The Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, vol. 79
August 19, 1902
“The Lost Tribes of Israel” The Advent Review and Sabbath Herald 79, 33.
E. J. Waggoner
There is a popular, almost universal, idea that at the time of the Babylonish captivity, ten of the twelve tribes were wholly lost, and that only two tribes could be mustered to return to the land of Palestine at the close of the seventy years. So deeply rooted is this notion, that almost everybody knows at once what is referred to whenever the expression, “The ten lost tribes,” is used. How this idea came to prevail, we shall not now stop to enquire, but shall content ourselves with ascertaining what the Bible has to say upon the subject of the lost Israelites. ARSH August 19, 1902, page 8.1
First, however, it may be well to note a common misconception concerning the terms “Judah” and “Israel.” When the kingdom was divided, after the death of Solomon, the southern portion, consisting of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, was known as the kingdom of Judah, with Jerusalem as its capital; while the northern portion, consisting of the remaining tribes, was known as the kingdom of Israel, with headquarters at Samaria. This northern kingdom it was that was first carried captive, and the tribes that composed it are the ones supposed to be lost. ARSH August 19, 1902, page 8.2
The misconception is that the term “Jews” is limited to the people of the southern kingdom, namely, to the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, and that the term “Israelites” signifies only those tribes composing the northern kingdom, supposed to be lost. Going on in the line of this supposition, “the warm, ungoverned imagination” of some speculative theologians has fancied that the people generally known as Jews are from the tribes of Judah and Benjamin alone, and that the Anglo-Saxon race, or more specifically, the people of Great Britain and America, are the Israelites, or, in other words, “ten lost tribes” discovered. ARSH August 19, 1902, page 8.3
It is easy to see how this theory originated. It originated in an utter failure to comprehend the promises of the Gospel. It was invented in order to bring in the Anglo-Saxon race as inheritors of the promises to Abraham, the fact having been lost sight of that those promises embraced the whole world, without respect to nationality, and that “God is no respecter of persons, but in every nation he that feareth Him and worketh righteousness, is accepted with Him.” Acts 10:34, 35. If men had believed that “an Israelite indeed,” is one “in whom is no guile,” (John 1:47), they would have seen the folly of the idea that no matter how wicked and unbelieving people may be, they must be Israelites simply because they are a part of a certain nation. But the idea of a national church and of a national religion is wonderfully fascinating, because it is so much more pleasant for people to suppose that they are to be saved in bulk, regardless of character, instead of through individual faith and righteousness. ARSH August 19, 1902, page 8.4
A few texts of Scripture are sufficient to show that the terms “Jew” and “Israelite” are used interchangeably, each being applicable to the same person. For instance, in Esther 2:5 we read that “in Shushan the palace there was a certain Jew, whose name was Mordecai, the son of Jair, the son of Kish, a Benjamite.” But in Romans 11:1 we have the Apostle Paul’s statement, “I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin;” and the same Apostle said, “I am a man which am a Jew of Tarsus.” Acts 21:39. Here we have one man of the tribe of Benjamin, a Jew, and another man of the same tribe, an Israelite, and at the same time a Jew. ARSH August 19, 1902, page 8.5
Again: Ahaz was one of the kings of Judah, and reigned in Jerusalem. See 2 Kings 16:1, 2; Isaiah 1:1. He was a descendant of David, and one of the ancestors of Jesus according to the flesh. 2 Kings 16:2; Matthew 1:9. Yet in 2 Chronicles 28:19, in an account of the invasion of “the south of Judah” by the Philistines, we are told that “the Lord brought Judah low because of Ahaz king of Israel; for he made Judah naked, and transgressed sore against the Lord.” ARSH August 19, 1902, page 8.6
When the Apostle Paul had returned to Jerusalem from one of his missionary tours, “the Jews which were of Asia, when they saw him in the temple, stirred up all the people, and laid hands on him, crying out, Men of Israel, help!” Acts 21:27, 28. ARSH August 19, 1902, page 8.7
The reader can readily see the naturalness of this, when he remembers that all the twelve tribes were descended from one man, Jacob, or Israel. The term “Israel” is therefore applicable to any or all the tribes; while, because of the prominence of Judah, the term “Jew” came to be applied to any of the children of Israel, regardless of their tribe. In speaking of the covenants God says that He will “make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah,” (Hebrews 8:8), in order to make it unmistakable that the new covenant is to be made with the entire, undivided people, just as the old covenant was. ARSH August 19, 1902, page 8.8
Thus we see that the term “Jews” is rightly applied to the same people as is the term “Israelites;” but we must not forget that, strictly speaking, “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.” Romans 2:28, 29. The reckoning of the tribes has been lost among the people called Jews, but that makes no difference; they may be called Israelites just as properly as Jews; but neither term is in strict propriety applicable to any of them except to those who have real faith in Jesus Christ: and both terms are, in the strictly Scriptural sense, applicable to any who have such faith, though they be English, French, Greek, Turk, or Chinese. ARSH August 19, 1902, page 9.1
(To be concluded.)