British Israelism - an expose

David M. Williams' Theological Essays ^ | David M. Williams

[Destro]

British Israelism - an expose

OVERVIEW

Anglo-Israelism (also known as British Israelism) is the unscriptural theory that Britain and the United States constitutes the 10 lost tribes of Israel who were carried away as captives by the Assyrians in 722 B.C. It is held by the advocates of this view that the Kingdom of Israel (consisting of ten tribes after their separation from the two tribes of Judah and Benjamin in the days of Rehoboam - I Kings 12:21) never returned to Israel after Assyrian captivity as did Judah and Benjamin after their 70 years' captivity in Babylon.

The ten tribes of the Northern Kingdom (Israel) are "lost" after their capture by the Assyrians in 722 B.C. Through intermarriage with other nations, their unique national identity is "lost", Great Britian and the USA are believed to be the Anglo-Saxon ancestors of the tribes Ephraim and Manasseh (predominantly), so it may be inferred by British-Israelism that white, English speaking people are really the chosen people of God.

It is also believed that the Jews who were living in Israel at the time of Christ are now under a curse for rejecting the Messiah. The Israelites (the lost 10 tribes) now become the inheritors of God's promises. Ephraim and Manasseh (the two sons of Joseph) are the major inheritors of the title "Israelites" along with the other eight tribes whose descendants are spread in other parts of the world. Because of this dispersal, it is believed that the Queen of England now sits on the throne of David.

This theory was first put forward around the year 1519.

Some of the main features of this theory are :-

1. The period of "political instability" caused when the Babylonians conquered Assyria around 650 B.C., allowed the 10 tribes to escape to the north and east.

2. They fled past the Black Sea, the Carpathian Mts. into Russia, Scandinavia, Prussia, Germany and then to Great Britain.

3. After the Babylonian captivity, only Judah and Benjamin returned to Israel. This created a "problem" to British Israelism theology in that the royal line had to come from the tribe of Judah (which returned to the south after the Babylonian captivity). Royalty was said to have been brought to the ten tribes by the following sequence of events :

4. "The kingly line of Judah (Genesis 49:10) reached Britain when a daughter of Zedekiah, the last king of Judah before the fall of Jerusalem, arrived with Jeremiah in 569 B.C. This princess, Tea-Tephi, married the king of Ireland, who also happened to be a descendant of Judah through Zarah, Judah's younger son (Genesis 38:30), and so both branches of the kingly line were established as the Royal House of Ireland. This kingdom was transferred to Scotland and then to England with James I (James VI of Scotland) in 1603. Queen Elizabeth II of Great Britian, therefore is a direct descendant of King David and recipient of his throne." (D. Olinger, _British Israelism_, Bob Jones University Press)

5. "Jeremiah also brought with him in 569 B.C. the liafail, or Jacob's pillow-stone (Genesis 28:18) which had been used as the coronation stone of the kings of Judah (II Kings 11:14 - "pillar"). This stone now rests in the royal coronation chair of Great Britain in Westminster Abbey. All kings and queens of Great Britain are crowned while sitting on this chair." (D. Olinger)

6. The transfer of the kingdom from James VI of Scotland/James I England (who was of the house of Tudor) to the present queen (Elizabeth II) who is of the house of Windsor, was achieved through a distant relative, the king of Bohemia, and then back through George I into the house of Windsor. This, British Israelists say, completes the lineage back to King David.

7. The eventual emigration to America was said to have occurred with the pilgrims on the Mayflower.

Because the Northern and Southern tribes are believed to have separated, there is therefore a great emphasis placed on the distinction that British Israelists say exists between the use of the terms "Israel" and "Judah".

Herbert W. Armstrong states :

we want to impress here that Israel and Judah are not two names for the same nation. They were and still are, and shall be until the Second Coming of Christ, two separate nations. The House of Judah always means Jews. This distinction is vital if we are to understand prophecy. Because most so-called Bible students are ignorant of this basic distinction they are unable to rightly understand prophecy! The next place where the term "Jew" is mentioned in the Bible, the House of Israel had been drawn out in captivity, lost from view, and the term only applies to those of the House of Judah. There are no exceptions in the Bible.

Now, once an unscriptural perspective has been taken, the next step is to find a scripture which will support that doctrine. The key verses for British Israelism is II Kings 17:18-23 - "Therefore the Lord was angry with Israel and removed them out of His sight, there was none left but the tribe of Judah only." Here "out of His sight" is interpreted as "disappeared into oblivion". "There was none left but the tribe of Judah only" is interpreted as "the descendants of Judah are the only tribes in existence today."

EVIDENCE FOR THE MIGRATION OF ISRAEL TO THE NORTH AND EAST

Geographical Names.

There are many names of towns in Europe which have names similar in sound to the "lost" tribes, e.g. Danube, Dneister, Don, Dneiper, Denmark, Danzig are claimed to be possible towns through which the tribe of Dan passed.

However, by this piece of evidence, it could be suggested that Dan also went through Vietnam - Danang, DienBien Phu, Don Duong and so forth.

Abraham's Name.

Abraham's name was to be called "Great" (Gensis 12:2). British Israelists believe this is why the name "Great Britain" arose.

The White Cliffs.

In Isaiah 66:19 the word "Tarshish" means "white border". This is taken as referring to the White Cliffs of Dover.

The Dream.

The apocyryphal book of II Esdras describes a dream in chapter 13 in which there is a miraculous parting of the Euphrates river into Armenia where the 10 tribes seemingly remain. However this evidence must be disregarded as Josephus records in Antiquities XI v2 that the ten tribes of the captivity were still in Mesopotamia in the first century AD after Esdras was written, and 750 years after British Israelists claim that they had left for the north and the east.

The Union Jack.

The Union Jack is claimed to be an abbreviation for "union of Jacob". The Oxford English Dictionary states that the Union Jack was so named because of its size - apparantly "jack" was the word used to denote anything small.

Isaac = Saxon and British = Men of the Covenant

By removing the letter "I" from Isaac, Herbert Armstrong derives the word "saac" which combines with the word "son" to form "Saxon", i.e. "British". His logic is that "I" should be removed as the Hebrews omitted the vowels in their writing. This of course, should also require the "a"'s to be removed. The name "Isaac" is in reality anyway a latinsed form of the Hebrew name "Yitschak" (as in the late Yitschak Rabin), which would be significantly more difficult for Armstrong to twist. "Berith" is Hebrew for the word "Covenant" while "Ish" is Hebrew for "man". If you join the two, British Israelists claim you obtain the word "British" which means "men of the Covenant". There is, however, no significant relationship between Hebrew and English.

Herodatus.

A vital piece of information can be seen from the historical records of Herodatus. He claims that a fair-haired, fair-skinned people settled on the shores of the Black Sea (there is, however, no evidence to connect the ten dark-haired, olive-skinned tribes with those recorded by Herodatus). There is absolutely no connection between the ten tribes in Mesopotamia and the tribes around the Black Sea.

EVIDENCE AGAINST THE MIGRATION TO THE NORTH AND EAST

The Stone of Scone.

British Israelists make the claim that the stone under the coronation chair is the stone that the builders rejected. God strictly forbade the use of hewn stones in altars (Exodus 20:25). This stone was probably not the coronation altar of the Old Testament kings.

Secondly, however, Professor A.C. Ramsey of the Geology Department of London University inspected the stone and identified it as red sandstone, probably of Scottish origin. The nearest red sandstone to Bethel, where Jacob found his stone is in Petra, nearly one hundred miles to the south; the stone around Bethel where Jacob slept is white limestone.

Israel = Jews = Hebrews

From Genesis chapters 1 to 11, God is working on a whole world basis. In Genesis 12 God begins to work through a man named Abram (later Abraham). The term "Hebrew" was first applied to Abraham and could also be applied to all of his physical descendants (Genesis 14:13). The term "Israel" was introduced in connection with Abraham's grandson, Jacob (Genesis 32:28).

A third term "Judah" was used in relation to one of Jacob's sons (Genesis 29:35) - Judah was still part of "Israel" - Genesis 49:28 - "All these are the twelve tribes of Israel."

The term "Jew" was derived from the name of Judah and was first used in II Kings 16:6.

A member of the tribe of Judah was called a "Jew", and as a descendant of Jacob he was also called an "Israelite"; and as a descendant of Abraham he was also called a "Hebrew". All of these terms were applied to the apostle Paul (Philippians 3:5; Acts 21:39; 22:3; II Corinthians 11:22).

The division of Solomon's Kingdom made it common to use the name "Israel" in referring to the ten Northern Tribes and to use the name "Judah" in referring to the two Southern tribes.

EVIDENCE AGAINST THE MIGRATION TO BRITAIN

The Assyrians deported the majority of the captured people of the Northern Kingdom and mixed the remainder with five other nations (Babylon, Ava, Hamath, Sepharvain and Cuthah). It was a military tactic for subduing the conquered people. It was this mixture of the nations that made the full-blooded Jews avoid dealings with the Samaritans.

Some authors take the position that since the word "tribe" (shebet) is also translated "sceptre" in several passages (e.g. Genesis 49:10) it may refer to the ruling class, or the leadership, rather than the entire population. This theory may be supported by the fact that Sargon II himself claimed to deport only 27,290 people. Sargon's inscription describing the deportation has been found at Khorsabad in modern-day Iraq (see James B. Pritchard, _Ancient Near Eastern Texts_, 1950 ed., p.284-5).

This means that not all of the ten tribes were taken into captivity by the Assyrians but rather that some remained who were never "lost".

SPECIAL FEATURES ABOURT THE DISPERSAL OF THE JEWS

a) They were scattered among the nations, however they have always managed to keep their unique national identity. Numbers 23:9 (not reckoning itself among the nations) and Hosea 8:4-8 speaks specifically of Israel, the Northern Kingdom.

b) Compared with the populations of other countries, they are relatively few in number (Deuteronomy 4:27). Their population can certainly not be compared with the 4-6 hundred million of the British Isles/USA. There is no more heterogeneous nation in the world than that of the United States. Or did the "Ephraimites" (Englishmen) become "Manassites" merely by crossing the ocean in the Mayflower?

c) Did the dispersal of the "ten lost tribes" disorient them enough to start writing from left to right instead of right to left as was done for centuries?

THE KEY VERSE EXPLAINED

In the Palestinian Covenant there is a very special place for the Hebrews. To be out of His sight, indicates removal from _Palestine_ (Israel), i.e. to be relocated or dispersed. The strict keeping of genealogical records by the Hebrews would also prevent them from being "lost" and tends to indicate that they were a tightly knit community which did not mix with the Gentiles.

DID THEY REALLY ESCAPE?

When Babylon conquered Assyria, the slaves did not escape but rather had a change of masters. This may seem too simplistic a solution but there is much evidence for it in the numbers of the ten tribes that returned to Israel.

SPIRITUAL REFUGEES

The books of Ezra and Nehemiah tell of those who returned to Jerusalem, and the book of Esther tells of those who remained at Babylon. If the tribes have really been lost then all further records of their existance would not be available. It will therefore be necessary to examine what happened prior to the captivity by Assyria and Babylon in order to see who returned from these captivities.

The following scriptures give direct evidence that the Southern Kingdom of Judah was in fact a mixture of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin (about which all agree) and the other ten tribes (which were religious "refugees" from the Northern Kingdom) :

II Chronicles 11:13-17 - spitual refugees from the North

II Chronicles 15:9 - 913-872 B.C. during the reign of Asa

These scriptures show that many from _all Israel_ left the Northern Kingdom a long time before the Assyrian captivity. Therefore the Southern Kingdom now was occupied by all twelve tribes. Members from these twelve tribes returned after the Babylonian captivity to Israel and were never "lost".

Other scriptures include II Chronicles 17:2; 24:5; 30:1-7, 11, 18, 25; 31:1, 2, 6; 34:1-9; II Kings 25:6-12. Which tribes did return from the captivity to build the temple, the walls, and the city itself? Ezra refers to God's regathered people as Israelites 40 times and as Jews 8 times. Nehemiah refers to God's regathered people as Israelites 22 times and as Jews 11 times. Apart from this, the term "all Israel" is used in Ezra 2:70; 6:17; 8:25, 35; 10:5 and in Nehemiah 7:73; 12:47.

It is therefore evident that the terms "Jew" and "Israel" are interchangeable. If Jesus Christ is only "King of the Jews" (the tribe of Judah only) in Matthew 27:37, then He is not the one that is the Messiah.

The Messiah needs to be "King of Israel" (the twelve tribes) - Matthew 27:42.

SPECIFIC SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE OF THE RETURN OF THE TRIBES

The following are just some of the many verses possible :

Ezra 2:5 Arah from the tribe of Asher - I Chronicles 7:39, 40

2:10 Bani from the tribe of Gad - Nehemiah 7:15

2:21 Bethlehem from the tribe of Zebulum - Joshua 19:15-16

2:26 Ramah from the tribe of Nephtala - Joshua 19:32-39

2:29 Nebo from the tribe of Reuben - I Chronicles 5:1-8

Luke 2:36 Asher in the Lord

Acts 26:6-7 The twelve tribes

James 1:1 The twelve tribes

I Peter 1:1 The twelve tribes

Revelation 7:4-8 Jews sealed in the middle of the seven years of great tribulation. Dan is replaced by Levi, but Dan does reappear during the millenial reign of Christ

Romans 11:26 All Israel will be saved, as it is written.

All Israel (not just Judah as British-Israelism contends) is temporarily set aside until the "fullness of the Gentiles come in" according to Romans 11:25-27.

BRITISH ISRAELISM DISTORTS PROPHECY

Adherents of British Israelism appear to have a propensity for date-setting. Lt. Col. W.G. MacKendrick in his book, "The destiny of the British Empire and the USA (1921), dated Armageddon from 1928 to 1936. He further states that the US should seek help from Japan in the battle, since the Japanese, too, are Israelites (as "samurai" sounds like "Samaria") (D. Olinger).

Literally scores of prophecies and promises would have to be ignored or "spiritualised" in order to "make them fit" the British-Israel scheme of things, for example, Deuteronomy 4:27-31; Amos 9:11-15; Hosea 1:10-11; 2:14-23; 3:4-5; Isaiah 2:1-4; 14:1-3; Ezekiel 20:33-44; 34:11-31; 34:40-48; Micah 4:1-7; 7:9-20; Zechariah 2:4-13; 3:1-10; 8:1-23; 8:12-14.

The first 69 "weeks" of Daniel's vision (Daniel 9) applies specifically to the nation of Israel. The seventieth week likewise is specifically for the Israelites. Much of God's dealings with these people will be distorted if one is not even looking at the proper nation to whom the promises apply !

ONE KINGDOM, ONE KING

In Ezekiel 37:15-28 God promises that He will unite all twelve tribes in the last days as part of His Covenant of Peace with them. This prophecy would be difficult to bring to pass if the populations of Great Britain, America, etc. needed to fit in the area from the River Nile to the Euphrates.

CONCLUSION

British Israelism is an erroneous teaching. However, its main danger is the plethora of consequences it has. To hold to British-Israelism means that one not only ignores factual history, but has to interpret significant portions of the Bible in a new "spiritualised" (i.e. allegorical) manner. It leads one to a false understanding of God's purposes for Israel and the Jewish people, and causes one to distort significant prophetical passages in the Bible.

I Timothy 1:4 " ... take no heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in the faith".

davidmwilliams@geocities.com

[P-Marlowe]

I suspect that British-Israelism derives itself from hyperdispensationalism.

More likely from the Legends of King Arthur:

ARTHUR:

There! Look!

LAUNCELOT:

What does it say?

GALAHAD:

What language is that?

ARTHUR:

Brother Maynard! You are a scholar.

MAYNARD:

It's Aramaic!

GALAHAD:

Of course! Joseph of Arimathea!

LAUNCELOT:

'Course!

ARTHUR:

What does it say?

MAYNARD:

It reads, 'Here may be found the last words of Joseph of Arimathea. He who is valiant and pure of spirit may find the Holy Grail in the Castle of aaaaaagggh'.

ARTHUR:

What?

MAYNARD:

'...The Castle of aaaaaagggh'.

BEDEVERE:

What is that?

MAYNARD:

He must have died while carving it.

LAUNCELOT:

Oh, come on!

MAYNARD:

Well, that's what it says.

ARTHUR:

Look, if he was dying, he wouldn't bother to carve 'aaaaaggh'. He'd just say it!

MAYNARD:

Well, that's what's carved in the rock!

GALAHAD:

Perhaps he was dictating.

ARTHUR:

Oh, shut up. Well, does it say anything else?

MAYNARD:

No. Just 'aaaaaagggh'.

LAUNCELOT:

Aaaauugggh.

ARTHUR:

Aaaaaggh.

[xzins]

Probably right.

Probably King Arthur's fault.

[ladyinred]

This is a particularly disgusting doctrine IMO.

[jude24]

And that is how we know the world to be bananna-shaped....

[P-Marlowe]

And that is how we know the world to be bananna-shaped....

That is my favorite line.

[HarleyD]

I didn't mean to imply that Judah did not have their share of problems. Only that Jeroboam started the “ten tribes” of Israel down the evil path as soon as they part company with Judah creating golden calves for the people to worship, developing fake religious holidays, creating altars, and attempting to kill God's prophets. All the bad kings are compared to Jeroboam (e.g. and King so-in-so did what was evil in the sight of the Lord following in the ways of Jeroboam). Interesting enough, God took home Jeroboam’s son, Abijah, home because “something good was found” in him towards the Lord. God didn’t want Jeroboam’s good son exposed to Jeroboam’s evil.

The first prophesy for God destruction of Israel comes at this time when He says:

For the Lord will strike Israel, as a reed is shaken in the water; and He will uproot Israel from this good land which He gave to their fathers, and will scatter them beyond the Euphrates River, because they have made their Asherim, provoking the Lord to anger. He will give up Israel on account of the sins of Jeroboam, which he committed and with which he made Israel to sin.” 1 Kings 14:15-16

Again:

The sons of Israel walked in all the sins of Jeroboam which he did; they did not depart from them until the Lord removed Israel from His sight, as He spoke through all His servants the prophets. So Israel was carried away into exile from their own land to Assyria until this day. 2 Kings 17:21

Again:

Then the king of Assyria carried Israel away into exile to Assyria, and put them in Halah and on the Habor, the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes, because they did not obey …” 2 Kings 18:11

It’s absurd to think there was some type of special blessing to the ten tribes of Israel. They never lived a godly life from day one. And Israel was never lost as we can see from 2 Kings 17-18. Someone seemed to know where Israel went.

[HarleyD]

Perhaps I wasn't clear. I was WRONG.

That being said, to say that Israel received blessings for their transgressions or that no one knew where Israel was sent is equally wrong (per verses I have quoted). I'll wait to hear you admit that you're wrong.

[HarleyD]

"They also received this joint promise in Hosea 1:10-11 10 Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered;

Last time I looked we were measured and numbered. It's called the US census.

Hosea is a foretelling of the reformation of Israel which occurred with Nehemiah and Ezra. We are not the "children of Judah and children of Israel" unless we're of Jewish descent. I think I would have a number of Jews who would agree with me.

"Which of the worlds great population groups today do you believe are the children of Israel as promised above?"

None. Both Jews and Gentiles who believe in the Lord Jesus are children of the promise. We're called Christians and our homeland is not of this world.

[HarleyD]

"The United States of America was initially populated almost entirely by some of the children of Israel from various parts of Europe."

And no other nation I suppose had "children of Israel".

Hosea 1:10 certainly is a very specific example of a very special blessing promise given only to the ten tribes of the Northern Kingdom of Israel.

The term "sons of Israel" which is how it is referenced in Hosea 1:10 is used 605 times in the Old Testament in the NASB version. It does not always refer solely to the ten tribes. So my question is how can you distinguish who are the "sons of Israel" talked about in Hosea?

"However it is classic Biblical relationships based on specific Bible verses that are the point of this inquiry."

I've noticed you've conventently ignored my above references especially about where the children of Israel where settled in 1 Kings 17-18.

[Zack Attack]

HarleyD:
The term "sons of Israel" which is how it is referenced in Hosea 1:10 is used 605 times in the Old Testament in the NASB version. It does not always refer solely to the ten tribes. So my question is how can you distinguish who are the "sons of Israel" talked about in Hosea?

Floyd R Turbo:
My Error! Your point. I was thinking other verses while attributing this one. {sigh.}.

While the early part of this chapter divides the Israelites into North and South, verse 10 is referring to ALL the offspring of Israel. It is NOT exclusive to the northern tribes. All Israelites are included in this "sands of the sea" numbering.

Floyd, I would say no error at all. Hoshea was a prophet to the northern kingdom of Israel. In verses 1-9 YHWH prophesied through him to the northern kingdom by 3 children. Jezreel(God will sow), Lo Ruchamah(No Mercy) and Lo Ammi(Not My People). Here it is being said that Israel(northern kingdom), YHWH will sow their seed into the nations, they will no longer receive mercy and will not be a people unto Him. Verse 10 says that YHWH is speaking to those to whom He said "you are not My people", the northern kingdom of Israel.

Hoshea 1:10-11
(10) Yet the number of the sons of Israel will be like the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured or numbered; And in the place where it is said to them, "You are not My people," it will be said to them, "You are the sons of the living God."
(11) And the sons of Judah and the sons of Israel will be gathered together, and they will appoint for themselves one leader, and they will go up from the land, for great will be the day of Jezreel.

Verses 10-11 tell that this curse will not be forever. The promise of fruitfulness lies with Ephraim, whose descendants were to become a "fullness of the gentiles", a phrase that Paul picks up on in Romans, this same promise of blessing given to Abraham who would be a father of many nations.

Hoshea restates this in chapter 2.

Hoshea 2:23
And I will sow her unto me in the earth; and I will have mercy upon her that had not obtained mercy; and I will say to them that were not my people, Thou art my people; and they shall say, Thou art my God.

Peter picks up on the Hoshea "not My people" prophecy as well.

1 Peter 2:9-10
(9) But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's own people, that you may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.
(10) Once you were no people but now you are God's people; once you had not received mercy but now you have received mercy.

Hoshea 1:11 speaks of that day when Judah and Israel will no longer be divided, but will bring about restoration and will come together under one king, Messiah, son of David. This is an important promise that will take place under the fulfillment of the New Covenant.

Many blessings

[HarleyD]

”I don't have a serious problem with this citation from 2 Kings for the simple reason that 2 Kings was written to trace the history of the kings of Israel and Judah from the time of Solomon (970-931 B.C.) to the Babylonian captivity (586 B.C.). It is not a definitive history of the Israelite people from either Israel or Judah. That doesn't mean it is not useful, it is just not the last word….Both Kings and Chronicles are well known by scholars to have "fanciful" interpretations of other things as well, and many internal conflicts. If we look closely we may find an account of Senator Kerrys time in Cambodia. (He was in Viet Nam, you know.)”

Let me interpret what you’ve just said Floyd, “If a verse doesn’t fit into my way of thinking it must not be right. Besides we know the Bible has “fanciful” interpretations.”

Sorry, I’m not buying this bridge. You may wish to build your theology on this belief but it’s foundation is all sand.

[HarleyD]

"In addition, the unknown author of 2 Kings may well have been writing based on his last available but slightly dated information...Now you can address the main points of the post: "

Sorry, Floyd. I can't answer your question because it clearly says in 2 Kings 17-18 where the Israelites settled. If you believe this is "dated information" and choose to rely upon unnamed outside sources for your beliefs then there's not much to discuss. With all loving kindness, using phrases like "dated information", "They were not reciting the word of God, merely giving their version of history", "we don't know the target market for this history or who it was tailored to please", etc calls into question your entire beliefs.

If you don't believe in the inspired Word of God we're at an impasse. I would recommend you examine yourself to see whether you are in the faith as Paul asks all of us to do. (2 Cor 13:5)