The theory is that the English, or British, are the descendants of the 'lost' Israelites, who were carried captives by the Assyrians, under Sargon, who, it is presumed, are identical with the Saxae or Scythians, who appear as a conquering host there about the same time. Quoting a summary of Anglo-Israel assertions from a standard work, we find the following: "The supposed historical connection of the ancestors of the English with the Lost Ten Tribes is deduced as follows: The Ten Tribes were transferred to Babylon about 720 B.C.; and simultaneously, according to Herodotus, the Scythians, including the tribe of the Saccae (or Saxae), appeared in the same district. The progenitors of the Saxons afterwards passed over into Denmark—the 'mark' or country of the tribe of Dan,—and thence to England. Another branch of the tribe of Dan, which remained 'in ships' (Judges 5:17) made its appearance in Ireland under the title of 'Tuatha-da-Danan.' Tephi, a descendant of the royal house of David, arrived in Ireland, according to the native legends, in 580 B.C. From her was descended Feargus More, King of Argyll, an ancestor of Queen Victoria, who thus fulfilled the prophecy that 'the line of David shall rule for ever and ever' (2. Chron. 13:5). The Irish branch of the Danites brought with them Jacob's stone, which has always been used as the Coronation stone of the Kings of Scotland and England, and is now preserved in Westminster Abbey. Somewhat inconsistently the prophecy that the Canaanites should trouble Israel (Numbers 33:55; Joshua 23:13) is applied to the Irish. 'The land of Arzareth,' to which the Israelites were transplanted (2. Esd. 13:45), is identified with Ireland by dividing the former name into two parts-the former of which is erez or 'land'; the latter, Ar, or 'Ire.'"
As to the Jews, quite a different history and destiny is marked out for them. They, as the descendants of Judah, are still under the curse. In fact, the Anglo-Israelite, by another and more mischievous method, is doing exactly what the allegorising, or so-called spiritualising school of interpreters did. The method was to apply all the promises in the Bible to the 'spiritual' Israel, or the Church, and all the curses to the literal Israel, or the Jews; but by this new system, while the curses are still left to the Jew, all the blessings are applied not even to those 'in Christ,' but indiscriminately to a nation, which, as a nation, is like the other nations of Christendom in a greater or lesser degree in a state of apostasy from God.
I shall endeavour later on to show you the baselessness of the distinction which Anglo-Israelism makes between the ultimate fates of Israel and Judah, but let me first say that the supposed historical and philological 'proofs' by which the theory is supported, most of which have no more basis in fact than fairy tales, are utterly discredited by competent authorities.
"Philology of a somewhat primitive kind," writes a prominent and learned Jew, "is also brought into support the theory; the many Biblical and quasi-Jewish names borne by Englishmen are held to prove their Israelitish origin. An attempt has been made to derive the English language itself from Hebrew. Thus, 'bairn' is derived from bar (son); 'berry' from peri (fruit); 'garden' from gedar; 'kid' from gedi; 'scale' from shekel; and 'kitten' from quiton (katon-'little '). The termination 'ish' is identified with the Hebrew ish (man); 'Spanish' means 'Spainman '; while' British' is identified with Beri-ish (man of the covenant). Perhaps the most curious of these philological identifications is that of 'jig' with chag (hag— 'festival').
In his book, David Baron mentioned a man named Edward Hine who was the author of forty-seven "Identifications," of the British Nation with Lost Israel. Some of Hine's "Heads of Identity" are as follows: "Israel must be above all other Nations"; "Israel must be a Christian people"; "Israel conquers against all odds." Other chapters deal with the "The Glory of Exemption from War"; "The Glory of Saving Millions a Year"; "The Glory of Righteous Taxation." Another claim of his was that he himself would be the "Deliverer" of the British people. "Are the British people identical with the lost Ten Tribes of Israel? And is the nation, by the identity, being led to glory? If these things are so, then where is the Deliverer? He must have already come out of Zion. He must be doing His great work; He must be among us. It is our impression that, by the glory of the work of the identity, we have come to the time of Israel's national salvation by the Deliverer out of Zion, and that Edward Hine and that Deliverer are identical."
Another claim of his was, soon after the Franco-German War of 1870-1871, that the fast approaching Gentile struggles must shortly convulse the entire Continent from one end to the other. He claimed that War would be "the most gigantic, terrible, and costly, that had ever yet been known to history." National Debts would increase enormously and the Nations would decay. But "the English people, being identical with Israel, will become entirely exempt from these warlike operations." Only the "Gentile" nations were to be punished, because during that terrible time of trouble, God's people, Israel, were to "hide themselves," withdraw from all part in the conflict, and be neutral.
But were the British People "exempt" from the two huge wars of 1914 and 1939? They certainly were not, but plunged immediately into war, determined to win, and they did win.
David Baron refers to the word "Saxon" as meaning "Isaac's-son," and says this deserves no other characterisation than child-ish. The real Hebrew name is Yitzkhaq, sounded very differently from "Isaac."
Edward Hine's "Identification the Eleventh" is quite interesting. He begins with Isaiah 28:11: "With stammering lips and another tongue will He speak to this people." Then he says, "This would be untrue if applied to Judah, the Jews almost universally using the Hebrew; and it follows, as we have proved, that it being the design of God that Israel should be lost, that if they still retained their old tongue, this in itself would frustrate the design of God; because to find any great people, upon the earth using the Hebrew language would immediately lead to their identity. The Identity again maintains: That we only, of all the nations of the earth, are doing the works of Israel, therefore must be Israel; thus the fact of our adopting the English language, and not the Hebrew, therefore using 'another tongue,' is a proof of our identity. Yet this question has to be approached ethnologically and anthropologically, both of which sciences declare language to be a principal agency in the tracing of peoples. The declared opinion of eminent scholars is, that the English language contains the roots of no less than eight hundred Hebrew words. It is not our purpose to give them here, yet we insert a few by way of illustration:
Sever Shaver Crocus CRoCuM
Sabbath Shabbath Balsam Ba Sam
Scale Shakal Garner Ga Can
Kitten Qui To N Garden Ge DaR
Goat Kid Gi Di Hob Ha B
Doe Tod Tar Ta R
Gum Ga M Light La HT
If this is meant for the declared opinion of eminent scholars, it is a most miserable proof. Edward Hine has created a sheer laughing-stock instead of a proof of identity. It could hardly be worse. Some of these supposed Hebrew terms are not real Hebrew at all.
A little farther on Hine claims that the Welsh People are a Tribe of Israel, and cannot be the descendants of ancient Britons, by the fact that they are not dying out. If the Welsh were of the ancient Briton stock, no power could have prevented them from dying out. The very fact that they increase is evidence that they cannot be a Gentile people, but must be a tribe of Israel; and the fact that their language contains so much Hebrew is a further corroboration of this truth.
Further on in his book, Edward Hine mentions a Captain Nicolls, who is asked to give his opinions. Nicolls says "As far as Devon and Cornwall (in S.W. England) are concerned, my firm belief is that the people called in history the Ancient Britons were the children of the Israelitish Captivity—part of the lost Tribes." Then he mentions various places in Cornwall. "One town is called Market Jew; and there are the names of lands, houses, farms, villages, and towns precisely the same as in vogue among the Israelites of old. Even the language of the people in Devon and Cornwall of long time was a broken Hebrew; and then throughout our country the Landmarks and the Divisions of our land were, and yet are, the same as used by Israel. Our Weights and Measures are the same; our potatoes, apples, and most kinds of fruit are sold to this day after the manner of Israel—heaped up measures, well shaken and pressed down, running over. The names of all the Prophets and all the Apostles are still in use in England." Captain Nicolls then gives lists of names of persons and their families living in England (but not in Wales, Scotland and Ireland) and our colonies, not belonging to the Jewish communities, but whose names are of Israelitish extract, and found in the Bible connected with the Lost Tribes of Israel.
But unfortunately, out of the total number of names (249) 133 are not found in the Bible. However, Captain Nicolls did admit that he was not quite sure about some of the names, as to whether they belong to Jewish families. He also stated that a very large portion of the Manners and Customs of the English are purely identical with those of Israel; that the very marks of Israel are found upon us, and upon our people alone. I do not believe any living man has seen so many different people, or walked so much, as myself. I have visited hundreds of places, and I most willingly testify, after a large experience, that I most sincerely believe that no people upon the earth so closely resemble the Lost Tribes, according to the description of their past and present, as so beautifully delineated in the Scriptures, or in any way approach to it, as do the English people. The more I examine our own race by the light afforded us in the Bible concerning Israel, the more I am persuaded that it is absolutely impossible to identify any other people but the English race with Israel, we having all the characteristics given forth as being now possessed by Israel, and which cannot be found elsewhere.
I now revert to David Baron's book, page 35: "The name of 'Jew' and 'Israelite' became synonymous terms from about the time of the Captivity. It is one of the absurd fallacies of Anglo-Israelism to presuppose that the term 'Jew' stands for a bodily descendant of 'Judah.' It stands for all those from among the sons of Jacob who acknowledged themselves, or were considered, subjects of the theocratic kingdom of Judah, which they expected to be established by the promised 'Son of David—'the Lion of the tribe of Judah-whose reign is to extend not only over 'all the tribes of the land,' but also 'from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth.'"
"That the name 'Jew,'" writes a Continental Bible scholar, "became general for all Israelites who were anxious to preserve their theocratic nationality, was the more natural, since the political independence of the Ten Tribes was destroyed." Yes, and without any hope of a restoration to a separate national existence. What hopes and promises they had were, as we have seen, linked with the Kingdom of Judah and the house of David.
Anglo-Israelism teaches that members of the Ten Tribes are never called "Jews," and that "Jews" are not "Israelites"; but both assertions are false. Who were they that came back to the land after the "Babylonian" exile? Anglo-Israelites say they were only the exiles from the southern kingdom of Judah, and call them "Jews." I have already shown this to be a fallacy, but I might add the significant fact that in the Book of Ezra this remnant is only called eight times by the name "Jews," and no less than forty times by the name "Israel." In the book of Nehemiah they are called "Jews" eleven times, and "Israel" twenty-two times. As to those who remained behind in the one hundred and twenty-seven provinces of the Persian Empire, which included all the territories of ancient Assyria, Anglo-Israelites would say they were of the kingdom of "Israel"; but in the Book of Esther, where we get a vivid glimpse of them at a period subsequent to the partial restoration under Zerubbabel and Joshua, they are called forty-five times by the name "Jews," and not once by the name "Israel."
In the New Testament the same people who are called "Jews" one hundred and seventy-four times are also called "Israel" no fewer than seventy-five times. Anglo-Israelism asserts that a "Jew" is only a descendant of Judah, and is not an "Israelite"; but Paul says more than once: "I am a man which am a Jew." Yet he says: "For I also am an Israelite." "Are they Israelites? so am I" (Acts 21:39; 22:3; Romans 11:1; 2. Cor. 11:22; Phil. 3:5).
Our Lord was of the House of David, and of the tribe of Judah after the flesh—"a Jew"; yet it says that it is of "Israel" that He came, who is "over all, God blessed for ever" (Romans 9:4-5). Devout Anna was a "Jewess" in Jerusalem, yet she was "of the tribe of Aser."
Now Edward Hine, in his book, "The British Nation Identified With Lost Israel" says on page 86 "Paul was an Israelite, and not a Jew." This is a deliberate falsehood, and shows that Hine was not a careful writer. He ought to have looked up Acts 21:39 and 22:3. He was a braggadocio, and I think he died in 1891.
The word of God uses the word Jew and Israel as a synonym; for instance, in Acts 22:3, Paul says, "I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus," yet in 2. Cor. 11:22, he says, "Are they Hebrews, so am I; are they Israelites, so am I." In Romans 11:1, "I say then, hath God cast away His people? God forbid, for I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin." And when he prays for his brethren according to the flesh, he says, "Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer for Israel is that they might be saved" (Romans 10:1). Peter addresses them as one and the same people in Acts 2:22. "Ye men of Israel hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you, by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know." It is very strange, if the Israelites were not there, how Peter could address them "Ye men of Israel," and say that our Lord was approved of God "among them," and that God did wonders by Him and signs "in the midst of them."
To show my readers to what unscriptural ways the holders of this theory resort, I will record this incident. I heard one of their speakers at a public meeting say that "Israel never crucified Christ, for how could they, if they were not there; we Israelites certainly had no hand in it; the Jews were there and they crucified Christ." After the meeting, I told the speaker that he was misleading his hearers by what he said, and I read to him scripture which proved just the opposite. Acts 2:36, "Therefore let the whole house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ."
In Acts 4:8, Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, addressing his audience said, "Ye rulers of the people and elders of Israel"; also in verse 10, "all the people of Israel."
One of their most accredited speakers, Mr. Pascoe Goard, in the "National Message" of January 26th, 1935, page 50, states that "in the time of the Apostle Paul, Israel had never heard of Christ." Yet Peter says, "The word which God sent unto the children of Israel preaching peace by Jesus Christ." That surely contradicts Mr. Pascoe Goard's statement. The Apostle Paul also contradicts the above gentleman's statement by saying that John preached before Christ's coming the Baptism of repentance to "all the people of Israel" (Acts 13:23-24), thus showing that the ten tribes were not looked upon as lost in our Lord's day, for the writers of the New Testament speak of them as being present in Palestine and the surrounding districts, and therefore addresses them as the "Children of Israel." There are no lost tribes in the Bible; our Lord is telling His disciples to "go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matthew 10:6), meaning by that, that they were spiritually like lost sheep. You will say, "Where are the tribes of Israel today?" The answer is, that the people known all over the world as Jews, numbering over sixteen million, are largely representative of all the twelve tribes; for there is sufficient evidence in the Word of God to prove that many of the people of the ten-tribed kingdom joined their brethren of the two-tribed kingdom. "And the priests and the Levities that were in all Israel resorted to him (Rehoboam) out of all their coasts. And after them, out of all the tribes of Israel, such as set their hearts to seek Jehovah the God of Israel came to Jerusalem, to sacrifice unto Jehovah, the God of their fathers".
In 2. Chron. 15:9 we read, "And he (Asa) gathered all Judah and Benjamin, and the strangers with them out of Ephraim and Manasseh, and out of Simeon; for they fell to him out of Israel in abundance when they saw that the Lord his God was with him." Surely this ought to be sufficient proof that many Israelites joined Judah. We also find that in the reign of Josiah, King of Judah, which is practically 100 years after the captivity of the ten-tribed kingdom, that there must have been real fellowship with the other two tribes; for we see that from Manasseh, Ephraim, and all the remnant of Israel, they brought money for the house of God in Jerusalem (2. Chron. 34:6-9).
When the ten-tribed kingdom was taken captive by an alien Gentile power, you may be sure the two-tribed kingdom grieved over it, and as brethren, they longed to see each other. When the two-tribed kingdom was taken to Babylon, that feeling must have increased, for then they were all under the same affliction of captivity. These captives, though in two different countries, and though 130 years elapsed between the two captivities, must have come together, for the Assyrian power fell and became subject to Babylon. In turn Babylon fell into the hand of Persia, for we notice that Cyrus is called King of Persia in Ezra 4:5; King of Babylon in 5:13; and King of Assyria in 6:22. In Nehemiah 13:6, Artaxerxes is also called King of Babylon. Even 15 years after the restoration from Babylon, we find the Medo-Persian Empire stretching over 127 provinces—from India to Ethiopia, including the ancient Babylonian and Assyrian Empires (Esther 1:1). This shows clearly that when Cyrus and his successors ruled over the Assyrian and Babylonian Empires, the whole twelve tribes must have been among their subjects. This is proved by Ezra, for when he establishes the ancient worship of Jehovah, their enemies came and wished to have a share in the building of the temple. But not only Jeshua and Zerubbabel, but also the chief of the fathers in Israel refused any compromise with their alien neighbours (Ezra 4:3; and 7:28).
That the Jews of today are representative of all the twelve tribes is also seen from the present order in the synagogue, for there you will find three kinds of Jews—the priest, the Levite and the Israelite. (The Israelite may belong to any of the ten tribes, for today they cannot tell to which they belong). This is a very old order; indeed, it dates back to Ezra's day under King Darius (see Ezra 6:16; and 7:7).
The above Scriptures do not leave room for any legendary notions and concocted theories to prove the transmigration of Israel to the British Isles, or to identify them with the pagan and piratical Saxons and Angles. The British Israel theorists must need an argument very badly if they go to such fanciful theories to prove their case as saying that the word British means, in the Hebrew, "A man of covenant." Anyone with even a little knowledge of Hebrew would not entertain such a perversion.
Any public schoolboy knows that though the etymology of the word Britannia is uncertain, most writers think it is derived from the Keltic word Brith or Brit, meaning painted, referring to the custom of the inhabitants of staining their bodies to look more fierce in battle.
Saxon, they say, means Isaacson. Let me give you the Hebrew for the son of Isaac, or Isaac's son, and see if you can find any similarity in it "BEN-YITZCHAK" or "BARYOTZCHAK." No intelligent reader will detect any likeness in the above.
They say that the British nation does possess the gates of her enemies, and we are a great multitude of peoples, and a blessing to the nations of the world. But why not be consistent and apply those promises to all Abraham's seed, for the promise was reiterated to Jacob, and Jacob had twelve sons, therefore the promises must stand good for them all, so that if the ten tribes are enjoying God's promises now, why do the other two not enjoy them? The fact is, that Israel and Judah are still not possessing their possessions; for when Christ possesses Israel (the whole twelve tribes), then, and not before then, will Israel possess her possessions. It will be when Christ comes again that this will be fulfilled.
"Behold the days come, saith Jehovah, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a king shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the world. In His day , and Israel shall dwell safely, and this is His name whereby He shall be called, Jehovah Tzidkenu, the LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS" (Jeremiah 23:5). At present neither Judah is saved, nor does Israel dwell safely, but they will be so when the king, the righteous Branch comes. The words "a nation and company of nations" are misunderstood by the Westerners, like a good many passages in this precious Eastern Book. It is Eastern language, and they are not Western ideas of nations and kings.
Remember, God gave these promises to a small people in the small land of Palestine, and the promises were to be fulfilled in the small land of Canaan. You cannot read into these passages great kingdoms and nations, for it would be absurd. First of all it is God's figurative way of speaking. Notice in Deut. 1:10 and 10:22, "The Lord thy God hath multiplied you, and behold ye are this day as the stars of heaven for multitude." The above is surely Eastern figurative language, as it is in Chapter 10:22.
"Thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies." Who were Israel's enemies? Where were they? They certainly were not the nations outside the near East; they were not the people of which the British Israel friends speak as possessing their gates, the gates of their enemies, like Malta and Gibraltar. Israel's enemies were the Edomites, the Moabites, Hivites, Jebusites, the Philistines, Assyrians and Babylonians. God's promises for His people are to be fulfilled in the land and not outside it, for nationally God has given them a land, and in that land they will enjoy all His promises, and that under the sway of Christ. God says, "For I will take you from among the nations (that is, where God's earthly people Israel are today), and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land (Ezekiel 36:24). In the same chapter God is challenging the mountains of Israel to get ready to shoot forth their branches and to yield their fruit for His people Israel, for they are ready to come, or at hand to come (Ezekiel 36:8).
If the British and American nations are the lost tribes of the house of Israel, it will be a hard time for them if they have to be squeezed in upon the mountains of Israel. I am indeed sorry for them.
This language again shows that Israel's prosperity and safety will not be outside the land of Israel. "I will bring them from among the nations and gather them from the countries, and will bring them to their own land." First of all, the British and American nations are not scattered among the nations and in all countries, and secondly if they were, they could not possibly fit into the small country upon the mountains of Israel.
It is striking that when the prophet carries a message from God to Jeroboam he does not say that God is going to establish His ten-tribe kingdom for ever, but in the case of David, He says, "David My servant shall have a light alway before Me in Jerusalem, the city which I have chosen Me to put My name there (1. Kings 11:36)."
Nowhere in Scripture do we find God giving His promises to a ten-tribed Israel, but all His Promises are given to all the twelve tribes, and they will be fulfilled to them, when they are in Christ, and upon the mountains of Israel in the Holy Land (Ezekiel 37:22-23).
To show that the ten-tribe kingdom was not in the mind purpose of the Lord, one has to read Hosea 8:3-4, "Israel hath cast off the thing that is good, the enemy shall pursue him. They have set up kings, but not by ME, they have made princes and I knew it not; of their silver and their gold have they made them idols, that they be cut off."
"My God will cast them off, because they did not hearken unto Him; and they shall be wanderers among the nations" (Hosea 9:17).
"Sifted among the nations." "Swallowed up among the nations." "Wanderers among the nations." Do these descriptions fit the British nation? When was Great Britain sifted among the nations? When were they swallowed up among the nations, or wanderers? Whilst that is not true Scripturally or historically of the British people, it certainly is true of God's earthly people Israel, whom we commonly call Jews.
Some of the British Israel writers take the above Scriptures and apply them to the Jews by saying this does not refer to the ten-tribed kingdom, but to Judah. This surely is another proof of the distortion of Holy Scripture. How awful for them in the light of Deut. 4:2, "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish aught from it." "Add thou not unto His words, lest He reprove thee, and thou be found a liar" (Proverbs 30:6).
In the last chapter of the Bible God is warning people against the danger of either adding or taking any thing from His book. (Rev. 22:18-19).
I shall never forget hearing an infidel in Hyde Park, London, say to a missionary, who urged his hearers to go to the law and the prophets, "Why do you ask us to read the law and the prophets; did not Christ say, 'hang all the law and the prophets'?" All that the infidel did was to leave out "On these two commandments," and oh, how dreadfully it altered, and distorted the words of Matthew 22:40.
Thank God we need not ask any theologian for an interpretation of this wonderful chapter. God is the best interpreter, and He says in verse 11, "Son of man these bones are the whole house of Israel." This is a true picture of God's scattered and down-trodden Israel today. They are in the graves among Gentile nations, but God speaks of a time when He will make them come out of their graves and bring them into the Land of Israel and put His Spirit upon them and they shall live (Ezek. 37:12-13).
All God's promises to Israel nationally will be fulfilled to them as a converted people in their own land, so if Great Britain claims to enjoy Israel's promises, she ought to be a converted nation and also dwell in the Holy Land and not in the British Isles. In verse 13 of Ezekiel 37, "And ye shall know that I am Jehovah, when I have opened your graves, 0 my people, and brought you up out of your graves, and I shall put my spirit in you, and ye shall live, and I shall place you in your own land; then shall ye know (conversion) that I, Jehovah, have spoken it, and performed it, saith Jehovah."
No Jewish historian ever suggested that his people have migrated to these shores, and thus become identified with the Anglo-Saxon peoples. Surely a nation, should know her own history. No other historian in the world has ever attempted to locate the sons of Abraham among the wild Teutonic races, and that for no other reason than that it would be against historical facts.
Though the present day number of sixteen and a half million Jews is largely representative of all the sons of Jacob, it is certain that there are many still in other lands, only discovered within the last hundred years, like China, Afghanistan, Africa, and Kurdistan, where they still bear the name of "Bnay-Yitrael," children of Israel.
These God will gather, and unite them with the others in their own land, and that will be under the sway of their king, Messiah; for then "Judah shall be saved and Israel shall dwell safely" (Jeremiah 23:6).
Today, neither are they saved nor do they find safety among the nations; The chief Rabbi said not long ago in one of the great synagogues that "never was there a time when our people were less safe than they are today." Christ is their safety, and only in their land under the sway of Him Who is "Jehovah Zidikenu," will they prosper.
When the writer visited the near East He met sons of Abraham from Abyssinia, Persia, Kurdistan, and Mesopotamia, and as he looked at them and compared them with those he met in other lands, he said how wonderful God's word is. There they are as sons of Israel, scattered all over the world amongst every nation under the sun, and yet never losing their identity. "Lo, this people shall dwell alone, and shall, not be reckoned among the nations." Remember this was spoken of the whole twelve tribes (Numbers 23:9).
That is true of the individual also. Once a person begins with this, there is no time for Christ, for everything becomes subsidiary to this theory. The enemy of our souls delights in anything like this. If only he can make people occupy their time, and spend their substance and energy with anything and everything pertaining to this earth, he knows it will keep them away from the things of Heaven, and therefore, away from Christ. This is how he accomplishes his destructive work in their lives. The saint of God, by this teaching, is reduced to a mere earth dweller.
One of their stalwarts, speaking on what saints are, says, "Christians are saints, but there have been, and still are, saints who do not know Christ." British Israelism also says, "Many millions of Mohammedans who are saints and many Jews who look upon Christ as a mythical figure, having no historical reality—these too are saints."
Another example of how the British-Israel theory tries to nationalise and materialise God's promise to His earthly people (who will enjoy it as a converted people in the Millennium) and apply it to Britain now, is Isaiah 27:6, "Filling the earth with fruit." On this wonderful verse their exposition is :—"The development of land by British settlers in the Colonies shows a truly remarkable condition of fruitfulness, the more so when it is remembered that some of the lands so productive were considered useless by the people of other nations. How great a work has been done may be best appreciated by those who visited the Empire Exhibition at Wembley, or those who pay attention to the posters of the Empire Marketing Board. And it is to be noted that such work has never been done nor even attempted by the Jews." What a mix up!
God, by the prophet Isaiah, foretells in the above verse how converted Israel will be a blessing, and become spiritually fruitful, bringing fruit to the whole world. At present Israel is as the Branch broken off, Romans II, but God will make them to take root again, and then Israel shall blossom and bud, and fill the face of the world with fruit. How any intelligent Christian can apply such a promise to Israel to the present fruit-growing Colonies of Great Britain is beyond my comprehension.
My Christian reader, remember, such distortions of God's Holy Book will do more mischief to your soul than you realise. The devil is trying to divert men's attention from things spiritual and eternal, and against this, one has to guard carefully. One of the foundation fallacies of this theory is that it applies to the British Nation today, blessings and promises that God has given for Israel to enjoy when they are a converted nation under the rule of their King Messiah, in the Millennium.
It also produces in its adherents a false national pride, for it nationalises God's promises and blessings in this dispensation. It produces carnal confidence that Britain, in virtue of her supposed identity with the tribes of Israel, will become the possessor of all the gates of her enemies, and thus become the master of the world. Such thinking certainly diverts peoples attention from the one thing needful, and from the only means which God has provided by which they can be accepted before Him. This dispensation is surely a time in which God deals with the individual. He is calling out a people unto His Name out of all peoples; and to these God is making all His promises " Yea and Amen" in Christ. But, to apply God's promises at the present day to a nation composed of millions of unbelievers is pure and simple apostacy. The main thing today is whether men are in Christ or not. If they are Christians their destiny is neither connected with Palestine, nor Great Britain, nor any other country, but with an inheritance which is incorruptible and undefiled, and which fades not away, and therefore is eternal. If all the money and energy spent by these theorists to convince unconverted Britishers of their identity with the lost tribes of Israel were spent to point them to Christ, what a God-glorifying work they could do.
You will remember the above verse speaks, as well as the verses from 22-26 of Joseph, who is a type of the Lord Jesus, who is called "the Shepherd, the stone of Israel." To compare the "Shepherd Stone of Israel" with an ordinary stone lying in Westminster Abbey, is not short of blasphemy. The Bible tells me, "That Rock is Christ" (Deut. 8:15; 1. Cor. 10:4). Only those who are resting upon Christ as "The Rock" are safe, not only for time, but for eternity, whether they be Jews or Gentiles, but those who do not trust Him (whether they be the sons of of Jacob, British, or any other) to them He is the "stumbling Stone and Rock of offence" (Romans 9:33). The Westminster stone story is built merely on an Irish legend, like the Jeremiah and his Jewess princess story is built on a legend in the same country, and my experience of that country is such that I should not like to believe every story invented there!!! In fact, the Irishmen themselves do not believe them. (The true story of the Coronation Stone was explained in a book by William F. Skene, published in 1869. In that same year, 1869, a Mr. Archibald Geikie wrote to Mr. Skene, as follows: "As a geologist I would say that the stone is almost certainly of Scottish origin; that it has been quarried out of one of the sandstone districts between the coast of Argyle and the mouths of the Tay and Forth, but that there is no clue in the stone itself to fix precisely its original source." (This stone was stolen out of Scotland by King Edward 1. in the year 1296. It had been preserved at Scone (near Perth), and the Scottish monarchs were crowned upon it. A.T.).
The Divine injunction for the child of God is "Do not give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions rather than godly edifying, which is in faith" (1. Timothy 1:4)
"But refuse profane and old wives' fables, and exercise thyself rather unto godliness" (2. Tim. 4:7). "Shun profane and vain babblings, for they will increase unto more ungodliness, and their word will eat as doth a canker" (2. Tim. 2:16-17).
Before our Lord came in the flesh, the human family was divided into two, the Jew and the Gentile; but since the day of Pentecost, the human family has become divided into three, viz., "the Jew, the Greek, and the Church of God." (1. Cor. 10:32). In view of the above division you must study the Word of God from three points of view:—What God's purposes are for the Jew or Israel. What are His purposes for the Greek. What are His purposes for the Church. If you keep these separate, you will save a great deal of confusion.
A.T. Last updated 2.6.2006