[¹] The Crisis, and Way of Escape. An Appeal for the Oldest of the Oppressed,... London:... 1856.... (pp. 5–6).
The Christian propaganda for the Restoration of Israel made further progress. Even those who felt disinclined to connect the events of the time with any particular prediction were ready to admit that these events were coming as something more decisive in history than anything that had happened since the Reformation. “With such impressions abroad, the multitude of treatises on prophetic subjects soon exceeded all precedent;...”[¹]
[¹] The Restoration of the Jews:... By David Brown, D.D., ... Edinburgh.... London. 1861 (p. 60).
“What most surprises us is, that a ritual of worship, so like the Mosaic ceremonial, should again be restored by divine appointment,... For we read of all the various offerings of the Levitical economy;... We can only reply:—Such is the divine pleasure.”[¹] But this one Divine is not the only precursor of Rabbi Hirsch Kalischer in this idea; there were others who believed in it. The Rev. Capel Molyneux (1804–1877) announced the restoration of the Mosaic sacrifices, and explained its necessity from a Christian point of view.[²] The most curious and interesting opinion is that of a Swiss Protestant divine, Carl August Auberlen (1824–1864) of Basle:—“Israel is again to be at the head of all humanity.... In the Old Testament the whole Jewish national life was religious; but only in an external legal manner ... in the millennial kingdom, all spheres of life will be truly Christianized outwardly from within. From this point of view it will not be offensive to say that the Mosaic ceremonial law corresponds to the priestly office of Israel—the civil law to its kingly office. The Gentile Church could only adopt the moral law; in like manner her sole influence is by the word working inwardly, by exercising the prophetic office. But when the royal and priestly office shall be revived, then ... the ceremonial and civil law of Moses also will develop its spiritual depths in the Divine worship and in the constitution of the millennial kingdom,” etc.[³] In a word, the Jews have to be restored, and to live according to their Law, which, as the learned professor believes, will “develop spiritual depths,” an idea which the most orthodox Jew would accept, and which is even more conservative than that of some of the Talmudists, who maintain that the ritual prescriptions Mizvoth will be abolished in the Messianic age.
[¹] The Second Advent;... The Restoration of Israel—.... By the Rev. John Fry, B.A.... In Two Volumes.... London:... 1822 (vol. i., p. 583).
[²] Israel’s Future.... By the Rev. Capel Molyneux, B.A.—London:... (pp. 257–258).
p. vi., 68, Gloucester Terrace, Hyde Park, July 17, 1852.
[³] The Prophecies of Daniel ... with an exposition on the principal passages. By Carl August Auberlen,... Translated by the Rev. Adolph Saphir. Edinburgh:... MDCCCLVI.
Exaggerations of this kind may have stimulated the opposition which was represented by the Rev. Dr. William Urwick (1791–1868) (the elder),[¹] the Rev. Dr. Ebenezer Henderson[²] (1784–1858), Professor Joseph Addison Alexander[³] (1809–1860), the Rev. Patrick Fairbairn[⁴] (1805–1874), Dr. Thomas Arnold[⁵] (1795–1842), Head Master of Rugby, and many representatives of the so-called Spiritual school, who were strongly opposed to these Judaizing tendencies. They endeavoured to transform the plain statements of the Bible into airy visions, and explained all the names (Israel, Jerusalem, etc.) in a peculiar way. Thus it is to the “spiritual” Christian and not to the natural Jew that the name of Israel belongs, as it is the Roman and the Greek to whom alone the promises of Restoration to the Holy Land were made, and not the “seed of Abraham.” In fact, the Spiritualists are far from being consistent. They would, for instance, spiritualize the Israel which is blessed, and accept in a literal sense the Israel that is cursed. A departure from the literal meaning of words has always proved a source of error and confusion, as words are often taken literally when they agree with certain theories, allegorically when they do not—a process by which the Bible may be made to say something to please everybody. Spiritualistic interpreters, as a rule, go to the Bible to find support for their own views, rather than to be guided by the standard of the Word as to whether they be correct or not. Where they find what they want, the Bible is plain, where they do not, it is difficult; and they have to have recourse to the expedient of what is called “spiritualizing” the Word, a term imposing enough, but most inapplicable—carnalizing would be a far more suitable designation of the process.
[¹] The Second Advent.... By William Urwick, D.D. Dublin:... MDCCCXXXIX.