The Legend Of British-Israel 

C.T. Dimont, D.D.

Principal Of Salisbury Theological College

Chancellor And Canon Of Salisbury Cathedral

London: SPCK, 1933. Pbk.

British-Israel

The movement bearing this name is so called because it maintains the theory that the British people are the descendants of the Ten Northern Tribes of Israel, commonly referred to as the Lost Ten Tribes. This theory has of late years increased the number of its adherents. At first sight it might be considered a waste of time to deal with the strange arguments on which it is based. But it is becoming plain that where they are accepted certain quite definite results follow. The British-Israelite believes that the Old Testament promises that Israel - that is, Britain - is to possess the earth. He therefore, as I shall show later by quotations from British Israel publications, opposes the League of Nations and other peace movements. What has been hitherto a comparatively harmless fad now threatens to become a minor heresy. It is therefore worth while to pay some attention to the allegations on which it rests.

History Of The Movement

The first hint of this movement occurred in 1649, when one John Sadler published a book called the Rights of the Kingdom, in which he traced resemblances between Hebrew and English law and custom. Britain as a name he derived from Berat Anak, the field of tin and lead, and he supposed that the Phoenician traders had originated this name. But the modern movement started with Richard Brothers (1757-1824), a half-pay officer of the Navy. He published fifteen volumes on the subject. He claimed to be descended from David, and to be the nephew of the Almighty. It is not surprising that he ended in a lunatic asylum.

In 1840 John Wilson adopted the theory and devoted himself to propagating it. Others followed. Among them was C. Piazzi Smyth, the Astronomer-Royal for Scotland, who introduced a novelty by measuring the dimensions of the Great Pyramid, and finding in the measurements prophecies of the future prosperity of the English. This suggestion has since given rise to astonishing and copious speculations (cp. Enc. Rel. Eth., art. Anglo-Israelism).

The British-Israelites - to give them their present name, which seems to have replaced the former title of Anglo-Israelites-are now sufficiently numerous to put out a great amount of literature, run a weekly magazine, and even to contemplate the founding of a new theological college, on the ground that no existing college is faithful in its interpretation of Scripture.

For material we turn to British-Israel writings the official handbook called British-Israel Truth, edited by the late Archdeacon Hanan and H. Aldersmith, The Case for British Israel by A. N. Denny, The National Messenger (the weekly organ of the movement), and various other publications and manifestos.

The Ten Tribes Were Never Lost

First, then, we may state a fact which if we were so disposed might dispense us from further troubling about the matter. The British cannot be the descendants of the Lost Ten Tribes, because no such body of lost tribes exists or ever has existed. The assertion that all the Ten Northern Tribes were carried away to Assyria is contrary to Scripture and to the testimony of the monuments. Sargon, the King of Assyria, says that he carried away from Israel 27,290 captives. It is quite obvious that this was but a fragment of the whole population of the Northern Kingdom (cp. 2 Sam. xxiv. 9, which puts the men of military age in North Israel at 800,000). From the account in 2 Kings xvii. 6 and xviii.11 they appear to have been deported in two groups, one of which was placed in Western Mesopotamia, and the other in the far eastern parts of the Assyrian Empire. And this, as Dr. McCurdy says in his book, History, Prophecy and the Monuments (sec. 363), "is the whole story of the famous 'Dispersion of the Ten Tribes.' " The number stated by Sargon is not likely to have been put too low. Assyrian kings were not in the habit of minimising their exploits. Yet it comes to no more than the present population of Salisbury. A few years later more than seven times this number were carried away from Judah without destroying the southern and smaller kingdom.

Those deported were doubtless the most influential men and their families. The rest of the mass of the population remained in Israel. The religion of Jehovah continued there, blended no doubt to some extent with the cults of the heathen settlers who came amongst the natives of the land. But the Samaritans retained the Pentateuch, and, in spite of the late hostility of the Jews, were not regarded as Gentiles.

Some time after the fall of Samaria Hezekiah held a great Passover at Jerusalem. According to 2 Chron. xxx. he sent invitations to Northern Israel as well as to Judah. A "multitude" from the North responded by attending. Five of the Northern Tribes are mentioned by name. It is quite clear from this passage that the greater part of the inhabitants of the Northern Kingdom had not been carried away to Assyria.

A century later another king of Judah, Josiah, when he repaired the Temple, received money for this purpose from "Manasseh and Ephraim, and all the remnant of Israel" (2 Chron. xxxiv. 9). This second passage strengthens the inference which we have drawn from the first, that there had been no wholesale deportation of the Ten Tribes.

This is now the generally accepted conclusion among Biblical scholars. It may be seen in such books as Israel in World History, by Dr. Blunt, Bishop of Bradford, or The Decline and Fall of the Hebrew Kingdoms in the Clarendon Bible.

In the New Testament it is assumed that the Twelve Tribes are still in existence and form one nation. St. Paul speaks of "our Twelve Tribes" (Acts xxvi. 7) as united in common worship. St. James addresses his letter to the Twelve Tribes of the Dispersion. Even if we give this address a figurative interpretation, it would have been singularly meaningless if Ten Tribes had been utterly lost.

Again in the Apocalypse the I44,000 are drawn from all the tribes of Israel. There is no consciousness of separation between Ten Elect Tribes and two others rejected by God, as British-Israel alleges. It may be noted that the same assumption underlies the Apocalyptic book called the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. Dr. Box shows that the division into two groups of ten tribes and two tribes respectively was of gradual growth, and that only in later Jewish traditions do we come to the conception of a distant land in which the Ten Tribes remain, awaiting the moment of return to the Holy Land (Box, Ezra Apocalypse, p. 300).

Did Hebrews Turn Into Scythians And Kimmerians?

But let us waive the objection, vital as it is, that the Ten Tribes were never lost, and proceed to examine the supposed proofs that these tribes are today represented by the British. The first step is to get them into Europe. This is effected with the aid of a passage in 2 Esdras xiii. 40, in which it is declared that the Ten Tribes had separated from the heathen of the land to which they were carried, and had passed into a land called Arzareth. Scholars point out that this name is evidently a representation of erets achareth, "another land," and a manifest reference to Deut. xxix. 24-28 (vide R.V. marg.). But British Israel Truth (p. 115) divides the word by taking Ar as one component, meaning "a city or hill," and finding in zareth a concealed reference to the river Sereth. This is a tributary of the Danube. Hence it is argued that the Ten Tribes crossed from Assyria to the Danube region, and the date of their migration is fixed at 650 B.C. No proof is given for this date, and it involves the assumption that the Ten Tribes managed this exploit within seventy years after the fall of Samaria, and while Assyria was still in the plenitude of its power.

But the reason for this arbitrary dating soon appears. It was in 650 that the Scythians are said by Herodotus to have appeared in the region of the Black Sea. British-Israel at once declares that this is the date when the Ten Tribes arrived in Europe, being in fact no other than the Scythians. For this identification there is not a shred of evidence. The Scythians were not Semites. Formerly it was suggested that they were of Mongolian origin. But the present trend of opinion is towards regarding them as Aryans.

According to Herodotus they were not a pleasant people. In war they were scalp-hunters. In religion they were polytheists, but used neither temple nor altar. When their king died they celebrated his funeral by killing fifty youths and fifty horses, and setting up their stuffed bodies round his tomb. Could there be a greater contrast than between such people and the Hebrews?

If British-Israel does not believe this, it may yet perhaps consider the absurdity of its own theory in the light of Bible texts. The opening prophecies of Jeremiah refer to what is undoubtedly a threatened invasion of the Scythians into the Palestinian lands. Are we to understand the prophet to mean that the Ten Tribes are about to issue from Assyria to destroy Judah? Again, in the New Testament we hear St. Paul reciting the list of all the separated elements which shall be brought into one in Christ, Greek and Jew, circumcision and uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, bondmen, freemen (Col. iii. 11). Who on reading this would ever suspect that the Apostle understood Scythians to be members of his own nation?

It is not surprising that Professor Tylor was moved to refer to this identification as "abject nonsense " (Chambs. Enc. art. Scythians). Nor is our surprise lessened when we note that it starts from a passage in 2 Esdras. The supporters of British-Israel are for the most part of Protestant leanings, and traditionally averse to allowing any credit at all to the books of the Apocrypha. But they do not on that account refuse here to pick a text out of one of the books of the Apocrypha, written eight hundred years after the fall of Samaria, mistranslate it, and make it the starting-point of an identification on which their whole case rests.

But we pass on to further identifications. When the Scythians arrived in what is now South Russia, they drove out another race called Kimmerians. British-Israel finds in these also some of the Lost Tribes, and proceeds to see in them the ancestors of the Welsh, Cymry. Welsh, it is alleged, is largely derived from Hebrew, and the Druids spoke Hebrew. This theory certainly presents us with a curious historical situation. Apparently one section of the Ten Tribes, the Kimmerians, had no sooner found a new home and settled down comfortably than they were thrust out by others of their brethren who followed them, and who for some strange reason preferred to be called Scythians. In its attempt to find a Hebrew origin for the Kimmerians British-Israel has contradicted the Bible. In the Old Testament the Kimmerians are referred to as Gotner. Now in I Chron. i. 24 Abraham and Israel are said to have been descendants of Shem. But in v. 5 of the same chapter Gomer is said to be descended from Japheth. Any attempt to make Kimmerians into Semites must ignore this passage.

Scythians Are Not Saxons, Nor Kimmerians Welsh

Those who are familiar with both Hebrew and Welsh assure us that the derivation of the second of these from the first is a vain imagination, and that there is no connection between the two languages. Equally unhappy is the suggestion that the name British is compounded of the Hebrew words berith and ish, meaning "man of the covenant." A glance at any philological dictionary will be enough to dispose of this absurdity. As regards the name Saxon we are given a choice in British-Israel manuals between finding the source of it either in Isaac, or in the Sacæ, an obscure race, who seem to have drifted about in Asia. It seems to be only necessary to find two words which have two letters alike to declare them to be cognate. Ordinary textbooks inform us that Saxon is derived from a word meaning a dagger.

It will be observed that in the present form of the British-Israel doctrine both Saxons and British are said to be descended from. the Ten Tribes. It might be supposed to be common knowledge that these two types do not belong to the same stock. But British-Israel is not dismayed by this difficulty, and boldly declares that the distinction between Celt and Teuton is altogether erroneous. What is quite certain is that neither Celt nor Teuton was a Semite. A little difficulty which attends British-Israel here is the kinship between the English and the German races. But as it would upset the whole case if Germans were admitted among the representatives of the tribes, it suffices to rake up a few hasty assertions made in the heat of wartime to the effect that there could be no kinship between England and Germany, and on the strength of these to exclude Germany from the blessings awaiting the descendants of Israel (B.I. Truth, p. 107).

In the light of modern knowledge it is evident that any attempt such as that of British-Israel to find all the ancestors of the British in one race is much too simple to be anywhere near the truth. The real state of the case is summed up by expert authority, thus: "As so many stocks have come into the country at various times, a general mingling of peoples must have taken place in this small island, which renders the task of disentangling them a peculiarly difficult one" (Haddon, The Races of Man, p. 77). But one thing can be affirmed with certainty. No men of Hebrew descent were to be found either among the Celts who came in successive waves of immigration in the last millennium B.C., or among the Nordic peoples who began to invade the land in the fifth century A.D.

Is Our Royal Family Descended From David?

Worked in with these fallacies about the nations is the collection of fables by which it is sought to prove that the present Royal Family of England is descended from King David. We begin with the prophecy of Jeremiah xxxiii. that David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel. Israel, says the handbook (p. 181), cannot mean Judah, because Jeremiah never uses the name so. A minute with a Concordance will show the futility of this allegation. Jeremiah ii., e.g., addresses a prophecy to Israel which is expressly applied to Jerusalem. But it appears that Jeremiah did not content himself with prophesying about this; he took steps to see that it should be fulfilled. The Bible tells us that he was carried down into Egypt after the murder of Gedaliah. That is all that Scripture has to say about the end of his life. But British-Israel knows more. Here it may be remarked that the Mediaeval Church, which is frequently charged with exaggerating the value of tradition as compared with Scripture, can be set down as a mere amateur in the light of the exploits of British-Israel in handling and garnishing traditions suitable for its use. There flourished then in Ireland about the year 580 B.C. a lawgiver with a prophetic reputation called Ollam Fola. Now Ollam, says B.I. Truth (p. 184), is clearly the Hebrew word for eternity. It is true that it has two "I's " where the Hebrew has one, but that is a small matter. The learned will note that Ollam's date is also that of Jeremiah, and as Ireland seems to retain reminiscences of Jeremiah (we are not favoured with any details about these), Ollam and Jeremiah must be the same. This is confirmed by the fact that Ollam lived at Tara, which is said to be a slightly altered form of the Hebrew word for the Law, Torah (p. 184). Jeremiah was not the first Israelite to arrive in Ireland. There was a settlement there some time earlier made by the Tuatha de Danann. Here is manifestly a trace of the tribe of Dan. The connection was not direct. It came through the Argive Danai, and some British-Israelites here introduce the story of the daughters of Danaus, so that profane, not to say pagan, history has its contribution to make to this narrative. In reality the name has nothing to do with either Dan or Danaus. It is derived iron. the name of the Irish goddess, Danu.

But to return to Jeremiah. The male issue of the royal line of Judah had failed with the death of the sons of Zedekiah. So Jeremiah set sail for Ireland with the daughter of Zedekiah. At any rate, the Irish tradition associated with Ollam a lady called Tephi, alleged to be of Eastern origin. Who else can this be but Zedekiah's daughter? The Irish legend says she had a tomb sixty feet long - which to any but a British-Israelite would suggest a descendant, not of David, but of Og the King of Bashan. Princess Tephi married an Irish prince whose descendants afterwards made their way to Scotland and so through James VI. and I. (was he not also known as "Solomon"?) became the ancestors of our Royal Family. Jeremiah carried with him the stone on which Jacob slept at Bethel, and this is now the stone in our Coronation chair. (Antiquaries who have not been enlightened by these revelations declare that this stone was quarried at Scone in Scotland.)

As if this collection of romances were not sufficiently ridiculous, a second line has been found to connect our King with David. The Tudor kings, it is alleged (B.I. Truth, p. 189), were descended through Welsh princes from Anna, cousin of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and daughter of Joseph of Arimathea. The present King is assured by the purveyors of this rubbish that he is in the hundredth generation from King David. It should be noted that in these fantastic genealogies the Ten Tribes have been entirely forgotten, as it is the royal house of Judah which is in question.

To bring out the full value of these methods let us apply them locally and suggest to British-Israelites that Salisbury is so named as being the burial place of King Saul, who no doubt brought David with him when he came here, and that Harnham must be a shortened form of Har-Nahum, the Hill of Nahum: for that Nahum knew Salisbury is highly probable from his reference to a "City among the rivers," seeing that no other city so nearly answers this description, and it is further noteworthy that the R.V. margin here reads "canals," a manifest allusion to one of our chief streets called "The Canal." Hence we may conclude that at least one of the names of the local rivers is Hebrew - the Nadder, derived from Nadar, a vow, as it is well known that rivers were often invoked in ancient oaths. And what can Nunton be but the British residence of the family of Joshua, son of Nun? We can at least claim that these derivations are no more absurd than most of those invented by British-Israel.

It may be asked whether the tribe of Judah is to partake in the blessings promised to Israel. British-Israelites reply with an emphatic negative. The Jews are all under a curse (B.I. Truth, p. 150). That is to say, that portion of Israel which preserved the worship of God, kept alive the hope of Israel, and has bequeathed to us many of the most beautiful utterances in the Psalms, is to lie under a curse, while Northern Israel, which, according to the testimony of its own prophets, declined into a state hardly distinguishable from degraded paganism, is to inherit all the promises set forth in the Old Covenant. This is flatly contrary to Scripture. For St. Paul (Rom. ix.) refers to Israelites, "Whose are the promises," and immediately adds, "of whom is Christ as concerning the flesh." Even British-Israel will scarcely have the hardihood to deny that the reference here is to Judah. This attitude towards Judah has led some British-Israelites to express satisfaction at the persecution which has befallen the Jews, a piece of fanaticism which is justly denounced in the Jewish Encyclopædia (art. Anglo-Israel).

The tribe of Benjamin occasions some difficulty to British-Israel, being by rights one of the Ten Tribes, and at the same time connected with Jerusalem. However, on the strength of a gross perversion of I Kings xi. 36, which refers to Judah, not to Benjamin, the latter tribe is said to have been lent (by whom is not stated) to Judah for 800 years. It then cast off this undesirable connection and has since turned up as the Normans, thus assisting to form the British nation. Any old family claiming Norman descent may be expected to ravin as a wolf (Gen. xlix. 27). Manasseh, we learn, is the ancestor of the Americans. The eagle of the U.S.A. flag has arrows in its left claw, and the tribe of Manasseh was known as the bowmen of Israel (Steele, Bible Basis of British Israel Truth, p. 28). Certainly no one will deny the skill of the Yankee in using the long bow.

The Pyramid Superstition

The promises recorded in the Old Testament are then to be fulfilled in Britain. But when? In order to answer this question British-Israel turns not only to Scripture, but also to another authority, the Great Pyramid. In the National Message, the magazine of this movement, a series of articles appeared on this subject in 1932, and it is idle for British-Israelites to deny that it is part of their doctrine. God's plan, we read (National Message, June, 1932), is "clearly outlined in the prophetic Scriptures and the Great Pyramid," the two being apparently of equal authority. But even this profanity is outdone by the assertion of another writer (Mr. Morton Edgar) that "the real Architect" (of the Pyramid) "was God Himself." The erection of this was, according to Mr. Hew Colquhoun (Our Descent from Israel Proved, p. 59), a fulfilment of the prophecy that there shall be a pillar in the border of Egypt (Isa. xix. 19), although every student knows that the word there used, massebah, means a single stone pillar, and has nothing at all to do with pyramids. The Pyramid was built by Egyptians skilled in mathematical measurements, and was intended, according to Professor Breasted, to be not only a tomb but also the symbol of the Sun God. But British-Israel takes the number of inches in this and that part of the Pyramid to be mystical prophecies of the dates of events in the history of the British Empire, and finally of the Millennium. Whole books are filled with wild calculations on this basis, and we are asked to believe that the will of the All Holy God is revealed to us in the dimensions of a structure erected by pagan builders to honour the Sun God. Such a combination of the more outlandish forms of Apocalypse with the astrology of the Dark Ages must be unique. Well might our Reformers deliver themselves of the opinion that "they that go about to renew the fable of hereticks called Millenarii, be repugnant to Holy Scripture, and cast themselves headlong into a Jewish dotage" (Art. xli. of 1553). The wildest speculations of the Anabaptists cannot have surpassed these attempts to arrive at a revelation from God by stretching a measuring tape along the corridors of a pyramid. To seek it there is as profane as it would be to search for it in the number of square feet in the roof of the Crystal Palace.

Professor Flinders Petrie, the eminent Egyptologist, has shown that the methods used by British-Israelites in measuring the Pyramid are entirely erroneous. He adds that "it is useless to state the real truth of the matter, as it has no effect on those who are subject to this type of hallucination. They can but be left with the flat earth believers and other such people to whom a theory is dearer than a fact." He describes the amusement caused to himself and other experts by the sight of one of these theorists trying to file down a granite boss in the antechamber of the Pyramid to the size required for the theory (Seventy Years in Archaeology, pp. 26 and 35).

A detailed examination of the absurdities of these Pyramid doctrines, and an exposure of the extent to which those who proclaim them contradict one another, may be seen in the booklet published by S.P.C.K. called The Secret of the Great Pyramid, by M. D. R. Willink.

The Perversion Of Prophecy

We need not follow further the exposition of British-Israel doctrine. The specimens already given are typical of the whole. But let us conclude by pointing out in summary the evils which spring from it. It rests upon a method of interpreting prophecy which reduces the Scripture to the level of a cross-word puzzle. Texts are torn from their context, and misapplied without the slightest regard to their original meaning. British-Israel constantly boasts itself that it sticks to the plaid literal meaning of Scripture. But this is the one thing which it does not do. For example, the beautiful passage in Isa. xlix. is a message of comfort to the people returning from exile. The Lord has redeemed His people, and soon the wanderers will be together again in Zion. It is a word of immediate encouragement to strengthen them in the task of rebuilding Zion. But in the hands of British-Israel (B.I. Truth, pp. 91 ff.) it becomes nothing but a forecast of the glories of England, and a prediction that the British flag will fly in every port of the world. Thus God is made to mock His afflicted people by telling them that their only comfort is to know that in 2,000 years vast prosperity will be granted to the inhabitants of a land 2,000 miles away. It is as though some modern prophet were to seek to lighten our present economic depression by assuring us that in A.D. 3900 Hongkong will be the most prosperous city in the world. Such interpretations make the Word of God of none effect.

The Covenant And The Kingdom

Great play is made by British-Israelites with the word Covenant. They assert that the covenant which God made with Abraham was to be fulfilled in Israel, which on their view means the Ten Tribes. Since that fulfilment did not come owing to the disobedience of Israel to God's law, it is still to be expected, and will be granted to the British as representatives of the Ten Tribes. British-Israel stakes the whole truth of religion on this argument, alleging that if it is an error we cannot trust God to keep any of His promises. But what was the promise made to Abraham? It was simply that he should be the father of a multitude of nations, and that in his seed all the families of the earth should be blessed. The multitude of nations included others besides Israel - for example, Midian - who were also descended from Abraham. In Gen. xv. 18 the promise is given in detail that Abraham's seed should inherit the land between the river of Egypt and the Euphrates. This was fulfilled in the reign of Solomon. The further promise that all nations should be blessed in Abraham (Gen. xxii. 18) has been fulfilled in Christ (St. John viii. 56). This is the plain teaching of the Bible (Acts iii. 25). St. Paul says expressly that the promise is accomplished in the preaching of the Gospel to the Gentiles (Gal. iii. 8). The statement that the carrying out of the promise depends upon the continued existence somewhere of the Ten Tribes of Northern Israel is a fiction repugnant to Scripture and dangerous to faith. The British-Israel treatment of the New Testament conception of the Kingdom is equally erroneous.

A distinction is drawn between the Gospel of the Kingdom and the Gospel of Salvation. It is argued that while salvation is offered to all nations the Kingdom is not, but is confined to Israel-that is, the British (Waddington, Israel and Orthodoxy, chap. xiii.). Such a view empties the Gospel teaching about the Kingdom of all meaning. The Gospel begins with the declaration that the Kingdom of God is at hand. It promises entrance into it to all those who will become as little children. The "little flock" who were assured that it was the Father's good pleasure to give them the Kingdom (Luke xii. 42) were Jews, and the forerunners of all those from every nation who should believe in Jesus.

What Does The New Testament Mean By Israel?

According to British-Israel the name still refers to the Ten Tribes and excludes Judah. A phrase repeatedly cited in this sense is "the lost sheep of the house of Israel." This text, it is asserted, refers in Matt. x. 6 and xv. 24 neither to Jews nor Gentiles, but only to members of the Ten Tribes (B.I. Truth, p. 70). On this interpretation our Lord commissioned His Apostles in Matt. x. 6 to go to Scythia, or to whatever remote spot the Ten Tribes are supposed by British-Israel to have then reached, and to preach there. The present writer has heard this explanation actually given at a meeting of British-Israelites. The same idea is read into Matt. xv. 24, where the Lord said that He was not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Were not such suggestions in print before us it would be difficult to believe that anyone could ever have made them. The correct meaning of "lost sheep" may be found in Matt. ix. 36, where the words refer to the Jewish multitude there described as moving the Lord to pity, because they were as sheep having no shepherd.

St. Paul, it is alleged by British-Israel, also means the Ten Tribes, and nothing else, when he speaks of Israel. This assertion is supported by such wild conjectures as that the Galatians were but disguised members of the Ten Tribes (B.I. Truth, p. 67). The failure of Bishop Lightfoot and other learned men to discover this remarkable fact has no weight with British-Israel, to whom here, as often, experts who differ from them are merely "deluded," or "careless," or "blind." But here British-Israel flatly contradicts St. Paul in some of the very essentials of his teaching. When St. Paul says Israel he means the whole nation, including Jews (Rom. ix. 4, 5). When he speaks of the Israel of God (Gal. vi. 16) he means all, whether Jews or Gentiles, who believe in God through Christ (cp. Rom. iv. I6). The doctrine of British-Israel that the enjoyment of God's promises is connected with physical descent from Abraham is precisely that which St. Paul most strenuously resisted, and for the denial of which he suffered bitter persecution.

A Narrow Nationalism

It must be said quite clearly that British-Israel turns the Bible into a handbook of national megalomania, and that it is a determined foe to the League of Nations and all efforts for world peace. The two great perils to the world today are Nationalism and Bolshevism. To the first of these British-Israel is a servant. This statement can be abundantly justified by quotations from recent literature of the movement. In B.I. Truth (p. 94) we are told that England is the Lord's battleaxe and weapons of war, as prophesied in Jer. li. 20, a statement repeated in a pamphlet called Disarmament, a Divine Condemnation. The blessings foretold by the prophets are "exclusive" to the British (B.I. Truth, p. 5). Consequently there must be no acceptance of any peace which will interfere with the aggrandisement of Britain. During the summer of 1932 the following assertions appeared in the National Message, the magazine of British-Israel: "The madness of supposing that the welter of races in India can carry on and administer for all India the balanced system of the Common Law is of a piece with those who set up the League of Nations." Ezekiel xxxiii. 3 is expounded thus: "No sick sentimentality here. No gushing assurance that war between Christian nations was unthinkable: that we were too civilised to fight." The British are to overrun the world, and if they accept the challenge of the Gospel of the Kingdom, another writer tells us," all the material things after which the Gentile nations so feverishly seek would be automatically added to us as a Race and People." One British-Israelite has the hardihood to distort some words of an eminent supporter of the League of Nations, Sir Oliver Lodge, into an advocacy of these claims (vide Our Descent from Israel Proved, p. 63). I have the authority of Sir Oliver himself for saying that the passage quoted contains no such meaning.

Thus from unscriptural theology we pass to unchristian politics, and find ourselves confronted by the spirit, not of the true prophet, but rather of Zedekiah the son of Chenaanah, whose notion of revealing God's will was to fashion horns of iron, and proclaim that with them the enemy should be pushed until he was consumed. It is not surprising that militarists have been quick to see the opportunity offered them by British-Israel. But patriotism and nationalism are not the same things, nor is one compatible with the other. We believe wholeheartedly that God has commissioned the British race to per form certain definite tasks. But our belief in this does not depend upon fantastic myths providing us with Hebrew ancestors, nor does it imply that other nations are excluded from sharing with us the promises of God.

We are aware that many truly pious people have been persuaded to accept British-Israel doctrine. If they are impressed by its apparent learning we would ask them to consider the fact that its claims are entirely rejected by teachers of theology and ethnology in our Universities. It is one of those great delusions which appear from time to time and claim as their victims those who have a zeal which is not according to knowledge. It cannot stand against a careful study of the Bible and of history.

This document is Public Domain.

Verset clé

« L'Éternel prononça ces paroles à toute votre assemblée, sur la montagne, du milieu du feu, de la nuée et de l'obscurité, d'une voix forte, et il n’y ajouta rien; puis il les écrivit sur deux tables de pierre, qu'il me donna » (Deutéronome 5:22).    

Introduction

Un certain nombre d’étudiants de la Bible bien intentionné se sente jugé lorsqu’on leur apprend que, contrairement à ce que veut leur tradition religieuse, les Dix Commandements et donc le Sabbat sont toujours d’actualité pour les disciples de Christ aujourd’hui. Cette réaction malheureuse n’est en rien surprenante pour disciple de Christ. Elle traduit seulement l’intérêt que suscite sa démarche à vouloir suivre les commandements de Dieu. En effet, c’est un plaisir de voir qu’une prise de position forte en temps que disciples de Christ en interpelle et en fait réfléchir certains sur la validité des Dix Commandements et donc du sabbat du septième jour. Un disciple (du latin discipulus, c’est-à-dire élève) désigne celui qui suit l’enseignement d’un maître. Il suit à la fois les enseignements donnés de manière orale, mais aussi ceux émanant des faits et des gestes du maître. « Et Jésus vint à Nazareth, où il avait été élevé, et il entra, selon sa coutume, le jour du sabbat, dans la synagogue, et il se leva pour lire » (Luc 4:16). En suivant l’exemple de Jésus, nous obéissons aux commandements de Dieu. Jésus l’affirme : « j'ai gardé les commandements de mon Père, et je demeure en son amour » (Jean 15:10).

Ce qui s’oppose aux Dix Commandements utilise un certain nombre de passages bibliques pour tenter de justifier leur position. Nous ne pouvons que nous réjouir, lorsqu’interpellés sur la question des Dix Commandements, ils se sentent poussés à faire des recherches bibliques. Il est cependant dommage, que dans leur précipitation en recherche de réponse, ils adoptent un point de vue contemporain qui se développa tardivement dans les milieux évangéliques et protestants et qui gagna en popularité il y a de cela environ une centaine d’années. En effet, depuis les débuts de l’histoire du christianisme, les Dix Commandements ne furent jamais remis en question. Ce qui fut plutôt débattu, ce fut de savoir si le sabbat était le samedi ou le dimanche. Souvent, et c’est un point encourageant, ces individus reconnaissent une certaine autorité morale au Dix Commandements. Au fond, ils accepteraient volontiers les Dix Commandements, hormis le sabbat, qui est finalement le seul commandement de Dieu qui les dérange.

Puisque ils cherchent malgré tout à comprendre la volonté de Dieu et désirent comprendre ce qu’elle est pour leur vie, il est important de corriger certains avis préconçus et certaines incompréhensions que ils peuvent avoir d’un peu nombre de passages bibliques. En tant que disciples de Christ, il est important que nous saisissions donc l’opportunité qui nous est donnée en amorçant un dialogue nécessaire sur cette question importante. Dans les lignes qui suivent, nous aborderons ces quelques passages souvent incompris et utilisés pour justifier la non-obéissance aux Dix Commandements et au sabbat du septième jour.

Les Dix Commandements et la Livre de la Loi de Moïse

Il existe une erreur tragique qui consiste à confondre les Dix Commandements avec le Livre de la Loi de Moïse. En Exode 20:1-20, Dieu écrivit de Son propre doigt dans la pierre les Dix Commandements. Moïse déclare au verset 20 de ce même chapitre, « Ne craignez point, car Dieu est venu pour vous éprouver, et afin que sa crainte soit devant vous, en sorte que vous ne péchiez point ». Il s’agit en cet instant d’un moment crucial, puisque l'intention de Dieu était de donner les Dix Commandements et rien d’autre. C’est ce que nous confirme Deutéronome 5:22, « L'Éternel prononça ces paroles [versets 6 à 21] à toute votre assemblée, sur la montagne, du milieu du feu, de la nuée et de l'obscurité, d'une voix forte, ET IL N’Y AJOUTA RIEN; puis il les écrivit sur deux tables de pierre, qu'il me donna ». Comme vous le voyez, Dieu ne donna alors seulement que les Dix Commandements à Moïse. Mais qu'arriva-t-il donc ?  Pendant que Moïse recevait de Dieu les tables de pierre, les Israélites se plaignaient auprès d’Aaron, s’inquiétant de ce qu’il était advenu de Moïse. Ils demandèrent à Aaron : « Viens, fais-nous des dieux qui marchent devant nous » (Exode 32:1). En Exode 20:19-20, ils déclarèrent à Moïse qu'ils écouteraient : « Et ils dirent à Moïse: Parle-nous toi-même, et nous écouterons; mais que Dieu ne parle point avec nous, de peur que nous ne mourions. Et Moïse dit au peuple: Ne craignez point, car Dieu est venu pour vous éprouver, et afin que sa crainte soit devant vous, en sorte que vous ne péchiez point ». Avant même que Moïse ne soit revenu de sa rencontre avec Dieu, les Israélites réclamaient « des dieux qui marchent devant nous » en violation directe avec le premier commandement qu’ils avaient acceptés d’ « écouter ». Nous lisons en Exode 32:7-10 que Dieu s’est adressé à Moïse exprimant Sa volonté de détruire Israël. « Alors l'Éternel dit à Moïse: Va, descends, car ton peuple, que tu as fait monter du pays d'Égypte, s'est corrompu; Ils se sont bientôt détournés de la voie que JE LEUR AVAIS PRESCRITE; ils se sont fait un veau de fonte, se sont prosternés devant lui, lui ont sacrifié, et ont dit: Voici tes dieux, ô Israël, qui t'ont fait monter du pays d'Égypte ». Nous savons que Moïse est intervenu auprès de Dieu pour le peuple, et Dieu changea d’avis (Exode 32:14).  Suite à ces transgressions, Dieu commanda à Moïse d’écrire un certain nombre de directives de nature cérémonielle et législative qui furent écrites de la main de Moïse. « Et il arriva que quand Moïse eut achevé d'écrire les paroles de cette Loi dans un livre, sans qu'il en manquât rien; Il commanda aux Lévites qui portaient l'Arche de l'alliance de l'Eternel, en disant: Prenez ce livre de la Loi, et mettez-le à côté de l'Arche de l'alliance de l'Eternel votre Dieu, et il sera là pour témoin contre toi » (Deutéronome 31:24-26). Le Livre de la Loi de Moïse fut ajoutée « à cause des transgressions » et « par l’entremise d'un médiateur » (Moïse, qui de sa propre main a écrit ce livre) (Galates 3:19). Le caractère secondaire du Livre de la Loi de Moïse est mis en évidence par le fait que ce livre fut mis sur le côté de l’Arche de l’Alliance, alors que les tables de la Loi contenant les Dix Commandements écrits du doigt  de Dieu furent mis dans l’Arche de l’Alliance (lire Exode 40:20 et Hébreux 9:4). C’est une erreur tragique de confondre les Dix Commandements et le Livre de la Loi de Moïse, parce que cela rend incompréhensible un grand nombre de vérités bibliques.

Concernant les Dix Commandements, Jacques l’affirme lui-même : « Car, quiconque aura observé toute la loi, s'il vient à pécher dans un seul point, devient coupable de tous. En effet, celui qui a dit: Tu ne commettras point d'adultère, a dit aussi: Tu ne tueras point. Or, si tu ne commets point d'adultère, mais que tu tues, tu es transgresseur de la loi » (Jacques 2:10-11). Jacques nous encourage donc a obéir aux Dix Commandements, affirmant que briser ne serait-ce qu’un seul de ses Dix Commandements (par exemple, « tu ne commettras point d’adultère ») reviens à être coupable d’avoir désobéi à l’ensemble de cette Loi écrite de la main de Dieu.

Les Dix Commandements sont donc toujours valides. Lorsque Paul écrit le lettre aux Galates, il s’inquiète de la volonté de certains d’imposer aux Gentils la conversion rituelle au judaïsme telle qu’elle est définie dans la Livre de la Loi de Moïse. Le Gentil qui voudrait se faire circoncire se soumettrait alors au Livre de la Loi de Moïse et devrait obéir aux préceptes contenus dans ce Livre. La circoncision est toujours la manière dont l’on se convertit au judaïsme aujourd’hui. Pourtant, pour être disciples de Christ, les Gentils n’ont nul besoin de devenir Juifs. C’est ce qu’affirme Paul dans sa lettre aux Romains. « Ce bonheur donc, n'est-il que pour les circoncis? Ou est-il aussi pour les incirconcis? car nous disons que la foi d'Abraham lui fut imputée à justice. Mais quand lui a-t-elle été imputée? Est-ce lorsqu'il a été circoncis, ou lorsqu'il ne l'était pas? Ce n'a point été après la circoncision, mais avant.  Et il reçut le signe de la circoncision, comme un sceau de la justice de la foi qu'il avait eue, étant incirconcis; afin d'être le père de tous ceux qui croient quoique incirconcis; et que la justice leur fût aussi imputée; Et afin d'être aussi le père des circoncis, savoir, de ceux qui ne sont point seulement circoncis, mais encore qui suivent les traces de la foi, que notre père Abraham a eue avant d'être circoncis » (Romains 4:9-12). Ainsi, les enfants d’Abraham par la chair, les Juifs, et les enfants d’Abraham par la foi, les Gentils, ont tout autant droit au salut les uns que les autres. La conversion au judaïsme par la circoncision et l’obéissance au Livre de la Loi de Moïse ne sont pas nécessaires. Quant à eux, les Dix Commandements le sont toujours comme nous l’apprend Jacques 2:10-11.

Matthieu 5:17, la Loi fut-elle abolie ?

En Matthieu 5:17, le Messie a en effet bien dit : « Ne pensez pas que je sois venu abolir la loi ou les prophètes; je ne suis pas venu abolir, mais accomplir. » Toute incompréhension de ce passage découle tout d’abord d’une incompréhension malheureusement fréquente de l’expression « la loi et les prophètes ». Du temps de Jésus, la Loi et les Prophètes désignait pour les Juifs l’ensemble des Écritures hébraïques comprenant la Loi (ou Torah) et les Prophètes (ou Nevi'im). Ainsi, la Torah (ou Loi) désigne les cinq premiers livres de la Bible : la Genèse (Berēshīṯ: Commencement), l'Exode (Shemōṯ: Noms), le Lévitique (Wayyiqrā': Et il appela), les Nombres (Bamiḏbar: Dans le désert), le Deutéronome (Deḇārīm': Choses). En conséquence, lorsque Jésus utilise le terme de Loi dans ce contexte, il ne parle pas des commandements qui furent données à Sinaï, mais de l’ensemble de ce qui est contenu dans les cinq premiers livres ou Torah. Il est important de comprendre cela, puisque Jésus affirme tout simplement qu’il est venu accomplir les promesses messianiques contenus dans la Torah et les Prophètes, et rien de plus.

Colossiens 2, commandements de Dieu et traditions humaines.

Qu’en est-il de Colossiens 2:16-17, ce passage qui provoque bien plus de controverses et d'incompréhension qu'il ne le devrait ? Voici ce qui y affirme Paul au verset 16 : « Que personne donc ne vous condamne au sujet du manger ou du boire, ou au sujet d'un jour de fête, ou de nouvelle lune, ou de sabbats ». Le verbe « condamner » est traduit du verbe grec krino, qui signifie décréter, juger, régenter, gouverner ou prononcer un jugement. La version Darby offre la traduction suivante: « Que personne donc ne vous juge ». Le verset 18 commence ainsi: « Que personne ne vous ravisse le prix ». Avant que nous n’identifiions la question et le problème que l'on retrouve aux versets 16 et 17, prenez d'abord note des versets 20 et 21. Ces deux derniers nous aiderons en effet à clarifier les versets qui nous concernent. Aux versets 20 et 21, les Colossiens sont mis en garde contre des réglementations leur imposant de ne pas manger, de ne pas goûter et ne pas toucher. Ces réglementations sont en effet des préceptes humains ayant une « apparence de sagesse » en termes de pratiques ascétiques (« humilité » et « austérité du corps »), mais qui en réalité « n'ont aucune valeur pour l'insolence de la chair » (verset 23, Bible de Jérusalem). Ces réglementations, par lesquels Paul recommande les Colossiens de laisser nul ne les juger, ne trouvent pas leur origine dans les commandements de Dieu tels qu'ils sont énoncés dans les Écritures. En effet, il n’est nulle part commandé que nous ne pratiquions le « culte des anges » (verset 18) dans les Écritures. Ces réglementations représentent plutôt une distorsion humaine des commandements divins, certainement le résultat d'un mélange de judaïsme et d’éléments propre aux développements gnostiques du premier siècle. Ainsi donc, au verset 16, Paul s’intéresse aux pratiques ascétiques d'inspiration gnostique. En effet, les fidèles en Christ ne devraient pas permettre qu’on leur dicte des règles mesquines non bibliques concernant leur façon de s'alimenter et d'adorer Dieu. Les pratiques ascétiques, telles qu'elles étaient pratiquées par les Esséniens (un mouvement à l’intérieur du judaïsme qui existait du temps des apôtres), sont celles auxquelles s’intéresse Paul. Il s’agissait de pratiques de renoncement à soi, comme l'abstinence d'aliments et de boissons en certains jours, lors de jours de fête du calendrier hébreux, lors de nouvelles lunes, ou encore lors de sabbats hebdomadaires. Sur la base de la plénitude du Christ ayant effacé l'acte rapportant les péchés des croyants (« cédule de notre dette », verset 14. Bible de Jérusalem), Paul affirme que les croyants en Christ ne devraient pas se soumettre aux condamnations de ceux voulant les obliger à des pratiques ascétiques concernant le manger ou le boire, ou de rites inventés en lien avec l'observance rituel de fêtes, de nouvelles lunes ou de sabbats hebdomadaires. Paul ne dénonce pas la pratique des fêtes, des nouvelles lunes ou des sabbats hebdomadaires dans ce passage. Ce n’est pas son propos. Ce qu’il dénonce, c’est la manière dont certains cherchent à imposer que ces jours soient observés.

Qu'en est-il maintenant du verset 17? Ne s'agit-il pas d'une affirmation invalidant la pratique de tous ces jours quel qu’ils soient, puisqu'il est écrit qu’ils étaient « l'ombre des choses qui devaient venir » ?  Il s'agit d'une bonne remarque. Nous devons en effet comprendre de quoi parle le verset 17. « L’ombre des choses qui devaient venir » est en contraste absolu avec le « corps » ou « réalité » qui se trouve en Christ. Le mot grec traduit ici par « ombre » est skia, qui est l'opposé de « corps » (soma en grec). L'ombre désigne une « silhouette sombre, plus ou moins déformée, que projette sur une surface un corps qui intercepte la lumière » (Larousse).  Les pratiques ascétiques de renoncement à soi que certains tentaient d'imposer aux Colossiens afin d’être justifié aux yeux de Dieu, ne pouvaient se comparer à la réalité se trouvant en Christ. Ces pratiques ne pouvaient être au mieux qu'une ombre ou qu’une silhouette de la réalité de la vie en Christ. En conséquence, la PRATIQUE superstitieuse de ces règlementations (renoncement à soi, etc.) ne pouvait pas rapprocher les Colossiens de Dieu. Paul affirme que ces pratiques ne sont d'aucune valeur pour ce qui est du salut ou du mérite. La réalité est que le salut s'obtient au travers du Christ; l'observance de rites humains quelconques ne peut donc nous rapprocher davantage de Dieu. Le sens de ces jours ne se révèle que par la reconnaissance du Christ comme seule voie d'accès à une vie juste. Paul critique toutes pratiques pour lesquels les œuvres seraient une manière d'être justifié. La justification s’obtient seulement par la foi en Christ. Il s’agit de l'un des grands principes de l'Évangile.

Comment cette interprétation de Colossiens 2:16-17 affecte-t-elle notre pratique du sabbat aujourd'hui? Lorsque nous comprenons que Paul adresse le problème de perversions gnostiques de l'Evangile en lien avec des jours réservés au « culte des anges » (verset 18), nous constatons que la question de savoir si les chrétiens devraient ou non garder le sabbat n'est même pas discuté dans ce passage. Le problème n'est pas de savoir si ces jours devraient ou non être observés, mais plutôt la façon et la raison pour lesquels ses jours étaient observés. La validité de l'observance du sabbat se décide à partir d'autres textes. Colossiens 2:16 n'est pas en lui-même un facteur déterminant. La condamnation par Paul d'opinions hérétiques concernant le sabbat, n'est pas une condamnation en soit de l’observance du sabbat, pas plus que la condamnation d'opinions hérétiques concernant le manger et le boire ne condamne tous les aliments, toutes les boissons ou ne condamne la pratique du jeûne en général. C'est seulement lorsque l'observance du sabbat est lié à des règlementations humaines en termes d'ascétisme, de culte des anges, de justification par les œuvres, ou de distorsion du judaïsme qu'elle devient inacceptable.

Colossiens 2:13-14, qu’accrocha Christ à la croix ?

Concernant, Colossiens 2:13-14, de quoi Paul parle-t-il ? « Et lorsque vous étiez morts dans vos offenses, et dans le prépuce de votre chair, il vous a vivifiés ensemble avec lui, vous ayant gratuitement pardonné toutes vos offenses. En ayant effacé l'obligation [qui était] contre nous, laquelle consistait en des ordonnances, et nous était contraire, et laquelle il a entièrement abolie, l'ayant attachée à la croix » (version Martin 1744). Ce qui fut attaché à la croix, ce ne sont pas les commandements de Dieu en tant que telle. Ce qui fut attaché à la croix, ce fut la punition ou condamnation de mort associée à la désobéissance aux commandements de Dieu. Le verset 13 l’affirme clairement « vous étiez morts dans vos offenses. » Jésus, par son sacrifice rédempteur, n’a pas aboli la Loi, mais il a effacé la pénalité de mort associé à la désobéissance aux commandements de Dieu. C’est exactement ce qu’affirme Paul en Galates 4:4-5. Ce texte n’affirme en rien l’abolition de certains commandements de Dieu. Il affirme plutôt que nous avons été racheté de la condamnation associée à la désobéissance, c’est-à-dire associé au péché.

Romains 7:6-7, sauvés au travers de Jésus Christ

L’usage de Romains 7:6-7 pour affirmer que les Dix Commandements furent abolis avec les lois sacrificielles associés au Livre de la Loi Moïse est lui aussi problématique. Ce passage doit être compris dans le contexte intégral du livre aux Romains. Que nous dit Paul dans ce passage ? « Mais maintenant, nous avons été dégagés de la loi, étant morts à cette loi sous laquelle nous étions retenus, de sorte que nous servons dans un esprit nouveau, et non selon la lettre qui a vieilli. Que dirons-nous donc ? La loi est-elle péché ? Loin de là ! Mais je n'ai connu le péché que par la loi. Car je n'aurais pas connu la convoitise, si la loi n'eût dit : Tu ne convoiteras point » (Romains 7:6-7, version Martin 1744). C’est de la condamnation de mort associé à la désobéissance à cette loi dont nous avons été dégagé. Tant que les Juifs ont essayé de garder la loi selon la chair (verset 5) en essayant de se justifier par leurs œuvres, ils ont échoué. Obéir aux Dix Commandements en tant que tel, ce n’est pas cela qui sauve. Ce qui sauve, c’est de reconnaître notre caractère de pécheurs et la nécessité du sacrifice de Christ pour notre salut. « Mais Dieu fait éclater son amour envers nous, en ce que, lorsque nous étions encore des pécheurs, Christ est mort pour nous. Étant donc maintenant justifiés par son sang, à plus forte raison serons-nous sauvés par lui de la colère de Dieu. Car si, lorsque nous étions ennemis, nous avons été réconciliés avec Dieu par la mort de son Fils; à plus forte raison, étant déjà réconciliés, serons-nous sauvés par sa vie? 11 Non seulement cela; mais nous nous glorifions même en Dieu, par notre Seigneur Jésus-Christ, par lequel nous avons maintenant obtenu la réconciliation » (Romains 5:8-11). Ainsi, les Dix Commandements nous permettent de connaître le péché (Romains 7:7), mais ne nous sauve pas du péché. Seul Jésus Christ peut nous sauver. Cela nous autorise-t-il à rejeter et à désobéir aux Dix Commandements ? Bien sûr que non ! Paul l’affirme clairement lorsqu’il écrit : « Que dirons-nous donc? Demeurerons-nous dans le péché, afin que la grâce abonde? Nullement! Nous qui sommes morts au péché, comment vivrions-nous encore en lui? » Le fait que nous soyons sauvé par Jésus Christ et que celui-ci nous délivre de la condamnation à mort associé à la désobéissance et au péché ne nous autorise pas à désobéir aux Dix Commandements. Au contraire, cela devrait nous encourager à les garder avec un cœur renouvelé puisque « Ainsi la loi [Dix Commandements] est sainte, et le commandement est saint, juste et bon » (Romains 7:12).

Romains 14:5, le jour du sabbat est le septième jour

Enfin, et pour finir, Romains 14:5 est lui aussi trop souvent utilisé hors contexte pour tenter d’affirmer que tous les jours se valent en ce qui concerne le sabbat du septième jour. Aux versets 1 à 4, Paul aborde la question du végétarisme, ensuite nous lisons  « Celui-ci estime un jour supérieur à un autre; celui-là estime tous les jours égaux; que chacun soit pleinement persuadé en son esprit. Celui qui observe les jours, les observe, à cause du Seigneur; et de même celui qui ne les observe pas, ne les observe pas, à cause du Seigneur; celui qui mange de tout, mange, à cause du Seigneur, car il rend grâces à Dieu; et celui qui ne mange pas de tout, ne mange pas à cause du Seigneur, et il en rend aussi grâces à Dieu » (Romains 14:5). Paul ne parle pas ici de l’abolition de certains commandements de Dieu, mais parle ici de pratiques et d’enseignements humains. En effet, Dieu nous demande-t-il de pratiquer le végétarisme ? Bien sûr que non. Ce sont des hommes qui imposent cette restriction alimentaire, et non pas Dieu. Ces mêmes être humains ont des enseignements singuliers concernant certains jours particuliers. Cela n’a rien à voir avec les commandements de Dieu et donc rien à voir avec le sabbat. Paul conseille à l’Église de ne pas porter de jugement de valeurs les uns sur les autres sur des aspects qui sont sujet à débat, mais plutôt d’accepter les nouveaux convertis « faibles dans la foi » (Romains 14:1). Ainsi, il est possible que certains Gentils nouvellement convertis aient préféré être végétariens plutôt que de manger des viandes qui auraient pu avoir été sacrifiés à des idoles (lire 1 Corinthiens 8). En effet, la majorité des viandes vendues chez les Gentils avaient été préalablement offertes aux idoles dans les temples païens. Le même genre de principe s’applique aux jours mentionnés en Romains 14:5-6. Du temps de Paul, certains Juifs pratiquaient des jours de jeûnes rituels. « Le pharisien se tenant debout, priait ainsi en lui-même: O Dieu, je te rends grâces de ce que je ne suis pas comme le reste des hommes, qui sont ravisseurs, injustes, adultères, ni aussi comme ce péager; Je jeûne deux fois la semaine, je donne la dîme de tout ce que je possède » (Luc 18:11-12). Lire également Zacharie 7:4-7. Ce genre de jeûnes est une tradition humaine et non pas un commandement de Dieu. Certains auraient ainsi voulu imposer ces traditions aux autres disciples de Christ, qu’ils soient ou non nouvellement convertis. Cela était cause de division dans l’Église et n’a comme vous le voyez rien à voir avec le sabbat. « Et Dieu eut achevé au septième jour son œuvre qu'il avait faite; et il se reposa au septième jour de toute son œuvre qu'il avait faite. Et Dieu bénit le septième jour, et le sanctifia, parce qu'en ce jour-là il se reposa de toute son œuvre, pour l'accomplissement de laquelle Dieu avait créé » (Genèse 2:2-3). Le sabbat du septième jour n’est pas un jour comme n’importe quel autre. Il fut sanctifié à la Création par Dieu, bien avant que notre Père céleste n’ait même gravé les Dix Commandements de son doigt dans la pierre, et bien avant que Moïse n’ait écrit le Livre de la Loi. Nul jour ne fut sanctifié de cette manière par Dieu, et nul jour ne peut donc lui être équivalent.

Conclusion

La question des Dix Commandements est un point de doctrine extrêmement important. En effet, les saints sont « ceux qui gardent les commandements de Dieu, et la foi de Jésus » (Apocalypse 14:12). Les Écritures affirment encore : « Heureux ceux qui observent ses commandements, afin d'avoir droit à l'arbre de vie, et d'entrer par les portes dans la ville! » (Apocalypse 22:14). Soyons donc certain de bien comprendre ce que les Écritures ont à nous dire sur ce sujet. Nombreux sont ceux qui oublient le contexte dans lequel certains livres de Bible et certains versets des Écritures furent écrits. Il est cependant important de comprendre les vérités bibliques telles qu’elles sont contenues dans la Bible indépendamment de toutes traditions humaines. Que notre Père éternel vous bénisse richement et vous guide par son Esprit Saint alors que vous étudiez la Bible et ce sujet en particulier.

1. Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law found in the Book of the Law of Moses.

“Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us … That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.” – Galatians 3:13-14

2. Believing in Christ makes everyone right with God. We are saved by grace, not by works.

“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.” – Ephesians 2:8-10; Romans 3:24

3. Jesus gives believers peace that the world can never offer.

“Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.” – John 14:27

4. Jesus understands our weaknesses. Jesus is our High Priest who mediates on our behalf to God.

“For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.” – Hebrews 4:15

5. Jesus is the New Adam sent to restore the spirit of God in us through faith. Jesus has allowed us to act on the potential for good that God has placed in everyone by His power and grace.

“And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.” – 1 Corinthians 15:45-49; 2Cor 12:9

Church of God (7^th Day) – Salem Conference

http://www.churchofgod-7thday.org/

Pour nous contacter en français

edd7jour@gmail.com

Unless otherwise noted, all scripture quotations are from the New King James Version.

Key Verse: 

“As He also says in another place: “You are a priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek”” (Hebrews 5:6)

In the book of Hebrews Paul writes:

^“So also Christ did not glorify Himself to become High Priest, but it was He who said to Him:  “You are My Son, Today I have begotten You.” As He also says in another place: “You are a priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek”” (Hebrews 5:5-6).

So what does this mean, that Christ is a high priest forever after the order of Melchizedec? To find the answer we have to go back to the beginning.

Creation

At the creation God established a basic set of laws for the benefit of man. Many references to these laws exist in the book of Genesis, including:

Seventh Day for Rest

“And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made” (Genesis 2:3).

You shall not kill

^“Now Cain talked with Abel his brother; and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother and killed him. Then the LORD said to Cain, “Where is Abel your brother?” He said, “I do not know. Am I my brother’s keeper?” And He said, “What have you done? The voice of your brother’s blood cries out to Me from the ground. So now you are cursed from the earth, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand. When you till the ground, it shall no longer yield its strength to you. A fugitive and a vagabond you shall be on the earth”” (Genesis 4:8-12).

Law of the Clean and Unclean

“You shall take with you seven each of every clean animal, a male and his female; two each of animals that are unclean, a male and his female”(Genesis 7:2).

You shall not commit adultery

^“So it was, when Abram came into Egypt, that the Egyptians saw the woman, that she was very beautiful. The princes of Pharaoh also saw her and commended her to Pharaoh. And the woman was taken to Pharaoh’s house. He treated Abram well for her sake. He had sheep, oxen, male donkeys, male and female servants, female donkeys, and camels. But the LORD plagued Pharaoh and his house with great plagues because of Sarai, Abram’s wife. And Pharaoh called Abram and said, “What is this you have done to me? Why did you not tell me that she was your wife?” (Genesis 12:14-18).

Tithing

“Then Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was the priest of God Most High. And he blessed him and said: “Blessed be Abram of God Most High, Possessor of heaven and earth; And blessed be God Most High, Who has delivered your enemies into your hand.” And he gave him a tithe of all” (Genesis 14:18-20).

“For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, to whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all, first being translated “king of righteousness,” and then also king of Salem, meaning “king of peace,”” (Hebrews 7:1-2).

After the Exodus from Egypt, the children of Israel were given the Ten Commandments on two tables of stone, written by the finger of God and given to Moses. These tables of stone were put inside the Ark of the Covenant.

“And when He had made an end of speaking with him on Mount Sinai, He gave Moses two tablets of the Testimony, tablets of stone, written with the finger of God” (Exodus 31:18).

“There was nothing in the ark save the two tables of stone, which Moses put there at Horeb, when the LORD made a covenant with the children of Israel, when they came out of the land of Egypt”  (1 Kings 8:9)

Exodus chapter 20 contains the text of these commandments.

Levitical Priesthood

While Moses was receiving the Ten Commandments on Mount Sinai, the children of Israel were building a molten calf out of gold and proclaiming it to be the god who had brought them out of Egypt. When Moses came down from the mount, he was extremely angry.  He smashed the tables of stone containing the Ten Commandments, ground up the golden calf, put the dust on the water, and made the children of Israel drink it. Then Moses asked the question “Who is on the LORD'S side?” (KJV).

“then Moses stood in the entrance of the camp, and said, “Whoever is on the LORD’s side—come to me!” And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together to him” (Exodus 32:26).

^“At that time the LORD separated the tribe of Levi to bear the ark of the covenant of the LORD, to stand before the LORD to minister to Him and to bless in His name, to this day. Therefore Levi has no portion nor inheritance with his brethren; the LORD is his inheritance, just as the LORD your God promised him” (Deuteronomy 10:8-9).

The sons of Levi answered the call and God made them priests over the children of Israel. Because the children of Israel committed this transgression with the golden calf, the Levitical priesthood was established and the book of the Law was given to the children of Israel.

^“So it was, when Moses had completed writing the words of this law in a book, when they were finished, that Moses commanded the Levites, who bore the ark of the covenant of the LORD, saying: “Take this Book of the Law, and put it beside the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there as a witness against you; for I know your rebellion and your stiff neck. If today, while I am yet alive with you, you have been rebellious against the LORD, then how much more after my death?” (Deuteronomy 31:24-27).

“What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator”(Galatians 3:19).

Melchizedec Priesthood

The Levitical priesthood lasted from the time of Sinai until Jesus came to the earth. Then, Jesus was installed as our high priest after the order of Melchizedec.

“For He testifies: “You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek”” (Hebrews 7:17).

^“Therefore, if perfection were through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be called according to the order of Aaron? For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law” (Hebrews 7:11-12).

Since Christ is our high priest, we are then subject the Melchisedec priesthood. We are under the laws of the Melchisedec priesthood. Two other statutes were added to the Melchisedec priesthood when Jesus became our high priest: the Lord's Supper and Baptism.

“And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you” (Luke 22:19-20).

^“Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit”  (Acts 2:37-38)

These two statutes are part of the testimony of Jesus. We are required to keep this testimony and to model our lives after his example.

^“For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps: “ Who committed no sin,  Nor was deceit found in His mouth”; who, when He was reviled, did not revile in return; when He suffered, He did not threaten, but committed Himself to Him who judges righteously” (1 Peter 2:21-23)

Conclusion

Creation

From the Creation, God established the law under the Melchizedek priesthood.

Ten Commandments          

The Clean and the Unclean 

Tithing

Levitical Priesthood

Because of transgression, the Levitical law was added and the Levitical priesthood was established. The original law from the Melchizedek priesthood were also in the Levitical priesthood. This commandments are, among others, the following:       

Ten Commandments          

The Clean and the Unclean

Tithing                      

Passover                           

Feast Days

Melchizedec Priesthood

Since Jesus died for us on the cross, we are back to the Melchizedec Priesthood. Therefore, the law and commandments from God that we are to observe today on top of the Moses' commandments still applicable today are:

1. The Ten Commandments

2. The law of the clean and the unclean

3. The law of the ten percent tithe

4. The remembrance of Jesus through the Lord's Supper

5. The acceptance of Jesus through Baptism

6. The testimony of Jesus to live by his example

Unless otherwise noted, all scripture quotations are from the New King James Version 

According to the account of Jesus’ birth in the Gospel of Matthew, visitors “from the East” who had seen the star of a new king presented gifts to young Jesus. The Greek text of the Gospel calls these visitors ma’goi, that is, “magi.” (Matthew 2:1) What do we know about them?

The earliest substantial source of information about the Magi is the Greek historian Herodotus. Living in the fifth century B.C.E., Herodotus recorded that the Magi belonged to a Persian priestly class who specialized in astrology, interpretation of dreams, and casting of spells. In Herodotus’ time, the religion of Persia was Zoroastrianism. Hence, the Magi he spoke about were likely Zoroastrian priests. “In a more general sense,” says The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, “a mágos in the Hellenistic world had supernatural knowledge and ability and was sometimes a practitioner of magic.”

A number of early “Christian” commentators, such as Justin Martyr, Origen, and Tertullian, described the Magi who visited Jesus as astrologers. For example, Tertullian wrote in his book On Idolatry: “We know the mutual alliance of magic and astrology. The interpreters of the stars, then, were the first … to present Him [Jesus] ‘gifts.’“ In harmony with this understanding, some Bible translations render ma’goi “astrologers.”

“Therefore when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Juda, in the days of king Herod, lo! astrologers [lo! kings, or wise men,] came from the east to Jerusalem” (Matthew 2:1, Wycliffe New Testament).