With regard to the original Messianic import of tlie passages applied in tlie Gospels to Jesus Christ and His work, there is no ditticulty in those cases where the ' Servant of Jehovah ' is identified with the Messiah. And even in such passages as Is V'* 9'-= quoted by Mt., we must recognize, beneath and beyond the immediate prophetic reference, an ideal element which permitted and justified the specific application by the Evangelist. Especially is this so witli the proplietic conception of ' Ira- manuel,' an ideal figure in whom we find the ear- liest portraiture of the Messianic King (Is T" 8^ '" Q";'). Though it miglit in some cases be without historical or critical exactitude (as in Mt 4'^- "" from Is 9'- =), it was quite legitimate to find unex- pected correspondences between the earlier and the later stages of Providence and Revelation, based on the deep underlying unity and consistency of the Divine purpose and methods.
J. E. M'OUAT.
ISCAWOT.— See Judas Iscariot.
ISRAEL, ISRAELITE. — 1. The former name occurs 30 times in the Gospels, and the latter once (Jn 1*'). The following expressions are found : ' Israel,' with or without the article (Mt 8'" 9", Lk 1"- 8" 2=5- '* 4==- =' 7" 24=', Jn 1" 3"> ; also Mk 12=" vocative); 'people (\o6s) Israel' (Mt 2'^, Lk 2'=); 'house of Israel' (Mt 10« 15='); 'sons of Israel ' (Mt 27", Lk 1'") ; ' tribes of Israel ' (Mt 19=«, Lk 22"'): 'land of Israel' (Mt 2=°'-); 'God of Israel' (Mt 15", Lk 1®*); 'King of Israel' (Mt 27*=, Mk 15'=, Jn l*" 12"). The force of the name is best understood by comparing it witli two others used in the NT. ' Hebrew ' (Efipaws) is one who speaks the Hebrew language — i.e. the vernacular Aramaic dialect (Ac 6' ; cf. Lk 23'«, Jn 19"- '"• "<>). ' Jew' (loi'Saios) implies national descent; origin- ally used for those who were members of the tribe
840
ISRAEL, ISRAELITE
ISRAEL, ISRAELITE
of Judali, and lived in the countiy of Judah, it became a wider term, after tlie return from Baby- lon, for all wlio were members of the Hebrew race. 'Israel' differed from both of these as being the name of privilege given by God to Jacob, the ancestor of the race (Gn 32=* 35'°), and the thought of the theocratic privUeges of the chosen people and of God's covenant with them always underlies the term. See csp. Mt 2«, Lk 1"- "s o;a.2i 24=', Ac P, all of which reveal the national conviction that the Messiah would come for the benefit of Israel, and that to Israel were God's attention and love especially given. But in marked contrast to such passages are those which imply that the theocratic nation has failed to fulfil the Divine purposes for it : — a Roman centurion exhibits greater faith than was to be found in the holy nation (Mt 8" II Lk 7') ; the house of Israel are as a whole ' lost sheep ' (Mt 10^ 15") ; they need some- one to turn them to the Lord their God (Lk 1'") ; an honoured and oHicial teacher of Israel is shown to be ignorant of the fundamental principles of the spiritual life (Jn 3"") ; incidents in the OT prove that some Gentiles received God's care and bless- ing, and were preferred to Israelites (Lk 4==-=") ; and a mysterious intimation is given of the supremacy of the Church of Christ hereafter (Mt 19-8 II Lk 22^") ; it is character, and not theocratic privileges, that makes a man 'truly an Israelite' ( Jn 1«). See Nathanael. Thus the Gospels teach incidentally what St. Paul lays down categorically : {a) that Israel does not comprise all who are of Israel (Ro 9") ; (6) that the privileged position of Israel is to be taken by Christians, for the latter are ' the Israel of God ' (Gal 6'^ cf. Eph 2"-'3) ; (c) that this is for the purpose of ultimately restoring Israel to spiritual communion and salvation (Ro 9-11).
2. The status of the chosen people liefore God is to be taken by Christians. But that does not mean that Christianity is merely to be substituted for Judaism. Cliristianity is not a completely new creation fallen from heaven, but rather a growth from the religion of Israel— a growth far surpassing the germ from which it sprang, as an oak surpasses an acorn, but yet composed of ele- ments which are discernible in the earlier dispensa- tion in a rudimentary form. In order, therefore, to estimate the relation in which the Gospels, and particularly our Lord's teaching, stood towards Israel, it is necessary to estimate broadly how much the New was indebted to the Old, and how much it discarded in rising out of it with its Divine and potent growth.
(a) Monotheism was the chief est glory of J>idai.sm. Part of the inspiration of the people of Israel is seen in its ' genius for religion,' the capacity for realizing the supreme and only existence of God. A step towards this had been monolatry, the national adhesion to one Deity only, which was compatible with the recognition that other nations and lands were under the protection of other deities (Jg U-*, 1 S 26'9). But it was not long before the Hebrew prophets taught that Jeliovali was the God of all the nations of the earth, a spiritual Being whose service was incumbent ujion all mankind, that service consisting not primarily in ritual but in morality. And this truth is the very fibre of Christianity; a Christian is in the truest sense a Unitarian. ' Jesus answered, "The chief [commandment] is — Hear O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord ; and tliou shalt love the Lord thy God'" (Mk 12»). But even in tlie OT there are not wanting intimations that the God- head is not a ' monotonous unity,' but that there are distinctions witliin It ; e.g. ' tlie Angel of Jali- weli or of God,' i.e. His presence manifesting itself in outward act (Ex 3= 14'" 22=*) ; ' the Captain of