Watchman's Teaching Letter #189 January 2014
This is my one hundred and eighty-ninth monthly teaching letter and continues my sixteenth year of publication. Since WTL #137, I have been continuing a series entitled The Greatest Love Story Ever Told, and have been expanding on its seven stages ever since: (1) the courtship, (2) the marriage, (3) the honeymoon, (4) the estrangement, (5) the divorce, (6) the reconciliation, and (7) the remarriage.
THE GREATEST LOVE STORY EVER TOLD, Part 48,
THE DIVORCE & RECONCILIATION:
With the last lesson, WTL #188, I repeated an article I had previously written, The Insane Doctrine of Personal Salvation vs. Covenant Theology, #1. With this lesson I will repeat part #2 of the same paper:
The doctrine of “personal salvation”, as promoted by nominal churchianity, is founded on the false premise that somehow Christ came to sacrifice Himself on the cross to give the whole world, no matter what race, an opportunity to decide whether or not they want to accept Him and enjoy the benefits of His Covenant. Such an assumption immediately makes Yahweh a 2nd class god! Poor old God, can’t do anything right!
As I demonstrated in paper #1 on this subject, if one will only read John 15:13-17; John: 6:44-45, 65; & 1 John 4:9-10, he will discover that it is Yahweh in the flesh (as Yahshua) who does the “choosing”, “drawing” and “loving”, and He chose only Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and his twelve sons, and their offspring. Therefore, it is impossible to have both “personal salvation” and “Covenant Theology” in the same Bible!
Now, I won’t condemn any White Israelite who has made a decision for Christ, but I would remind him that Yahweh in the flesh (as Yahshua) decided on him when He purchased him on the cross, before he ever made such a determination! Nominal churchianity would have us believe that we first accept Jesus Christ as our personal savior, and after we have done so, then second, He will purchase us. That elevates man’s decision over and above Yahweh’s decision! That’s why I said, “that makes Yahweh a 2nd class god!”
At this time I will critique an article that appeared in Destiny Magazine for March, 1949 entitled “The Interdependence of the Two Testaments”, by Henry D. Houghton. I will not quote from it, but I will use important views drawn from him. If you have that particular issue, you may read it for yourself.
There are ideas spread abroad among the various denominations of nominal churchianity that the New Testament not only supersedes the Old, but also revokes many of Yahweh’s national promises so clearly recorded therein. Not only this, but Israel’s status or standing in the New Testament is altogether altered in nature from that of the Old. They would have us to believe that the Old Testament was made with the converso Edomite-jews, while the New Covenant, or as we know it, the “New Testament” was made with some people wrongly identified as “Gentiles”. By this false assertion, they make the claim that the New Testament repeals the Old. Nothing could be more damnably false and overwhelmingly disastrous. Yet unfortunately, many believe such nonsense!
How these strange suppositions were spawned by the clergy and absorbed by the laity is incomprehensible, if not completely dumbfounding in nature, for there is not a solitary passage in Scripture which supports such an invalid determination. The New Covenant is nothing more than the renewal of the Old Covenant mentioned at Jeremiah 31:31-32, and repeated at Hebrews 8:8-9:
“31 Behold, the days come, saith Yahweh, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: 32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith Yahweh ...”
Notice how the New is a renewal of the Old Covenant, and an uninterrupted working out by Yahweh of His one complete preordained plan. Observe also that, the beneficiaries remain the same, i.e., “... the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah ...” Nothing about “Gentiles” here! The Latin word “Gentile” is correct when properly applied, but the definition of this word IS NOT nor EVER WAS a “non-jew”. At Jeremiah 31:31-32, the New Covenant was a future promise, and at Hebrews 8:8-9, it is recognized as a Covenant fulfilled!
It is alleged by some, however, that Yahweh, long after the time of the prophets, disinherited the twelve tribes of old Israel for their sins, and brought in a new spiritual Israel – the Christian church – to take the place of the literal physical line of Israel, which Yahweh had finally given up on and forever cast off! This allegation, however popular it might be, is altogether false, and directly opposed by all Scripture, especially Jeremiah 31:37, which reads:
“Thus saith Yahweh; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith Yahweh.”
I would point out to the reader at this very time, July 5, 2012, that astronomers are testing out a new system of 66 telescopes in Chile to measure the universe, which leads them to believe that there are many universes, not just galaxies or solar systems, but many other universes besides our own with their own galaxies and solar systems. So, we can be quite safe in believing that the twelve tribes of Israel will NEVER be permanently “cast off”! For all those who reject the Old Testament (and many do, especially romish catholics), let’s consider Paul’s words at Romans 11:1-5:
“1 I say then, Hath Yahweh cast away his people? Yahweh forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. 2 Yahweh hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to Yahweh against Israel, saying, 3 Yahweh, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life. 4 But what saith the answer of Yahweh unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal. 5 Even so then at this present time [during Paul’s lifetime] also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.”
This passage demonstrates that no matter how great the sins of the twelve tribes of Israel, Yahweh was not going to cast them off without providing a way back to Him! It should be pointed out that Jeremiah’s prophecy at 31:37 was made 115 years AFTER the northern ten tribes of Israel were banished out of their land for their sins. This shows that Yahweh resolved that under absolutely NO CIRCUMSTANCES WHATSOEVER would He disinherit or cast off Israel forever! If one will but read the entire content of Jeremiah chapter 31, he will find it contains wonderful promises and predictions for all of Israel, some of which are absolutely unconditional. This chapter covers a lot of subjects which demand our careful attention. Probably the most important fact that every serious Bible student should understand is that it was written in regard to the twelve tribes of Israel, and not to the converso Edomite-jews, as nominal churchianity so falsely contend. It’s about time that we expect the Words of our Almighty Yahweh to be carried out in to-to (i.e., in the whole), and applied to the correct people!
In spite of all of this evidence to the contrary, for one reason or another, there has grown up in the rank and file of the clergy, along with much of the laity in nominal churchianity, the mistaken idea that the two separate Testaments are made with two different peoples, and that somehow the authority passed away and ceases to belong to whom it was originally promised, and somehow another people – the Gentiles (a Latin term found nowhere in the original Bible text) – have superseded them and inherited the New Testament, making void Yahweh’s unconditional, everlasting Covenant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and his offspring – implying that Yahweh lied, making Him an indian-giver. Is there no end to the length people will go to twist Holy Writ?
Other people regard the New Testament as a hasty standby device to meet the embarrassing and unexpected emergency situation that the Old Testament had failed Yahweh’s expectations. On that failure the New Testament was made necessary by Yahweh’s sudden unforeseen change of plans. In fact, the dispensationalists claim the Almighty has changed His plans time and time again. They claim He tried His first plan for a thousand years, and when it didn’t work out, He tried a new plan for another thousand years. In fact, such people as these claim that the Almighty has now changed His plans six times, and when He returns at His Second Advent, it will be His seventh change.
No true conception of the Scriptures can correctly be arrived at while such errant views are held, for they are violently opposed to the Word of Yahweh, and are in direct conflict with both the Old and New Testaments. To show this glaring conflict, it must be demonstrated that the whole of the conception and operation of the New Testament comes out of the Old. To reject the Old Testament would be like bulldozing the foundation out from under one’s house. That house would no longer be livable! Remove the Old Testament out from under the New Testament, and the New Testament would no longer be comprehendible! Secondly, removing the authority of the Old Testament would be like building a house from the top downward. Try doing this sometime by taking an extension ladder and anchoring it some way so it won’t fall over; put on a nail sack and take some nails and a hammer to the desired height of the roof, and start nailing shingles on the thin air, and see how far you get! These illustrations might seem to be quite foolish, but it is no more foolish than removing the authority of the Old Testament leaving the New Testament without any foundation!
When are nominal churchianity ever going to learn that Yahweh doesn’t have a new plan or purpose, but He is continuing with His original plan and purpose in the New Testament? It is not a new plan; it is the old. It is not with a new people; it is with the old. It is not a new device; it is the old. This was made very clear when the angel Gabriel announced to Mary the birth of Christ, who would become the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world, at Luke 1:32-33:
“32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and Yahweh shall give unto him the throne of his father David: 33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.” If the Old Testament lost its authority with the arrival of the New, then the angel lied to Mary! Zacharias, filled with the Holy Spirit at Luke 1:68-72, prophesied saying:
“68 Blessed be Yahweh, the Mighty One of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people, 69 And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David; 70 As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began: 71 That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us; 72 To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant ...” If the Old Testament lost its authority with the arrival of the New, not only did the angel Gabriel lie, but most, if not all, of the Old Testament prophets lied also! When are all of these false allegations going to stop?
It now becomes apparent that the New Covenant DID NOT destroy the Old Covenant. Simeon, filled with the Holy Spirit, spoke of Christ as, “A light to lighten the [lost Israel nations], and the glory of the people of Israel” (Luke 2:32). This text is correctly understood as meaning: “A light to lighten the [lost Israel nations – not the converso Edomite-jews] and the glory of Thy people, the twelve tribes of the children of Israel.” On the converso Edomite-jews, check Josephus’ Antiquities, book 13, chap. 9, par. 1:
“... Hyrcanus took also Dora and Marissa, cities of Idumea, and subdued all the Idumeans; and permitted them to stay in that country, if they would circumcise their genitals, and make use of the laws of the Jews [sic Judaeans]; and they were so desirous of living in the country of their [Edomite] forefathers, that they submitted to the use of circumcision, and the rest of the Jewish ways of living; at which time therefore this befell them, that they were hereafter no other than Jews.” [underlining mine] A footnote on the same page makes the following comment on this passage:
“This account of the Idumeans admitting circumcision, and the entire Jewish law, from this time, or from the days of Hyrcanus, is confirmed by their entire history afterwards. This, in the opinion of Josephus, made them proselytes of justice, or entire Jews. However, Antigonus, the enemy of Herod, though Herod was derived from such a proselyte of justice for several generations, will allow him to be no more than a half Jew [i.e. half Judahite and half Edomite]. Ammonius, a grammarian, says:– ‘the Jews are such by nature, and from the beginning, whilst the Idumeans are not Jews from the beginning ... but being afterwards subdued by the Jews [sic Judahites] and compelled to be circumcised, and to unite into one nation, and be subject to the same laws, they were called Jews.’ Dio also says:– ‘That country is also called Judea, and the people Jews; and this name is given also to as many as embrace their religion, though of other nations’.” Therefore, I use the phrase, “the converso Edomite-jews”, and now you know the reason why! The term “converso” is from the Latin, meaning “to turn around”. You’ll not find the definition in most English dictionaries. An alternate phrase might be, “the impostor turn around Edomite-jews.” No sooner had the Edomites been converted to Israeliteism than they began their evil effort to subvert the context of our Holy Scriptures to suit their wicked cabalism called today, The Babylonian, or Jerusalem Talmud. Christ Himself designated this corruption of the Bible as “the traditions of the elders”! Not the Judahite elders, but the converso Edomite-jew elders! There’s a big difference! Although the converso Edomite-jew Masoretes did a hatchet job on our Holy Scriptures, they failed to corrupt every truth, and we must be very careful to divide the truthfulness from their intentional fraud. Remember, the ultimate sin is to MIX good with evil, and it begins by mixing truth with a lie!
Nominal churchianity continues to insist that all of the Old Testament laws “have been done away with”, but should they carefully examine Scripture, they would discover it was the ritual laws only that were discontinued at Christ’s crucifixion, for He fulfilled all of the ritual laws. Some laws can be fulfilled while other laws cannot, and there are a lot of differences between the two. Colossians 2:13-14 explains how some of the laws were fulfilled:
“13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; 14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross ...”
Please notice this passage is speaking only of “the handwriting of ordinances that was against us”, not the entire law. It is highly dishonest to interpret this passage to mean such a thing! What, then, was the “ordinance” that was against the twelve tribes of Israel? The answer is: It was the law of remarriage to Israel’s former Husband after being divorced from Him. This ordinance is found at Deut. 24:1-4:
“1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. 2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife. 3 And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; 4 Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before Yahweh: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which Yahweh thy Elohim giveth thee for an inheritance.”
It is imperative that we understand that Yahweh is not going to break His Own Law! Yet Hosea 2:7 declares:
“And she [Israel] shall follow after her lovers, but she shall not overtake them; and she shall seek them, but shall not find them: then shall she say, I will go and return to my first husband; for then was it better with me than now.”
How, then, is it possible for Israel to return to her first Husband, Yahweh? The answer is: The only way that Israel can return to her first Husband is if Yahweh would come in the flesh as Yahshua and offer Himself on the cross, and suffer death on behalf of Israel. This He did, and by doing so “Blotted out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us ...” Nominal churchianity by-and-large are blind to this “blotting out”, and teach personal salvation in its place. Yahweh never married anyone other than the twelve tribes of Israel; nor did He divorce anyone other than the twelve tribes of Israel; nor did He offer Himself on the cross for anyone other than the twelve tribes of Israel! When are we ever going to learn that we can’t even have a 1% comprehension of the New Testament without first having an all-inclusive understanding of the Old!
Christ’s red-letter words speak loud and clear on this subject at Matt. 5:17-19: “17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”
This is not voiding the law, it is confirming the law; it is not revoking, but a teaching example of its fulfillment. This demonstrates beyond all doubt that those old Israelite prophecies and promises are backed up by Christ’s authority and are still in force! Nominal churchianity today, for the most part, ignores this straightforward declaration of our kinsman Redeemer as the sole purpose for His coming!
It is a very dangerous proposition to sit in judgment of Almighty Yahweh, or attempt to dictate to Him on what terms His favors shall be dispensed or who has the right to receive them! The only hope for those under His Covenant with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and his offspring lies in establishing the limits of that legal instrument, not twisted or altered truth, rearranged to satisfy some men’s play-pretty doctrinal theories! Altered truth is unmitigated error, gross and shameful, and can never take the place of Yahweh’s genuine Truth! A good example of this is Paul’s statement at Rom. 8:3-5:
“3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: 4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of Yahweh, and the promises; 5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, Yahweh blessed for ever.”
Generally speaking, nominal churchianity would spiritualize this passage, while its meaning is definitely literal! Think about it! Are we really to believe that Paul’s “... kinsmen according to the flesh ...” are “spiritual”? This is not “spiritual” seed that Paul is speaking of. “My brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh”, said he. To this same fleshly brethren he says, “pertaineth the adoption [present tense] and the covenants ... and promises.” Lest again a spiritual seed be imagined here, he adds, “Whose are the fathers”, thus plainly and definitely fixing all of these great possessions upon a literal seed. This absolutely does not favor the casting-off forever theory, nor yet that of a displacement by a so-called “Gentile church”! It is evident that if Yahweh were going to permanently cast off Israel, Paul knew absolutely nothing about it, for he distinctly asserts, in unmistakable terms, quite the contrary! My hope is, with this essay, the reader is now more aware of the difference between “personal salvation” vs. “Covenant Theology”, for without the Covenants, we surely have nothing!
We will now change our subject from “divorce” to “reconciliation”, and I will again quote Henry D. Houghton from Destiny Magazine, December 1949 entitled Redeemed:
“REDEEMED! What a glorious word it is. Who can measure it? How deep, how high, how broad? It speaks of a love that would not let us go; that works, that plans, that toils, that suffers and, best of all, triumphs. It suggests bands of steel binding the redeemed in an unbreakable bond to the Redeemer. It does not depend on worthiness of merit. It works and wins in spite of great unworthiness and demerit, and is everlasting in its operation and its effects.
“But who are the redeemed? The evangelical churches would say at once, ‘All those who believe in Christ.’ But is this so? Any man can purchase or buy, if the owner is agreeable to sell, but only the original owner of a thing can redeem it. And he can redeem whether the temporary owner is willing or not. It is his inalienable right which no one can deprive him of. But nothing not one’s own can be ‘redeemed.’
“Paul clearly distinguishes between ‘redeemed’ and ‘purchased’ in Acts 20:28:
“‘Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.’
“Take any great city – London, for instance – there are millions of things in that city I can buy if I have money enough, but there is not one thing in it that I can redeem, because I have nothing belonging to me there. Take another city where I might have some small article – say, a watch – in pawn. Although there may be half a million people in that city, not one of them can redeem my watch, because it is not theirs to redeem. Nor can they buy it till I, the owner, by lapse of time, show I surrender my right to redeem. It is mine, though temporarily in the possession of another.
“Now, then, apply all this to the case of the Church and its explanation of the word ‘redeemed.’ Did the Church belong to God before and somehow He lost it to another? That is obviously wrong. God may, indeed does, offer salvation to the Gentiles [sic Genesis 10 White nations] and the heathen [sic pagans of both Israel and the Genesis 10 White nations], but only His ancient people can be ‘redeemed.’ What does the Bible say about the captive daughter of Zion?
“‘Thus saith the Lord, Ye have sold yourselves for nought; and ye shall be redeemed without money.’ (Isa. 52:3.)
“‘... O Israel, Fear not: for I have redeemed thee, I have called thee by thy name; thou art mine.’ (Isa. 43:1.)
“Here is the declaration of the Divine right of redemption. No other has any claim. He says as a result of that redeeming, ‘Thou art mine!’ No one has a right to dispute it; none can say Him nay.
“In Zechariah 10:8 God says of Ephraim:
“‘I will hiss for them, and gather them; for I have redeemed them: and they shall increase as they have increased."
“Then He states further in Isaiah 63:4:
“‘For the day of vengeance is in mine heart, and the year of my redeemed is come.’
“The ‘day of vengeance’ refers to the Day of the Lord when all His enemies will receive their punishment and be condemned to destruction. But at the same time the Lord announces, ‘And the year of my redeemed is come.’ What is that? It is the great year of God’s open acknowledgment of Israel as His people.
“But does the New Testament bear out this interpretation and application of the word ‘redeem’? It very definitely does so. Zacharias, the father of John the Baptist, was filled with the Holy Ghost when he prophesied:
“‘Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people.’ (Luke 1:68.)
“When Mary and Joseph brought the child Jesus into the Temple to perform the custom of the law, Simeon, a just and devout man, was there who, the Scriptures state, was waiting for the consolation of Israel. Taking the child in his arms, he said:
“‘Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word: For mine eyes have seen thy salvation, which thou hast prepared before the face of all people; A light to lighten the Gentiles [sic Israel nations], and the glory of thy people Israel.’ (Luke 2: 29-32.)
“Anna, a prophetess, coming in at that moment:
“‘... gave thanks likewise unto the Lord, and spake of him to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem.’ (Luke 2:38.)
“Many years later the two disciples who walked along the road to Emmaus actually said to the Redeemer Himself:
“‘But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel ...’ (Luke 24:21.)
“In Galatians 3:13 Paul exclaims: ‘Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law.’ That was the way Israel was held in bondage. They had broken the law, but through Jesus Christ came the great redemption which Paul proclaimed. The fact that they were under the law showed very plainly that they were Hebrews to which Paul appealed, for the Gentiles [sic non-Israelite nations] never had been under the law. In Romans 2:14 Paul speaks of the ‘Gentiles [sic nations], which have not the law,’ showing very plainly that the commands of the law never came to the heathen or Gentiles [sic non-Israelite nations].
“Redemption is an everlasting work, as the writer of the Book of Hebrews points out:
“‘Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.’ (Heb. 9:12.)
“One of the singular and distinguishing things our Lord said, which is utterly ignored by the Church today, and which cuts right across many theories, is this: ‘... I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.’ (Matt. 15:24.)
Weymouth’s translation is even more forcible: “I have no commission except to the lost sheep of the House of Israel.”
Ferrar Fenton says: “I was not sent to other than the lost sheep of Israel’s house.” No matter how the Church may desire to wipe that out, it had better leave it alone, for it must be faced. It cannot be explained away. Indeed, it is in exact fulfillment of Isaiah 53:5 & 8:
“‘He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. ... for the transgression of my people was he stricken.’
“Christ Himself went even further, and commanded the disciples to do the same as He:
“‘... Go not into the way of the Gentiles [sic the other White non-Israelites of the Genesis 10 nations], and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.’ (Matt. 10:5-6.)
“So, then, the first statement explains His work. Israel, however, had hers; but she must hear the Gospel first. Therefore, just as He was leaving them, having laid down His life and taken it again, having wrought out the great redemption for Israel, He commanded them to go and take His truth, His message, His Gospel, to all Creation”. [Note: Mark 16:9-20 is not in original MS. And if it were, the final phrase of verse 15 is singular and has a definite article, “to all the creation”, i.e., all Adamic man (cf. Rom. 8:35-39. Balance of comment deleted.]
“Having accomplished His work, He bade Israel take up hers. His was to make Israel in truth the Kingdom of priests (administrators), a holy people, and show Israel to whom they were to minister as a Kingdom of priests – even the whole wide [sic White Adamic] world. Israel was redeemed for such a purpose.
“Redeemed! The word speaks of an unexpected forcible exercise of a long-dormant right and claim – a reestablishing of a supposed forfeited right by a forcible reclaiming of the goods.
“‘Sold yourselves?’ Alas, how true of Israel. Nevertheless, the Owner has His rights and He declares they shall be exercised, ‘Ye shall be redeemed without money.’ And so she was when the New Covenant of Jeremiah 31:33-34, was brought in, which Christ our Lord accomplished:
“‘This cup is the New Covenant ratified by My blood which is poured out on your behalf.’ (Luke 20:20, Weymouth Trans.)
“But has God really any rights in modern Israel, represented by the nations of the Anglo-Saxon-Celtic peoples? Undoubtedly He has, for He has declared it to be so a hundred times. And more, He has declared most positively that those rights shall never be surrendered:
“‘I ... have severed you from other people, that ye should be mine.’ (Lev. 20:26.)
“‘For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God: the Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.’ (Deut. 7:6.)
“David later said: ‘... thou hast confirmed to thyself thy people Israel to be a people unto thee for ever: and thou, Lord, art become their God.” (II Sam. 7: 24.)
“Seven hundred years afterward God confirmed it all by saying through Isaiah:
“‘This people have I formed for myself; they shall shew forth my praise.’ (Isa, 43:2I.)
“While salvation is individual, redemption is national. God said to the nation:
“‘... O Israel, thou shalt not be forgotten of me. I have blotted out, as a thick cloud, thy transgressions, and, as a cloud, thy sins: return unto me; for I have redeemed thee.’ (Isa. 44:21-22.)
“‘... declare ye, tell this, utter it even to the end of the earth; say ye, The Lord hath redeemed his servant Jacob.’ (Isa. 48:20.)
“No failure can be possible, for the Redeemer has come! Now the House of Israel looks forward to His return in an even greater role, and through Hosea 13::9-10 the triumphant announcement is made:
“‘O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself; but in me is thine help. I will be thy king!’ ...”