• About this site

• About this site

Elizabeth Stickfort

• About this site

Golden Lampstands of Iowa

• About this site

Foundation Truths of the Gospel

• About this site

• About this site

THE PROTOCOLS
What are the Protocols?
The word is derived from the Greek: prötos, first, and kolla, glue, and originally meant the first leaf glued to a papyrus roll. This bore the year of the king ruling at the time, and thus dated the roll. Reading the other day of the discovery of some papyri, the words occurred:
“They found a stray leaf close by which was supposed to be a protocol of one of the papyri.” Later the name was applied to the original copy of any writing, e.g., a treaty, and then it came to mean the rough draft of any transaction.
As showing the importance of these dated “protocols,” the following facts are of interest. The Higher Critics have sought in their general attack on the Old Testament Scriptures to unsettle the Biblical dates of the books of Ezra, Nehemiah and Daniel. “Their scholarship makes it impossible (!) to believe it otherwise.” “All (!) scholars are agreed” that these books could not have been written in their place, as we have them. Such persons as are described in the two former books did not exist, and two Greek words for musical instruments* in the book of Daniel most probably bring its date down to the second century instead of the sixth, in which it claims to be written (!). However, in 1904-1907, some papyrus rolls written in Aramaic by Jews of Jeb were discovered in the island of Elephantine or Jeb, in the Nile, opposite Assouan, all dated with the names of Persian Kings of the fifth century, B.C.. In these occur the names of Biblical persons such as Sanballat and the high priest, Jehoiada, and his son, Jehohanan, and also three Greek wordsf more unlikely in their character to be found, than the two Greek words occurring in Daniel. These flimsy papyrus-leaves, preserved in the dry sand of Egypt, are found to negative the premature conclusions of the critics. Daniel belongs to the same epoch.
The word “Protocol” has come rather prominently before the public in late years in connections with “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” a book purporting to be records of a world-wide conspiracy engineered by Jews. This work has proved to the satisfaction of very many to be a forgery by enemies of the Jews. It is, however, still used by Anti-semites on the Continentt (e.g., in German schools to-day) to stir up race- hatred against God’s earthly people.

William Hoste

• About this site

• About this site

HOUSEHOLD BAPTISM
Are those who teach what is known as “household baptism” justified in using the crossing of the Red Sea, referred to in  1 Corinthians 10" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 10: as a type of Christian baptism, and in asserting that,  as undoubtedly infants were carried across the Red Sea by their  mothers, they therefore were baptised unto Moses, and so infants  now should be baptised? 

Certainly these friends must be hard put to it to find authority for  their practice of baptising households to-day, if they have to go back  to this far off Old Testament event to justify it. We are asked, moreover,  to believe that had Moses and the elders held Believer’s Baptism, they  would have been obliged cruelly to leave all the infants on the west bank  of the Red Sea to the mercy of the pursuing Egyptians, on the plea that  such were not fit subjects for baptism. I remember one well-known  clergyman in Brighton (the “Reverend” H. B.), who wrote a tract to  justify the sprinkling of infants, and he built his argument on the  probability of the wind sprinkling the Israelitish infants, as they were  carried through the Red Sea. It seems hard to believe that fancy could  go further. We may be sure that no-one from Moses to the youngest  Israelitish mother had the slightest idea that a figure of Christian  baptism was being carried out during the crossing of the Red Sea. 

But if for the sake of argument, all who shared in the crossing were  baptised, then this was true of “the mixed multitude” and of the flocks  and the herds. Perhaps those who christen bells and ships rely on this  passage. We see, however, from Numbers 4" TARGET="_blank">Numbers 4 that the children did not  count, but only those of Israel who were numbered “from twenty years  old and upward,” for in verses 29 and 33 a difference is made between  those who were numbered (v. 29) and their children (v. 33). Whereas  the former (except Caleb and Joshua) would be excluded for good, all  the children would be brought in when their fathers’ carcases were wasted  in the wilderness. We may be sure that the infants no more shared in  the baptism of the Red Sea, than in the daily eating of the manna and  drinking from the rock that followed them. No doubt it is legitimate  to see in the crossing of the Red Sea a figure of the death and resurrection  of Christ and of believers’ association with Him, but it is not,  properly speaking, a figure of Christian baptism, for that would be a  case of a figure representing a figure. Rather what is set forth is what has already taken place for all believers, namely, their baptism in the Spirit. Christi n baptism is in no way in view in 1 Cor 10" TARGET="_blank">1 Cor 10 and it is a great mistake to think that wherever the slightly different word, “baptismos” that occurs in our Authorised (e.g., Mark 7:4, 8;" TARGET="_blank">Mark 7:4, 8; Hebrews 6: 2;" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 6: 2; Hebrews 9:10)," TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 9:10), The reference clearly is to the ceremonial purifications of the Levitical service.

William Hoste

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

BRITISH ISRAELISM
What are we to think of “British Israelism,” and what should be our attitude towards adherents of it?

The hypothesis is that “Anglo-Saxons are the lineal descendants of the Ten Tribes of Israel and inherit the wonderful promises made to them. These promises the Anglo-Saxons possess nationally.” This can hardly be “dignified” with the name of “heresy”; it is rather one of those “imaginations” which we are to seek to cast down in the Name of Christ. As far as truth is concerned, it is of “the stuff that dreams are made of;” a simile not so far-fetched, when we consider that the B.I. theory’s prime foundation stone is, as we shall see, confessedly, an invented dream.

Alas! how sad it is to see even pious Christians thus snared by the great fowler, as also numbers of wordlings, taking up as a sort of fashionable pastime the slogan, not “We are lost sinners,” but “We are the lost tribes.” It thus provides for the world another gospel, which captivates and hypnotises them with the thought of capturing great earthly blessings for themselves and the British Empire, apart from repentance and faith in Christ, as though He had never died and risen to procure us blessings, and we must needs make out a fancied identity with the lost tribes (bereft of blessings themselves) in order to get a few for ourselves and the British Empire. Certainly Christ did not die for the glory of the British Empire. If God has blessed our country so signally in the past, the reasons are not far to seek: (1) His Sovereignty; (2) the comparative good treatment England has bestowed on the Jews; (3) the fact that she has been a harbour of refuge for persecuted Continental Christians; (4) because, by His mercy, the Word of God was accepted at the Reformation, and became our national Book for centuries; (5) and because of His many people in our country and their prayers; though now she is on the way to forfeit all this by her national sins and apostacy.

But not one blessing did Britain ever inherit for the “British-Israel” reason, because even if she were the lost tribes, she has not kept God’s laws and statutes, the very condition of blessing (see Deuteronomy 28:15)" TARGET="_blank">Deuteronomy 28:15) and would have put herself outside the covenant, if ever under it, by neglecting circumcision. British Israelism is no mere harmless delusion; its logical effect is virtually to exclude Christ (not He, but the British Empire looms at the centre of things), and to supersede the gospel to sinners with some fancied national position, with its naked abandonment of the heavenly calling of the church and a complete confusion between her and Israel. Even, if we were Israel, she is set on one side nationally for the present so far as earthly blessing goes, and j so should we be. If space allowed, I would gladly take up the general arguments for or against the much vaunted “identifications,” but before . examining the ornaments of a building, it is well to enquire as to the foundation. I believe no castle-in-the-air ever had a flimsier base than this theory. Is there any historic proof that the ten tribes migrated from the latitudes where the Assyrians placed them, to England or anywhere else? There is not a scintilla. No mention is made of their doings either in Scripture or secular history from about 720 B.C., when their Assyrian captors settled them in Assyria, etc., though we have promises in the Scripture of their future restoration, e.g. Isa. i i • iz, where Jehovah promises to gather back again to their only land of blessing the “outcasts of Israel,” along with “the dispersed of Judah,” from whom they are thus carefully distinguished. We may be sure the Assyrians, as long as they had the power, would not allow their captives to wander away at their own sweet will to some other land. Until we have some serious proof that the ten tribes ever started on their journey for the British Isles, it is futile to spend time in proving they never arrived there. On what then does the B.I. theory rest? On a passage in an Apocryphal book, the 2nd of Esdras, (Eadras, Greek form of Ezra. ) purporting to have been written by Ezra the scribe, but really forged 700 years after the captivity by some unscrupulous impersonator living in Egypt. The passage (see chap. 13. 1-12 39-46) purports to be the interpretation of a fictitious dream ascribed to Ezra, to the effect that the ten tribes took counsel to leave the heathen country where they were in captivity and go off into a land where no one dwelt; where they might keep God’s statutes. They crossed the Euphrates miraculously and after a year and a half arrived at some unknown region called Arsareth. “Then dwelt they there until the latter time.” The whole chapter reads like an unholy parody of Scripture, as indeed it is, naturally bereft of all spiritual power, and bristling with the wildest improbabilities. And yet this fake dream and its fictitious interpretation is admitted by the writers of “British Israel Truth” (chap. 7.) to be the “one only tradition of their fate (i.e., of the lost tribes) which past ages have handed on to us.” That a whole system should rest ultimately on a “tradition” would be bad enough, but when that “tradition” is a dream, that nobody really ever had, the edifice must be in a parlous state. As to how to deal with a Christian “in fellowship,” who becomes inoculated with this unscriptural, unhistoric theory; it may be said that as far as is apparent, it does not effect directly fundamental truth as to the Person of Christ, though what it may lead to is difficult to say. Any attempt to propagate it in an assembly, could not be tolerated and anyone persisting in such a course would bring himself or herself under the open rebuke of the elders. Certainly the theory “causes divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine, which we have learned” and we should “mark” and “avoid” those who are in active sympathy with this sad delusion.

William Hoste

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

Joshua 7:21." TARGET="_blank">Joshua 7:21. What would the “Babylonish garment and two hundred shekels of silver and the wedge of gold of fifty shekels weight” represent? What is the teaching in this verse?

I think they would stand for what most attracts the eye and fills the heart of the natural man; for what is more desirable to the flesh than fine clothes to deck oneself withal, and gold and silver, which will purchase “everything except peace of mind, and entrance anywhere except to heaven”! “Babylonish garment” is literally “a garment of Shinar,” the locality where Babylon was built, renowned, it is said, for its beautiful robes. The word for “garment,” is from a root meaning, “wide,” hence an ample covering, a cloak. It is used of Elijah’s mantle and also of the royal robe the King of Nineveh doffed in sign of repentance (Jonah 3: 6)." TARGET="_blank">Jonah 3: 6). Gesenius says these “cloaks of Shinar” were “variegated with figures, or interwoven with various colours, having the figures of men and beasts,” reminding one of the great copes worn by ecclesiastics to-day at their religious ceremonials—true “cloaks of Shinar” those! Let all see to it, lest fine clothes, ministering to the pride of life, or silver and gold, ministering to its “many foolish and hurtful lusts,” occupy our hearts! “But thou, 0 man of God, flee these things, and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness.”

W.H.

• About this site