|||
We borrowed a phrase from the following article as being a better title to this essay. The subtitle is an analogy we coined decades ago. This essay was written by the late William G. Finlay of South Africa.
The title which Finlay gave it is also pertinent, though, because his article helps debunk the lies of the eschatology of futurism, specifically, the “seventy weeks” of Daniel, a key fundamental for nearly all fundamentalists, evangelicals, and others. We discovered this article reprinted in our stacks of the now-defunct Kingdom Digest for May, 1983.
We have heard of Finlay over the years from time to time, but have not been familiar with much of his teaching. Unfortunately, we find from current internet sources that he was a “Paul-basher.”
Despite Finlay’s lack of understanding regarding Paul’s authenticity and vital role in the entire Bible story, we found this article to be quite perceptive on the subject matter he discusses herein.
It is too long for one blog, so we shall post the other half—hopefully tomorrow—and include a number of resources from our own teachings and others for further study.
Finlay uses italics to set apart Bible quotations. All other italics and all boldface and underline portions indicate my emphasis. All comments in [brackets] and {braces} are mine. QUOTE:
By W. G. Finlay
“Son of man, thy brethren, even thy brethren, the men of thy kindred, and all the house of Israel wholly, are they unto whom the inhabitants of Jerusalem have said, Get you far from the Lord; unto us is this land given in possession” (Ezekiel 11:15).
It was the expectation of many Bible students of the nineteenth century that the year 1917 would have a most profound effect on world history. They were indeed completely correct in their assessment, although it is very doubtful whether they envisaged the precise nature of the events in that year on the world generally.
In the main, attention was focused on Jerusalem as the center of events, and as 1917 dawned, many viewed the date appearing on the Moslem calendar, i.e. 1335, as portending the fulfilment of Daniel 12:12, which carried an expectation of blessing from that date.
Notwithstanding the Moslem dating, the subsequent history of Jerusalem in particular, and Palestine generally, is a record of anything but blessing to the people. It should be noted that Daniel’s prophecy is related to people, for it is stated: “Blessed is he that waiteth . . .”
It is quite conceivable that to the migrant population of the land the year 1917 was a blessing, but to others it has been the reverse. This being so, it would be advantageous, at this stage, to reconsider the history of events subsequent to the deliverance of Palestine from Mohammedan dominion.
As is well known, it was the British Forces who delivered the Holy City on December 9th, 1917, and the Mandate over Palestine was given to Britain by the then League of Nations. A month prior to the deliverance of Jerusalem, Sir Arthur James Balfour, the British Secretary for Foreign Affairs, communicated with the Jewish Zionist, Lord Walter Rothschild, and this communication indicated previous correspondence in which Palestine figured very prominently.
In this communication it was intimated that the British Government was sympathetically inclined toward the establishment of a national home for Jews in Palestine, provided that such a home was not prejudicial to the then existing non-Jewish communities in the land.
The Balfour Declaration, as it was subsequently called, was an incredible document in more ways than one. In the first instance, at the time of these negotiations the British victory in Palestine was far from assured, and it was a case of two parties entering into an agreement concerning a property which was not theirs.
The second amazing feature of the Balfour Declaration is that nowhere in the terms of the Mandate could Britain, on her own initiative, allocate portions of the Mandated territory for the purpose of receiving migrants from Europe or any other country.
[That would be analogous to China, Japan, Ghana, or any other country declaring that the USA can receive migrants from Africa, Asia, Central and South America… oh, wait… Are not 168 nations in the world now authorizing and shipping many of their undesirables into the USA?]
Here, indeed, are two very strange features which are tied up with the deliverance of Jerusalem by British Forces in 1917.
The Military Administration which had been set up in Palestine subsequent to the defeat of the Turks, lasted until 1920, when this was replaced by a Civil Administration headed by Sir Herbert Samuel, and the Balfour Declaration was implemented.
This was the signal for the commencement of events which gave content and meaning to the description by the prophet Zechariah who, in speaking of the ‘burden of the word of the Lord for Israel’ said that Jerusalem would become ‘a cup of trembling’ (Zech. 12:2) — a situation which gradually developed in Palestine.
In the first decade after the defeat of the Turks, the Palestinian scene became one of intermittent uprisings and riots, with Jerusalem being in the center of this. The second decade saw an intensification of this with two major revolutions by the Arabs in 1936 and 1938.
From the Arab point of view, these were fully justified, for they viewed the whole situation as a British sell-out with Jewish migrants flooding into Palestine and displacing large portions of the Arab population. On the other hand, the blame did not lie solely with the British Administration for although they had restricted immigration, they could not control the flooding of the land by illegal means.
The 1938 revolution was brought under control after British reinforcements had been rushed to the scene, but by this time the war clouds which had been gathering in Europe broke, and the Second World War was on.
While British and Commonwealth Forces were engaged in a battle for survival, the trembling cup of Jerusalem began to shake with the forerunner of the current terrorist campaigns. The Haganah, the clandestine armed force in Palestine, together with other extreme Jewish terrorist movements, began an active terrorist campaign against the British forces which ended on May 14th, 1948, with the eviction of Britain from Palestine.
At this juncture, the prophetic word again takes up the story and draws attention, not only to the ‘cup of trembling’, but also answers the contention of so many teachers that ‘the Jews have now returned to their ancient homeland’. Bearing in mind that Britain was the legal and accepted custodian of Palestine and it was the activities of the inhabitants of the land which were creating an explosive situation through their terrorism, the message recorded by Isaiah the prophet is singularly significant.
In the first instance, the Lord identifies the people to whom the message is directed. “Hearken to me, ye that follow after righteousness . . . Look unto Abraham your father, and unto Sarah that bare you . . . Hearken unto me, my people; and give ear unto me, O my nation …” (Isa. 51:1-4).
There is no ambiguity here, for it positively identifies the ‘seed of Abraham’, not in general, but specifically the covenanted line which was born from Sarah.
This identification calls attention to the fact that it was this line to which the promise of Palestine was given. “In the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt, unto the great river, the river Euphrates” (Gen. 15:18).
Abraham sired eight sons in all, but the Lord was most specific in stating that the son born to Sarah was the one concerned in His promise for, said He: “. . . in Isaac shall thy seed be called” (Gen. 21:12).
In the light of this, it is evident that the message recorded by Isaiah the prophet is directed to the people to whom the Lord had given the title-deeds to Palestine.
Those who have been orientated to world propaganda and who hold that ‘the Jews have now come back to their ancient homeland’ will no doubt concur with what has been said above and eagerly pursue what the prophet has to say further.
However, in continuing with the message directed to God’s people, His peculiar servant nation, one finds that something goes wrong for, instead of taking the ‘cup of trembling’ away from the Jews, it was taken away from Britain. [!]
[This only makes sense if one understands who true Israel is {namely, the Anglo-Saxon, Keltic, Scandinavian, Germanic, and related peoples} and who is truly not of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob-Israel!]
“Behold, I have taken out of thine hand the cup of trembling . . But I will put it into the hand of them that afflict thee; which have said to thy soul, bow down, that we may go over: and thou hast laid thy body as the ground, and as the street, to them that went over” (lsa. 51:22-23). Jerusalem is today in Jewish hands, having been taken out of British hands just as the Lord said He would do in respect of [true] Israel.
In the above context, one may see anew the implication arising from the Scripture which prefaces this article, for, it will be noted, the message of the Lord was directed via Ezekiel, to ‘all the house of Israel wholly’ concerning their eviction from the land that was scripturally theirs and in which the evictors are simply named as ‘the inhabitants of Jerusalem’.
To the average person, this becomes somewhat of an enigma, and in order to clarify the position, it is necessary to once again follow the Bible story up to, and through the period which, with certain justification, is called the ‘seventy momentous weeks’.
As has been stated above, the title-deeds to Palestine were given to Abraham and his ‘seed’ but it will be noted, as one probes the grand old story, that nowhere in the Bible is Abraham called a Jew.
It is at this stage that the average Christian will no doubt make an interjection on the grounds that it is irrelevant whether God promised the land to Abraham or not, or whether he was a Jew or Gentile. The interjection will no doubt follow the theme that in God’s purpose all racial and national features dissolve into nothingness because of the Lord Jesus Christ.
However, the matter of whether or not Abraham was a Jew is extremely relevant, for if he were a Jew and then the Jews have a God-given right to Palestine; but, on the other hand, if he was not a Jew there is a serious need for re-thinking on the part of most people.
As has already been stated, nowhere in the Bible is Abraham referred to as a Jew, nor, for that matter, are any of the ‘fathers’ to whom the Promises of the Lord were confirmed. In order to overcome this problem, the theory of philological evolution will no doubt then be propounded in which the word ‘Jew’ will somehow be shown as the evolutionary development of the name ‘Israel’ which was given to Jacob (Gen. 32:28), the grandson of Abraham.
This theory, like that of Darwin, falls down in that no ‘missing link’ can be found for the simple reason that none exists. The name ‘Israel’ persists right through the Scriptures, passing through the New Testament times to the last Book of the Bible where the gates of the New Jerusalem bear “the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel”. (Rev. 21:12). Note again, not the names of the twelve tribes of the Jews, but of Israel. END QUOTE
(To be continued.)
END