WHAT DO THE SCRIPTURES TEACH RESPECTING THE FUTURE CONDITION OF THE JEWS?

THE Jews have from the beginning been a peculiar people; peculiar as it regards their national character, and as it regards the objects to be accomplished by their national existence. They are at present, as is well known, dispersed among the nations of the earth; are rejecters of Christ and his religion; and are suffering in many ways the righteous displeasure of God.

Now, do the scriptures point out any change which is to be effected in their condition; and, if any, in what will that change consist?

The scriptures very clearly and decidedly teach, that the Jews will be converted to the Christian religion. "God hath not cast away his people." "Blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved." (Rom. ii. 2. 25, 26.) Indeed the Redeemer cannot reign over the nations of the earth, according to multiplied promises of scripture, without including the Jews among his subjects.

But will the Jews, after their conversion to Christianity, be restored to any of their former peculiar distinctions ?

This is a question, in regard to which the opinions of wise and good men are not agreed. Some 1826. No. 2.

8

suppose that the Jews, in connexion with their conversion, will be gathered from their dispersions, and be restored to the land of Palestine, and exist a community by themselves; and that they will hold a peculiar place in the divine favour, and be raised to a peculiar eminence, above all the other nations of the earth. Others suppose that the scriptures promise only their conversion to Christianity, leaving their outward condition undetermined.

ets.

The opinion that the Jews will be restored to Palestine, and as a nation be peculiarly favoured of heaven, has been supposed to be very clearly taught by the prophA declaration found in Amos has been considered as relating to this subject. this subject. "And I will bring again the captivity of my people Israel, and they shall build the waste cities, and inhabit them, and they shall plant vineyards, and drink the wine thereof; they shall also make gardens, and eat the fruit of them. And I will plant them upon their land, and they shall no more be pulled up out of their land which I have given them, saith the Lord thy God." (Ch. ix. 14, 15.) In connexion with this passage, God says that he will "raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen,-and build it as in the days of old ;" and cause his people to " possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen." (ver. 11, 12.)

Similar representations are given in Isaiah. The prophet, having mentioned that there was to be a root out of Jesse, to stand as an ensign of the people; and that the Gentiles should seek unto it, and find its rest glorious;-thus pointing out, as is generally supposed, the Christian dispensation-adds, "And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall set his hand again the second time, to recover the remnant of his people." He says that they shall be brought from Egypt, and Pathros, and Cush, and Elam, and Shinar, and Hamath, and the islands of the sea -and from the four corners of the earth. They shall lay their hand upon Edom and Moab; and the children of Ammon shall obey them. And in the accomplishment of this, God shall destroy the tongue of the Egyptian sea; and shall smite the river in its seven streams, and make men go over dry-shod. (Chap. xi. 10-16.)

Many other passages of the same general import may be found in the writings of the prophets. But the two now mentioned are probably sufficient to serve as a specimen, and to show in what light the whole should be viewed. I do not here enter into the inquiry, how many of these passages relate to events which took place soon after the passages were written. This is an inquiry, however, which merits serious consideration. But I shall allow, in the present discussion, that the declarations of scripture which have been adduced, and others of the same general nature, do relate to that restoration of the Jews which is yet to take place. Are these declarations, then, and others similar to them, to be interpreted literally, or are they to be understood in a figurative sense?

It will probably be admitted by all, that these and similar passages contain some expressions which will not allow of a literal interprefation. The most strenuous advo

cate for Israel's restoration to Canaan, will hardly contend that the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down, will be literally raised up and rebuilt, as in former days: or that the Jews will literally possess the remnant of Edom and of all the heathen-be masters of the whole world. He will hardly contend that, in the restoration of this people, God will again literally divide the Red Sea; or literally dry up the rivers, and make men go over dry-shod. In these representations probably all will admit, that future blessings are promised under imagery drawn from past events.

There are other promises couched in similar language, which, it is equally evident, must be interpreted in the same way. Thus, after it is said that the Gentiles shall come to Zion's light-after the establishment of the Christian dispensation, and the conversion of the world,-God promises that the flocks of Kedar, and the rams of Nebaioth, shall come up with acceptance on his altar. (Is. Ix. 3. 7.) Who believes that the altars, and sacrifices, and other rites of ancient Jewish worship, are to be literally re-established under the Christian dispensation? Who does not see that the blessing promised is spiritual in its nature; and that the language, borrowed from the established forms of worship at that time, must be interpreted in a figurative sense?

Let any one also read the last nine chapters of Ezekiel's prophecy. There he will find the future glory of Israel set before him. They inhabit a great city, with a magnificent temple. They have altars, and priests, and sacrifices. They have all the ceremonies and observances of the Mosaic dispensation. The land of Canaan is divided among their twelve tribes; and the whole economy of the nation is established precisely as it was in the days of their former prosperity.

Now no man will contend that, on Israel's restoration to Canaan, all this will be accomplished literally. Some part of the representation is, by the admissson of all, to be understood figuratively. And here the question arises, Where shall the figurative interpretation stop, and the literal begin? How much of the language of scripture on this subject is figurative, and how much is literal?

Undoubtedly it must be admitted that this language is figurative, so far as it is founded on those peculiarities of the ancient worship which are done away by the Christian dispensation. Altars, and sacrifices, and purifications, and many other observances, will not literally

exist.

Let the inquiry then be made, whether, if a part of the language of scripture on this subject is to be interpreted figuratively, the whole may not be thus interpreted? If the promise that the Jews shall be restored to the observance of the Mosaic rites, is to be understood, not literally, but simply that they shall be restored to the enjoyment of religion, why may not the promise that they shall be restored to Palestine be understood, not literally, but as indicating their return to the divine favour?

A moment's consideration will show that this interpretation is very natural. In all their former dispersions they looked on a return to their own land, and to the enjoyment of their religious rites, as the richest of God's mercies. This was, in a very important sense, under the ancient dispensation, a restoration to the enjoyment of religion. Would it not hence be very natural, in predicting a future restoration to God's favour, to borrow language from the state of things then existing? And as a part of the language employed on this subject must be understood in this manner, why shall not the principle be car

ried through, and the whole of it be thus understood?

Let us see if there are any other passages which will help us to settle this question. God says, "I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel: and David my servant shall be king over them." (Ez. xxxvii. 22. 24.) We are certainly not here to understand that David, literally, will be Israel's king. The meaning is that Israel will submit, and be happy, under the government which God shall appoint for them, even as they formerly did under the govern ment of David: they shall enjoy the blessings of the Messiah's reign, of which the reign of David was a faint. emblem. Now, since the promise that David shall be their king, must be understood, not literally, but as a promise of spiritual blessings; why shall not the promise of planting them again on the mountains of Israel be understood, not literally, but as a promise of those high spiritual blessings and privileges which, once, the mountains of Israel alone afforded, but which now, under the Christian dispensation, may be equally enjoyed in any other part of the world? Do not the rules of interpretation allow, and, if there are no opposing considerations, do they not require, that we take this view of the subject?

There are one or two other passages which it may not be amiss to mention. "Thus saith the Lord of hosts, In those days it shall come to pass, that ten men shall take hold, out of all languages of the nations, even shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go with you: for we have heard that God is with you." (Zech. viii. 23.) And "at that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of the Lord; and all the nations shall be gathered unto it, to the name of the Lord, to Jerusalem.” (Jer. iii. 17.)

Now here are expressions which, understood literally, give the Jews, at their restoration and afterwards, a great pre-eminence above all other nations; and which, at their restoration, make all other nations follow them to Jerusalem, as the place where God has his seat, and is to be worshipped. But who believes that the Gentiles must go to Judea, and be gathered into Jerusalem, to worship God? Every man understands this representation of the prophet in a figurative sense, as signifying simply that the Gentiles will be converted to the true religion, and be brought to the worship of the true God, who, at the time when the prophet spoke, was worshipped chiefly at Jerusalem, but who is now worshipped, in spirit and in truth, in any part of the world. And the remark that other nations shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, and go with him, seems to signify the eagerness with which they will inquire on the subject of religion, and the readiness with which they will unite themselves to God's true worshippers, wherever found. The Jews, when the prophet wrote, were God's peculiar people. With them, and almost with them only, was the knowledge of the true God. To hear, therefore, and follow their instructions, was to embrace the true religion. Hence, in pointing out the future conversion of the Gentiles, the prophet very naturally used language accommodated to this subject; used language founded on the state of things then exist

ing.

But if the prophet, when he tells us that the Gentiles are to be gathered into Jerusalem to worship God, means only that they will be converted to the true religion, why may we not, when he tells us that the Jews will be gathered there, understand him as meaning only that they will be converted to the true religion? If the language in the one case, is to be interpreted

figuratively, why shall it not be thus interpreted in the other?

Perhaps the New Testament will throw some light on the subject before us. We there find the conversion of the Jews to Christianity very frequently mentioned. The veil shall be taken away from their hearts: (2 Cor. iii. 16.) They shall be grafted into their own olive-tree: (Rom. xi. 24.) As touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes. (Ibid. v. 28.) And if their return to Judea, and the re-organization of their national establishment, constitute a part of the promised blessing, we may certainly expect that the writers of the New Testament will speak of these things as clearly, at least, as the prophets did. who lived several centuries before them, and under a darker dispensation. And since a part of what the prophets wrote must be understood figuratively; and since the whole, with out violating any just rule of interpretation, may be thus understood; we shall do well to see whether the instructions of Christ and his apostles will help us towards a decision of what now remains doubtful.

But where are those declarations of Christ and his apostles, which show that the Jews shall be returned to Canaan, and be re-organized into a nation, and enjoy those peculiar distinctions which some suppose are in reserve for them? So far as I recollect, the whole New Testament is silent on this subject. And what inference shall this silence lead us to make? When so much is said about the conversion of the Jews to Christianity, and nothing is said about their return to Palestine, and the supposed distinctions connected with it, is it not reasonable to infer that that return, and those distinctions, constitute no part of the promised blessings; and that, when the Jews are brought to embrace Christ, and his religion, the whole import of the language

of the prophets on this subject will be accomplished?

But not only is the New Testament silent as regards any thing which might favour the opinion that the Jews are hereafter to enjoy great and peculiar distinctions as a separate community: it contains some expressions which directly militate against that opinion. Christ, speaking with reference to the Jews, says, "Other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring; and there shall be one fold and one shepherd." (John x. 16.) This seems to imply that all his people will be, essentially, placed on a level, and treated alike. The apostle says that the wall of partition between Jews and Gentiles, Christ hath broken down, to make, in himself, of the two, one new man. (Eph. ii. 14. 15.) And again he teaches us that, under the Christian dispensation, distinctions which had for merly exited were done away. Here there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free but Christ is all, and in all." (Col. iii. 11.)

Such is the uniform representation of the New Testament, whenever it speaks on this subject. And does not this testimony furnish us with a safe guide in explaining the language of the prophets? Added to the silence of the New Testament on the other side of the question, is it not decisive that the Jews get the whole amount of their promised blessings, when they are brought to an interest in the gospel, on an equal standing with the Gentile world?

I know that the Jews have been the peculiar people of God, and have been peculiarly distinguished as the objects of the divine care and beneficence. And from this we may be ready to infer that it always will be thus with them.

But we should remember that their former distinction was for the

accomplishment of a great object; which object being accomplished, the necessity of the distinction ceases. God would make an experiment with the world, to let it be seen what human powers would accomplish on the subject of religion, when left to struggle alone. But whilst this experiment was going forward, lest all knowledge of himself and the true religion should be lost from the earth, he selected one people whom he would not give up to themselves entirely; with whom he would deposit such communications as he had made, and might wish to make, for the ultimate benefit of the world; and among whom should rise up, in due time, a Saviour for all nations. The Jews never were the peculiar people of God, in that sense in which they sometimes understood themselves to be. God frequently says to them, "Be it known unto you, not for your sakes do I these things unto you but for mine own sake."* It was for the accomplishment of his own purposes that these things were done.

But when the experiment with the rest of the world was completed; when the oracles of God were preserved through the period of darkness, for the benefit of subsequent ages; and when the great Deliverer had come; the accomplishment of these purposes was effected. Then why need the distinction which previously existed be kept up? The whole New Testament, as we have seen, teaches us, when it speaks on the subject, that it ought not to be kept up. The object is accomplished-let the distinction cease.

It may be said, indeed, that the dispersion of the Jews from Palestine has been literal. And from this, it may be thought, an argument arises in favour of their lite ral return. But is it not probable

* Deut. ix. 5, 6. Ps. cvi. 8. Ezek. xxxvi. 22. and other places.