British Israelism - an expose

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.

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".

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."

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

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

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

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?

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.

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.

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) :

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.

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

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.

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 !

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.

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".

I don't mean to sound like I'm rebuking you if you believe in the inspired word of God. Your post to me seemed to indicate that you did not. You are certainly more of a pleasure to converse with then some here. I know at times I come off sounding terse. Unfortunately that is my writing style and this media.

If we agree that the Northern Tribe settled in Assyria at least for the time being then we have to consider what happened AFTER Judah was led away into captivity and RETURNED to Jerusalem. This is laid out in Ezra and Nehimiah. Please consider the following:

Ezr 6:21 The sons of Israel who returned from exile and all those who had separated themselves from the impurity of the nations of the land to join them, to seek the LORD God of Israel, ate the Passover.

Ezr 8:18 According to the good hand of our God upon us they brought us a man of insight of the sons of Mahli, the son of Levi, the son of Israel, namely Sherebiah, and his sons and brothers, 18 men;

Neh 1:6 let Your ear now be attentive and Your eyes open to hear the prayer of Your servant which I am praying before You now, day and night, on behalf of the sons of Israel Your servants, confessing the sins of the sons of Israel which we have sinned against You; I and my father's house have sinned.

Neh 2:10 When Sanballat the Horonite and Tobiah the Ammonite official heard about it, it was very displeasing to them that someone had come to seek the welfare of the sons of Israel.

Neh 8:17 The entire assembly of those who had returned from the captivity made booths and lived in them. The sons of Israel had indeed not done so from the days of Joshua the son of Nun to that day. And there was great rejoicing.

There are far many more verses about the "return" of the sons of Israel in Ezra and Nehimiah. This is NOT dogma. It is historical fact as laid out in the scriptures.

No doubt there were members of all tribes connected to Judah...and some of Judah who joined unto Israel. Just like in the civil war, some Confederates were northern sympathizers with the south and some southerners joined to the north.

Yet something else also happened after the return of the Babylonian exile. Israel had already been given their papers of divorce, now the brotherhood is being broken.

Zech 11:14 Then I cut asunder mine other staff, even Binders, that the brotherhood between Judah and Israel might be broken.

The house of Israel was settled in Assyria, not really captive but as land tenants. Many became very successful there and remained. Many eventually left and as Hoshea says Israel was swallowed up among the nations.

Yet even during the time of the Apostles, the house of Israel was still dispersed as James states in the intro to his epistle. Even Yeshua says "I am sent only for the lost sheep of the house of Israel." Why? They were those who had been divorced from covenant and must be redeemed by a kinsman. Judah was never divorced, not because they didn't err just as bad as Israel, but because the promise was that Messiah would come through the lineage of David.

Essentially, we know that this great ingathering has not taken place since the prophets describe it as a day that shall be exceeding great, that when Judah and Israel are united, never again shall they be driven from the land and that they shall all know YHWH. Blessings

Sorry Floyd, we’re not getting anywhere with this conversation.

I've pointed to 2 Kings 17-18 to show you where Israel settled but you say not all settled there although you’ve offer no historical evidence nor scriptural references. I’ve offered numerous quotes from Nehemiah and Ezra saying the sons of Israel returned and you said the meaning has changed although Neh 9:2 clearly says “The descendants of Israel” not “the descendants of Judah”. Nehemiah and Ezra don’t make this distinction and offered up passages of Bible verses to support this claim but you ignore what is offer saying that “We have to do better than just throw Bible verses at each other like throwing bumper stickers.” Seems to me I’m the one throwing out the verses and you’re the one finding excuses-any-excuse.

I don't play these types of games. There's not enough space or time for me to do a thorough examination of Ezra and Nehemiah or the history of the northern tribe here. In none of your writings do I see any Biblical support for your theory nor have you offered any. You’ve alluded to Hosea 1:10-11 which tells of Judah and Israel coming together but I’m not sure how this relates to the USA. All my references you dismissed biblical authors as having "fanciful" interpretations or you’ve question the validity of scripture themselves even though all scripture is inspired by God.

Surprisingly enough, you don’t seem to have a problem with the validity of Herbert Armstrong.

I'm saying it's reasonable and evidentuary to theorize that the NK ended up in Europe.

Not really -- around 700 B.C. europe was mostly barbaric -- including Greece. The Isrealites came from civilised lands in the middle east. To move into Europe would mean confronting those barbaric tribes -- the easiest route for them would be back south to Israel. The next easy route would be by sea across the Persian Gulf to Oman or India (South India's Bene Israelies). Europe would have been too dangerous and not logical at all.

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.

Well put. I think all of this searching for whether we are descended from ISraelites or not deviates from Christ's message -- he came for ALL people: Jews and Gentiles. This dogma seems to teach that those not descended from Israel are doomed -- and that would include Christian Copts, Ethiopians, Europeans, Asians, native Americans etc.

If you want to take it from a scientific perspective that's fine, but don't intersperse your points with religious prophecies. If you want to take it from a religious perspective, that's also fine, and it's a pernicious dogma as I stated above

Only huge groups of people like the Asians, Africans, Arabs, Indians and Caucasians meet the test. But Asians are not Israelites. Africans and Indians are not Israelites. Arabs may be Semites but they make no claim to being Israelites and trace their roots specifically away from Jacob-Israel. That leaves only the Caucasians. Jews classify themselves as Caucasians which gives us a launching point to find their cousins who may reasonably be expected to look a lot like them.

You've made a mistake: CAucasians = Indo-Europeans + Semites. SEmites = Jews + Arabs. Indo-European = Indians, Iranis, Europeans.

If a large random sample of these self-acknowledged Israelites are given American/European haircuts and clothes and mingled into the crowds on the streets of New York City who do these people who classify themselves as Caucasians most look like?

Look at the Yemeni Jews, the Egyptian Jews etc. who did NOT move to Europe when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem. These look like Southern Arabians and are dark skinned. tHese are what Biblical Jews would have looked like -- paler than the Egyptians, but not as fair as Iranis. tHeir features are clearly depicted on the carvings in Assyrian structures depicting the captivity

And Another of King Jehu bowing before Shalmaneser

all details from here

The Tubol and Rus extensions make more sense than Samaria to Samurai extension.

The Japanese word is read Sa-mu-rai, whereas the root of the former is Sam-a-ri-a. Completely different etymologies.

The closest I could summise, without justification, would be maybe a foreigner enters Japanese culture, describes his history in his language and the host country attempts to translate the foreign word into their language. Of course, Japan isn't known for receiving foreigners before the last 2 centuries very amicably, let alone in the status of 'Samurai'. This is also confirmed by Japanese history. From http://www.campusprogram.com/reference/en/wikipedia/s/sa/samurai.html#Etymology%20of%20Samurai we read:

The word samurai has its origins in the pre-Heian period Japan when it was pronounced saburai, meaning servant or attendant. It was not until the early modern period, namely the Azuchi-Momoyama period and early Edo period of the late 16th and early 17th centuries that the word saburai became substituted with samurai. However, by then, the meaning had already long before changed.

A different etymologu is provided for Samaria from the same website:

"Samaria (Hebrew Shomron) is a term used for the mountainous Northern part of the West Bank. In modern times, the name "Samaria" is most often used by Zionists. Others prefer to use the collective name "West Bank" rather than "Judea and Samaria".

The phrases "sons of Israel", "children of Israel", "Israelites" etc have slightly different but very specific meanings in the Bible as a function of the time in which they are used. Meanings do change with time, and with context.

You can't chop and change and make your own interpretations at each stage. Sons of Israel means the entire 12 tribes, not just Judah. ALL returned and were united under the Maccabbees. Were they a large number? YES. Were they as numerous as the sands of the sea -- if you take it factually, there are trillions of grains of sand on ANY beach -- all of humanity who have ever lived would never be equal to that number. If you take it metaphorically, then, YES, the numbers that returned from Exile were large, very large (in those times, a city would be large if it had a few thousand inhabitants)

You can't chop and change and make your own interpretations at each stage. Sons of Israel means the entire 12 tribes, not just Judah.

Actually, sons or children of Israel can mean all 12 tribes, or just the northern kingdom of Israel, or even several other possible uses.

Jer 50:4 "In those days and at that time," declares YHWH, "the sons of Israel will come, both they and the sons of Judah as well; they will go along weeping as they go, and it will be YHWH their God they will seek.

ALL returned and were united under the Maccabbees.

This just does not fit prophesy. When they are united, they shall never be uprooted again and all shall know YHWH. One King shall be over them all. This ingathering is a day and time prophesied to be so great, that it would greatly overshadow Moses and the exodus from Egypt. Such a day certainly has never happened.

Blessings

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.