no foundation—it involves a misapplication of words that has a most mischievous tendency. Why should w edepart from Bible usage and coin a term inconsistent with the Holy Book ?—which we do when we talk about ‘Spiritual Israel,’ for many from this error have concluded that literal Israel would never be found, that Christians were a spiritual Israel substituted in their place. But a greater wrong could not ba inflicted upon the word of God than such a supposition, the Bible being plenteous in emphatic promises that Israel (the ten tribes) should be found and Palestine restored to them.

If literal Israel are not to be restored, why should their land itself be now lying waste, in obedience to the declarations of Scripture, waiting their return ? As we can see the literal fulfilment of the curses pronounced upon the land, would it be logical to argue that the prophecies pronounced against the people are to be taken in a spiritual sense! Let us try to emancipate our minds from the insipid and prevailing method of explaining away the prophetic portions of the Bible; once let ue see that it is an unfair action on the part of many of our commentators to extract the real meaning of God’s * sure word ’ for the purpose of substituting oft times a senseless and foolish interpretation of their own, —that the glory of the Almighty is that he speaks to us in language having a literal meaning, intended to be literally understood, —then, and not till then, will the word of God be felt as a living power throughout our colonies, —I am, yours Ac,, Timothy.