British-Israel Answers its Critics

Home Page

See also British-Israelism utterly refuted...refuted! Click Here

Articles by Different Authors

Note: The purpose is to answer the critics on British-Israel, some "other" doctrines that are written in these articles do not necessarily reflect the beliefs of the British-Israel Church of God


Peter Salemi Answers Critics (Walter Martin, Grant Jeffery etc..) on British-Israel

There are many weak arguments against the so-called British-Israelite theory. We are going to go through them one by one and answer them. Some of these arguments come from different authors like Walter Martin, Grant Jeffery etc...

1) The first argument they make is that the Apostle Paul called himself a Jew as well as an Israelite, see Acts 22:3; Rom 11:1. From this they conclude that all Israelites including the lost ten tribes are all Jews.

Answer: The word "Jew" was applied in three ways. It referred to any descendant of the tribe of Judah. The word Jews in merely a nickname shortened for "Judahite," Judah, which is one tribe out of twelve. See Vines Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, pp.333-334. But the word "Jew" is also applied to anyone who refused to join the rebellion, when the twelve tribes split into two separate kingdoms., see i Kings 11 & 12. As it turns out parts of Benjamin and Levi joined the KINGDOM OF JUDAH, and the other tribes joined the KINGDOM OF ISRAEL. These two tribes joined the JEWS and they became Jews NATIONALLY not racially, because a Jews racially is only for Judah. Just like anyone who immigrates from Italy to Canada. Racially he is Italian NATIONALLY he is Canadian. So all Jews ARE Israelites, but not all Israelites are Jews.

The apostle Paul descended from the tribe of Benjamin, Nationally he was a Jew, he was a CITIZEN OF THE KINGDOM OF JUDAH [The Jews], RACIALLY However Paul was NOT a Jew. Alfred Lilienthal, a Jew confirms and expounds this very point in his book, What Price Israel: "The name Yehudi or Jew is used in the Old Testament to designate members of the tribe of well as to denote CITIZENS OF THE KINGDOM OF JUDAH [Benjamin, Levi], particularly at the time of Jeremiah and under Persian occupation [See Esther 2:5]" (p.216 emphasis added).

The third way you can apply this term is religiously. People who were into the religion of Judaism.

2) In the book of Ezra, the captives of the House of Judah, returned to Palestine. Some people claimed that the ten tribe House of Israel was there because of the word "Israel" is mentioned more times than the word "Jew." So they attach this to mean that all of Israel all twelve tribes were there.

Answer: People tend to forget that all Jews are Israelites so why not call themselves after their ancestor Israel. The fact is all Israelites are not Jews as explained above. Not to mention all of Judah did not even return. The bulk of them stayed in Babylon and were there until the fall of the Parthian empire in the first and second centuries A.D. For a full explanation of this go to page on the books of Nehemiah and Ezra.

3) Some argue that in Ezra 6:17, he offered 12 he goats to God "according to the tribes of Israel." So people come to the conclusion that the ten tribes came back.

Answer: Weiland writes: "Why not? MY father in-law has the habit of always praying for absent family members during the blessing a meal time. Ezra was basically doing the same thing; he made an offering for all Israel, the two tribes present, and the remaining ten who were absent. To verify that this was an accepted practice one must simply turn to another sacrifice, which was made 208 years before Ezra offered this. This sacrifice was offered at a time when there was no question that the house of Judah and the house of Israel were not yet united..."(God's Covenant People p.15)

Also in the days of Elijah they made a sacrifice and set up stones. And like Ezra, it was "according to the number of the tribes of the sons of Jacob," (1 Kings 18:31), and the House of Judah, Benjamin, and some of Levi WAS NOT THERE. But they recognized them as God's people with the House of Israel! This is a weak argument.

4) Some argue that in the New Testament there was a woman named Anna of the tribe of Asher in Luke 2:36. This is their proof that all the twelve tribes were there in Palestine. Walter Martin in his book Kingdom of the Cults says that the Bible calls her a "Jewess." (p.316).

Answer: I searched the entire Bible, and i couldn't find the scripture that called Ann a "Jewess." But the most likely scenario of Anna and where she came from will be explained below.

5) People seem to think that the Epistle of James shows that the ten tribes and the Jews were one nation in James 1:1, "...To the twelve tribes scattered abroad, greetings"

Answer: In fact, this letter absolutely identify the where lost ten tribes are. Remember, the disciple were commissioned to go to the "lost sheep of the HOUSE OF ISRAEL" (Matthew 10:5). The ORIGINAL apostles Jesus said in the same verse were not go "in the way of the gentiles" that was Paul's commission, even though Peter opened the door to the gentiles, the Apostle Paul stepped through it and did his work among them. But notice Jesus said they were "lost" Now the letter of James was to the 12 tribes not churches. From James 4:1 we learn that "wars" were being waged "among you" James asked. "What wars are these"? No wars existed among the Jews until the outbreak, several years later, of the revolt against the Romans. These wars absolutely identify the lost ten tribes-the-lands which the Apostles Journeyed to. (see our Article  Where Did the Original Apostles Go? for further details).

James wrote about 60 A.D. He was martyred two years later according to Josephus. World was at this time temporarily at peace-cowed by fear of the Roman army. Just prior to 60 A.D. only two areas were torn by war, and civil fighting. All one needs to do is look at military history for the period before and up to 60 A.D. The result will shock you! Those lands were the BRITISH ISLES AND THE PARTHIAN EMPIRE. The two places were have proved in this book are the lost ten tribes of Israel.

6) Some quote Acts 2:36, Peter's statement shows that the ten tribes were living in Palestine with the Jews and were Jews. "Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ."

Answer: Yes, the House of Israel were there when Peter gave his speech at Pentecost, but they were not Jews, and they came from the Places of their origins on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem for the feast of Pentecost. Some of the House of Israel converted to Judaism and came to Jerusalem for the feast. Notice in the same Chapter who Peter was talking to, "And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven...Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,...Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes...Cretes and Arabians," (Acts 2:5, 9-11). Stephen Collins writes: "During the three years of Parthian rule over Palestine there would have considerable exchange of information between Jews and Parthians..." (p.243, LTTIF).

Proselytes were people who were non-Jewish in race, but converted to the religion of Judaism. Secular history shows of many Parthians converting to Judaism, "there is at least one record of a Parthian provincial king adopting Judaism, indicating that some Parthian rulers did acknowledge the God of the Bible. The presence of Parthian pilgrims at a Pentecost (Feast of Weeks) celebration in Jerusalem (Acts 2:9) confirms that a portion of Parthia's population also served the God of he Bible" (ibid, p.245). The racially Parthians came to Jerusalem to worship God in Jerusalem and were Part of the lost ten tribes of Israel. And at that time the Jews knew where the House of Israel were. Josephus wrote that the ten tribes were "beyond the river Euphrates" that was Parthia's territory. So when Peter was addressing the House of Israel, they were there, converted Parthians keeping the feast of weeks. Nothing shows that they were Jews racially and living in Palestine. Most likely Anna the prophetess of the tribe of Asher in the Gospel of Luke was part of the Proselytes of Parthia visiting Palestine.

7) The one argument that i find the funniest of all, is the prophecy used to describe Israel and Judah together. This scripture they use to show that Israel and Judah never really parted but were always together.

This prophecy is found in Ezekiel 37:15-28. It says that Ezekiel was to take two sticks in his hand, one for Judah and his companions, i.e Benjamin and Levi. The other for Ephraim and his companions, i.e. the other tribes of the house of Israel. Then they will be one in his hand.

Answer: Yes, Judah and Israel will be one nations again, the problem Is, WHAT'S THE TIME SETTING OF THIS PROPHECY? This is what these so-called scholars and critics have missed and its plain in the pages of your Bible. This happens at the SECOND COMING OF CHRIST.

Verse 24 says, "David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them." David has been dead for years. For him to rule he has to be resurrected. And when does the resurrection occur? At the second coming of Christ, see 1 Corinthians 15:23, 50-52; Rev 20:4-6.

Now Dr. Walter Martin clearly states in his book The Kingdom of the Cults, p.311 that this prophecy was fulfilled when the Jews returned to Palestine, after the Babylonian captivity. Problem is, was David, or Jesus for that matter, or even a descendant of David ruling over the Jews then? Absolutely Not! The Persian still ruled Palestine. They let the Jews return to their land, and the Jews had governors over the land. The Throne of David was NOT established. Ezekiel says that David shall rule over them "FOREVER." How can this prophecy be fulfilled, by David, Jesus, or any descendants of David, then or now? But the prophecy clearly says that David will rule forever. This can ONLY happen at the second coming of Christ when the tribes will be ruled by David forever. At this time prophecy says that David will rule over the House of Israel, not all the twelve tribes of Judah and Israel together. God said he would overturn it and root it out of Judah, and plant it in the House of Israel. For full details get our free booklet The Throne of David in Prophecy. God eve said at that time when the Jews came back that God would break the "brotherhood between Judah and Israel" (Zechariah 11:14). But at the second coming God says that "Ephraim shall not envy Judah, and Judah shall not vex Ephraim " (Isaiah 11:13). So clearly the time setting of this prophecy is at the second coming of Christ, when king David will rule over the House of Israel and Judah forever.

So since the time setting is at the second coming, this prophecy actually shows that at the time just before the second coming Judah and Israel are actually SEPARATE NATIONS AND NOT ONE NATION CALLED THE JEWS IN PALESTINE. This prophecy actually the opposite of what Walter Martin is trying to prove, "neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all:" (verse 22).

Grant Jeffery writes that in Ezekiel 37, "David" in that chapter means the "Messiah" and not David literally.

First, Jesus is never called David in the Bible. he is called "root" or offspring of David, or "branch of Jesse" but never "David." Jesus is called in the Old Testament "YHWH" Almighty God not David, see Jeremiah 23:5-6; 33:15; Zechariah 3:8; 6:12; 14:1-6; Acts 1:9-12; Isaiah 9:6-7.

Notice Zechariah 14:4. It says that Yahweh's feet will stand in that day on the "mount of Olives." When you compare that scripture to Acts 1:9-12 you read of Jesus ascending into heaven from the "mount called Olivet," and "he shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven." His feet lifted off the mount of olives anf when he comes his feet shall stand on the mount of olives. He is called YHWH in the old Testament, pointing to his Divinity. Human flesh he is called the root of daid offspring of David or branch of David, never David. David literally means David. Jeremiah says: "But they shall serve the LORD their God [Jesus], and David their king, whom I will raise up unto them." Who raises the Dead/ Jesus Christ, see John 5:25-29.

8) Grant Jeffrery in his book Coming Judgement of the Nations, he writes that the British can't be Israel because the British never circumcise their children the way the Jews did.

Answer: Talk about grasping at straws, just looking for an excuse not to accept the obvious. I guess Jeffery did not read the part in the Bible that shows how Israel disobeyed God, breaking his laws, that's why they got kicked out of the land in the first place, see 2 Kings 17:5-23. So why would they circumcise?

However, why is it that: "The great majority of North American males, as well as many boys in other parts of the world [British Commonwealth] are CIRCUMCISED soon after they are born" (ABC's of the Human Body, Reader's Digest, p.267, emphasis added).

9) Another quote from Jeffery's book, he quotes Hosea 3:4-5 about the children of Israel "abide many days without a king, and without a prince, and without a sacrifice, and without an image, and without an ephod, and without teraphim:" He says that Britain always had a king so Britain cannot be Israel.

Answer: Again your problem is, WHAT'S YOUR TIME SETTING? It plainly says, "Afterward shall the children of Israel return, and seek the LORD their God, and David their king; and shall fear the LORD and his goodness in the latter days." Notice its the latter days. And there are two other places in the bible with the same expression, Jeremiah 30:7-9 and Ezekiel 37. In Jeremiah 7-9 we see the time of Jacob's trouble which is the Great tribulation, and then in verse we read of the slavery of Israel, then verse 9 shows the rescue of Israel by YHWH and raising David their king. So when it says in Hosea that Israel won't have a prince or a ruler of their own, this will happen when? In the context of Hosea Jeremiah and Ezekiel, during the GREAT TRIBULATION. They will loose their government, the land and their freedom.

10) Of course people will accuse me of promoting the Master Race theory or White supremacy.

Answer: None sense! The only reason we have all these blessing is because Abraham kept God's commandments, Gen 26:1-5. God called Abraham, Abraham responded, and was justified by faith in Yahweh by keeping God's commandments.

11) Why were there Israelites in the land of Palestine in Josiah's time keeping the Passover if they got all taken away in the Assyrian captivity, see 2 Chronicles 35:17-18?

Answer: Stephen Collins writes: "The answer is simple. The 'Israelites' from the ten tribes 'who were present' in Palestine at the time of king Josiah's revival were Scythians were occupying everything from Palestine to Mesopotamia!

"For at least ten years, contingents of the ten tribes were present in Palestine and living in their formal tribal homelands [see 2 Chronicles 34:3-9]. This account makes clear that these members of the ten tribes of Israel were seperate and distinct from the tribes of 'Judah and Benjamin' (who constituted the nation of the Judah)...Secular history calls them 'Scythians' but the Bible instead refers them by their traditional Israelite names. After a number of years, they likely decided that Palestine was simply not worth the effort, and withdrew into Scythia...Herodotus records that the Scythians has an 'isolationists' attitude toward other nations. He recorded that the Scythians: 'dreadfully avoided he use of Foreign customs, and especially those of the Greeks...So careful are the Scythians to guard their own customs, and such are the penalties that they impose on those who take foreign over and above their own.

"The voluntary withdrawal of the Scythians from a a large conquered territory is consistent with the isolationism of the Scythians. The wanted to live in their own 'wide open spaces' and did not want the burden of ruling over nations and foreigners with unwanted customs and lifestyles" (Lost Ten Tribes...Found, Collins, pp.190-193). The Scythians OCCUPIED Palestine, but their HOMELAND was between the BLACK AND THE CASPIAN SEAS. There they returned an d stayed afterwards.

Notice how the Scythians and the Cimmerians were "Isolationists". This puts to rest the theories that they mixed among other peoples and are not pure Israelites. The Bible even says that Israel would "dwell alone" in the wilderness of this world, see Numbers 23:9, and shall not be "reckoned among the nations."

12) Some even claim that people who believe in British-Israel are “... give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith:” (1 Tim 1:4; Titus 3:9). Is this true?

Answer: First., the Bible is loaded with genealogies. All one has to do is look into the books of Genesis, Numbers, 1 Chronicles etc.. and even the New Testament Gosples to see all the genealogies of the people of Israel, and the world in Genesis. Doesn’t this contradict what Paul is saying? Absolutely Not!

The genealogies that Paul is speaking of, are not the Biblical genealogies, but are, “...found in Philo, Josephus and the book of Jubilees, by which the Jews traced the descent from the Patriarchs and their families, and perhaps also to Gnostic ‘genealogies’ and orders of aeons ans spirits. Amongst the Greeks, as well as other nations, mythological stories gathered around the birth and ‘genealogy’ of their heros [hence Paul’s reference to ‘fables’]. Probably Jewish ‘genealogical’ tales crept into the Christian communities” (Vines Expository Dictionary, p.262). Clearly these are not the Biblical genealogies Paul was speaking of. Josephus, “appeals to the priestly registers and is proud of the royal descent of his mother; he shows that even the priests residing in Egypt had their sons registered authentically in Jerusalem, so as to safeguard their priestly prerogatives (C. Apion., I, vii).” (The Cathloic Encyclopedia, under article “Genealogy”). Philo, “to the various stories and fables told about Moses and the Patriarchs” (ibid).

As for the Gnostics, “[These were] genealogies of spirits and aeons, as they called them, “Lists of Gnostic emanations” [ALFORD]. So TERTULLIAN [Against Valentinian, c. 3], and IRENÆUS [Preface]...Endless” refers to the tedious unprofitableness of their lengthy genealogies (compare Tit_3:9). Paul opposes to their “aeons,” the “King of the aeons (so the Greek, 1Ti_1:17), whom be glory throughout the aeons of aeons.” The word “aeons” was probably not used in the technical
sense of the latter Gnostics as yet; but “the only wise God” (1Ti_1:17), by anticipation, confutes the subsequently adopted notions in the Gnostics’ own phraseology. ” (JFB Commentary). So clearly, the Biblical genealogies is not meant in this passage.

13). Why is Hebrew Read Right to Left?

Direction of writing HEBREW is RIGHT to LEFT while ENGLISH is LEFT to RIGHT. Therefore critics argue that the English couldn't be Israelites. But the Anglo-Saxon tongue was largely an UNWRITTEN one prior to their settlement in Britain. Speaking of the "Alphabet and its Origin" at a meeting of the British Association in 1872, John Evans, F.R.S., F.S.A. says, "If the date which has been assigned to the famous 'Moabite stone,' of about 900 B.C., be correct, the correspondence in form between the archaic GREEK letters and those on the stone raises a strong presumption in favor of letters having been imported into Greece at the time when the PHOENICIAN alphabet was in that stage of development in which it occurs on the stone. Even the name of the alphabet preserves the memory of its PHOENICIAN origin, for Alpha and Beta, the names of the two letters from which the word is derived, are not really GREEK, but merely the Hellenized form of the PHOENICIAN (i.e. HEBREW) Aleph and Beth. The same is the case with the names of all the other GREEK letters down to Tau.... It must, however, be remembered, that the letters (of the Moabite Stone) are written from RIGHT to LEFT, or in the same manner as HEBREW, and not as is the case with us, from LEFT to RIGHT. In the early GREEK inscriptions it appears to have been a matter of INDIFFERENCE in which DIRECTION the letters were placed. In some the lines are alternately in EITHER DIRECTION; and this form of writing was known as Boustrophedon, or that which turned BACKWARDS and FORWARDS like an ox in ploughing.... The language of the HEBREW Scriptures may practically be regarded as the same as the PHOENICIAN" ("British Association Reports," 1872, Transactions, p.181 et seq.).

The Encyclopedia Britannica, 14th edition, vol.3, p.972, article "Boustro- phedon," says: "A term descriptive of a peculiar form of writing common among the early GREEKS. The direction of writing was alternately RIGHT to LEFT and LEFT to RIGHT in horizontal lines, or conversely, LEFT to RIGHT and RIGHT to LEFT. It was a transition between the earlier RIGHT to LEFT writing and the later LEFT to RIGHT style. The term was derived from two Greek words meaning "ox" and "to turn," from the resemblance of the writing to the winding course taken by oxen in ploughing."

Sir Charles Marston in The Bible Comes Alive says, "It will be seen, from the archaeological evidence cited in these pages, that the Israelites had, from the time of Moses onward, at least three alphabetical scripts. First, what is known as the SINAI HEBREW; next, what is known as PHOENICIAN HEBREW; and lastly, after the captivity in Babylon, what is known as the ASSYRIAN HEBREW." (p.8). "So far as is known at present, it would seem as though the SINAI HEBREW script usually reads from LEFT to RIGHT, like our own writing, while the PHOENICIAN HEBREW reads from RIGHT to LEFT, like modern Hebrew."

Professor Stephen Langdon, M.A., B.D., Ph.D., F.B.A., Professor of Assyriology at Oxford, wrote, in a letter to the "Times" on 5th October, 1935, with reference to the SINAI HEBREW inscription on the Lachish Red Bowl which had been published in that journal on 24th June, under the title "Antiquities from Lachish" by J.L. Starkey: "The inscription as published in the 'Times' should be INVERTED and read from LEFT to RIGHT; for this was the original direction of writing the SINAITIC script."

The Lacedemonians wrote GREEK from LEFT to RIGHT; yet they were Israelites (1 Maccabees 12:6-23). (by Harold Hemenway).

14)What about 1 Chronicles 9:1-3? It says, “So all Israel were reckoned by genealogies; and, behold, they are written in the book of the kings of Israel: and Judah was carried away captive to Babylon for their transgression.” (American Standard Version)
“And the first inhabitants, who are in their possession, in their cities, of Israel, are the priests, the Levites, and the Nethinim.” (Young’s Literal Translation).
“And in Jerusalem dwelt of the children of Judah, and of the children of Benjamin, and of the children of Ephraim, and Manasseh;” Does this mean that Ephraim and Manasseh returned with the Jewish Babylonian exiles in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah?

Answer: First, Judah being mentioned as being taken away to Babylon for their sins of course here is added by the later editors of the Bible of course by Ezra. A reminder to people why they went into captivity.

Secondly, the phrase in verse 2, “the first inhabitants.” The word “first” does not mean the first people after the exile of Babylon to enter the land and possess it. When we look at the Strong’s and the true meaning of the word, we see a different meaning. “H7223 ree-shone’, ree-shone’ From H7221; first, in place, time or rank (as adjective or noun): - ancestor, (that were) before (-time), beginning, eldest, first, fore [-father] (-most), former (thing), of old time, past.” It means the “former” first inhabitants of the land not the latter first inhabitants of the land. And in the context of the whole chapter, it plainly shows the geneaologies of the former heads of the tribes before the exile. Kiel & Delitzsche Commentary of the Old Testament renders this passage the same as well, “And the former inhabitants which (lived) in their possessions in their cities were Israel, the priests, the Levites, and the Nethinim; and in Jerusalem there dwelt of the sons of Judah,” etc., the “former
inhabitants” can only be those who dwelt in their possessions before Judah was led captive into Babylon. This could hardly be misunderstood by any commentator,...[it] can only be understood of the pre-exilic inhabitants” (emphasis added).

Now in verse when it says in Jerusalem there dwelt “Ephraim and Manasseh,” this is meant by the “former inhabitants,” not the latter. And if you notice the geneaology, none of the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh is mentioned. Why? “...The reason of that is probably this, that only single families and individuals from among the latter [group, Ephraim and Manasseh] dwelt there, while the register only makes mention of the heads of the larger family groups in the population of Jerusalem.” The Heads of the main tribes are the ones mentioned they were in charge of that region. So in context this shows nothing of Ephraim and Manasseh coming back to the land in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah, but shows that Ephraim and Manasseh were its former inhabitants and were a minority in
that region.

15) Many Quote Acts 26:6-7 which says, "And now I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers: Unto which promise our twelve tribes, instantly serving God day and night, hope to come. For which hope's sake, king Agrippa, I am accused of the Jews." May believe from this scripture that The twelve tribes at the time of Paul all twelve tribes must have been in the promised land serving God.

Answer:  At the time of Paul the Israelites were pagans scattered all over Europe, and even many of the Jews were not even believers in God or the Bible. Did the apostle Paul get it wrong? No! This is just a simple case of mistaken identity!

Paul  when he was speaking of the hope, he was speaking of HIS HOPE, and HE was the one serving God day and night, not the 12 tribes.  You must look at it in its context and subject. The New Bible Commentary says, "Paul maintained that it was because of his hope in what God has promised our fathers that he was on trial that day, namely the hope and belief that God raises the dead" (p.1104). The subject was Paul's belief in that hope. Let's look at the scripture again. "

"And now I [Paul] stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers [Abraham Isaac and Jacob]:

"Unto which promise our twelve tribes, [I, Paul] instantly [Earnestly] serving God day and night, hope to come. For which hope's sake, king Agrippa, I [Paul] am accused of the Jews.

"Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you, that God should raise the dead?" (Acts 26:6-8). 

It was Paul serving God day and night, not the Israelites. Some of the Jews did not even believe in the resurrection, see Matthew 22:23. The hope in the resurrection, the hope of the Messiah's promised to come to save Israel, and raise Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the Kingdom of God was the reason why Paul was doing the work of God, the whole reason for his ministry. Many have mistaken this to mean the Israelites were serving God day and night, but really its Paul who was for the hope to come

This booklet has proven that the House of Israel, the lost ten tribes of Israel are the USA, Britain, the Commonwealth of Britain, and the peoples of North western Europe. This alone proves that God exists. That he is true to his promises, and he means what he says. May all the House of Israel realize who they are and repent and return to Almighty God.


A Rebuttal To The “Worldwide News” Article

By Mr. Ralph Orr Entitled

“United States And Britain In Prophecy”

by Steven M. Collins



he December 19, 1995, issue of The Worldwide News contained an article by Mr. Ralph Orr on the subject of the “United States and Britain in Prophecy.” That article rejected a long-standing belief of the Worldwide Church of God that the people of the United States of America and Great Britain are primarily descended from the Israelite Tribes of Manasseh and Ephraim. The errors in that article demand a scholarly response.

Mr. Orr’s article raises some legitimate issues which deserve detailed answers; how­ever, it also contains arguments which are misleading and/or inaccurate. Mr. Orr’s article opens with a “red herring”: an attempt to equate Anglo-Israelism with racism. He states: “The scriptures proclaim a grace-based, not a race-based message.” I quite agree. However, the “old” WCG, and its major offshoots, never included “Anglo-Israelism” in any race-based message of salvation.  I can recall no instance in which the Worldwide Church of God (WCG), or its offshoots, proclaimed that “you had to be an Israelite to be saved,” which is what Mr. Orr’s statement implies.

The “old” WCG had large international ministries to reach people in nations which were regarded as non-Israelite. There were extensive efforts to preach God’s Word to Spanish-speaking nations in Latin America, the Philippines, etc., and many black brethren were welcomed into the Churches of God (non-Israelite racial origin was no barrier to Church membership). Furthermore, the WCG (and its major offshoots) have never been criticized as “anti-Semitic” (i.e., anti-Jewish). Indeed, we have identified Jews as the modern “House of Judah,” and have sought positive relationships with members of the Jewish faith.

Mr. Orr’s article mistakenly implies that any attempt to understand the Biblical origins of modern nations is racist. The whole purpose of the WCG’s effort to identify the origins of modern nations, was for purposes of understanding Biblical prophecies! Since the Bible identifies nations by their Biblical names (i.e., “Israel,” “Judah,” “Assyria,” etc.), one must first identify which modern nations are descended from these ancient nations, in order to apply ancient prophecies to the modern world. There was (and is) nothing “racist” about this effort.

Mr. Orr also states that “some came to believe our message was race-based, not grace-based,” and that “some found the Anglo-Israel belief in The United States and British Commonwealth in Prophecy as excuse enough, not to repent of racism.”  He cites no specific examples to support these statements, and (based on the WCG’s inclusion of all races into its membership) it is apparent that anyone reacting in the manner ascribed by Mr. Orr was simply not paying careful atten­tion to the Church’s message. Let’s examine some facts about Anglo-Israelism.

In the late nineteenth century, many in Great Britain recognized that the prophecies about Ephraim had come to pass in the blessings given to the British Empire. This belief (“British-Israelism”) was even held by influ­ential people. Col. J. C. Gawler, Queen Victoria’s Keeper of the Crown Jewels, wrote two “British-Israel” publications entitled, “Our Scythian Ancestors Identified with Israel,” and, “Dan, the Pioneer of Israel.”l However, was British-Israelism “racist” as Mr. Orr implies?  Consider this quote from one of their nineteenth century booklets entitled: “Jeshu­run . . . An Elementary Paper on our British Israelite Origin,” which stated:

“Opponents accuse us of vaunting our Israelitish origin as a precious gift of salvation by inheritance. A great error! The fact is, the study is only valuable to those who receive and acknowledge the gift of Christ as the only Mediator through whom we obtain salva­tion.”2 (Emphasis not added.)

That British-Israelite writer shared Mr. Orr’s rejection of “race-based” messages of salvation. As this quote indicates, the British-Israelites were horrified by the allegation that they taught a “salvation by race” concept.  It is easy to misunderstand a message. Even the Apostle Paul’s teachings had been so woe­fully misunderstood by some, that he issued a strong denial that his message included a rejection of God’s Old Testament laws, Romans 3:31.

Anglo-Israelism was also present in nineteenth century America. In 1857, a pastor named F. E. Pitts gave a two-day presentation advo­cat­ing Anglo-Israelism to a joint session of the U.S. Congress! Can you imagine such an event occurring in modern, nihilistic Amer­ica? Ironically, Pastor Pitts was an anti­monarchist who was hostile to Britain’s royal family (as his messages make plain).3

Anglo-Israelism should be evaluated strictly on its merits. In any discussion of whether the ten tribes of Israel both exist and are identifiable in the modern world, we must first objectively determine what the Bible (God’s Word) teaches on the subject. Many modern Christians believe that we are living in the Biblical “latter days” which will immediately precede the return of Jesus Christ. The “old” WCG (and its main offshoots) shared this belief with many Protestant, evangelical denominations.

In Genesis 49, Jacob (Israel) was inspired to prophesy that all the tribes of Israel would be present among the nations on earth during the “latter days.” This prophecy offers many clues to assist people in identifying Israelite nations in the latter days (this infers God knew that by the time the latter days arrived, the tribes of Israel would be “hidden” from world awareness, and such clues would be needed). Based on very divergent prophecies about the traits and locations of the latter-day tribes of Israel, it is clear the Bible is speaking of separate nations (or ethnic groups). This is consistent with the prophecy in Ezekiel 37:15-28, that the “house of Judah” and the “house of Israel” (the so-called “lost ten tribes”) would not be reunited until after the Messianic kingdom is estab­lished (i.e., David is prophesied to be their joint king when the dead are resurrected). These “latter day” prophecies make it clear that while modern Jews can be the “house of Judah,” they cannot possibly include the “house of Israel” during the latter days. Therefore, if we are guided by a literal interpretation of the Bible, we must look for the ten tribes of Israel among the non-Jewish nations of the world.

Many modern Christian denominations unknowingly call God “a liar” when they teach that the “lost ten tribes” have “died out,” or “can’t be identified,” because the Bible’s inspired prophecies say otherwise!  Also, the New Testament affirmed the inspired nature of Old Testament prophecies. Jesus Christ’s statement in Matthew 5:17, “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets,” affirms not only the Old Testament laws of God, but its prophecies as well! Some regard Paul as a “liberal,” but he wrote in II Timothy 3:16: “All scripture [including prophecies!] is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine. . . .” The Apostle Peter added:

“We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed . . . no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit,II Peter 1:19-21.

It is vital to notice Paul and Peter’s words: “all scripture” and “of the scripture.” They were speaking about (and validating) the canonized Hebrew Scriptures with which they were familiar (i.e., the “Old Testament”).  Peter specifically affirmed that the early Church accepted Old Testament prophecies as divinely inspired! Therefore, we have estab­lished that in any discussion of the ten tribes of Israel, the early New Testament Church accepted the Old Testament prophecies about them as inspired and binding.

Mr. Orr’s article indicates that the “new” WCG has “lost its faith” in the literal interpretation of the Bible. This is a common view in many secular churches. If the WCG no longer accepts the Bible as the infallible word of God, it should openly say so instead of “picking and choosing” which parts of the Bible it accepts and which parts it rejects.

Mr. Orr asserts “the New Testament takes a strikingly different approach than that of Anglo-Israelism.” Really? We have seen that Jesus Christ, Paul, and Peter, all affirmed the divinely inspired content of all Old Testament prophecies (including those about the tribes of Israel). There is no “strikingly different approach” in the New Testament approach of Jesus Christ, Peter, or Paul, regarding prophecies about the ten tribes, so Mr. Orr’s statement is either misleading or factually incorrect. Is Mr. Orr repudiating Biblical prophecy, or is he still attacking the false notion that “Anglo-Israelism is Racist”?

Mr. Orr does make a valid point when he states: “when reading Anglo-Israelite litera­ture, one notices that it generally depends on folklore, legends, quasi-historical genealogies and dubious etymologies.” I, too, have read Anglo-Israelite literature based on this kind of weak evidence. Folklore and legends may actually come to a right conclusion, but such evidence is admittedly too weak to convince either scholars or skeptics on the subject. However, it must be realized that in the nineteenth century, British-Israelite writers were governed by very different literary conventions. Prior to the general acceptance of evolutionary myth­ology, the Bible was held in such high esteem that if writers could find support for their conclusions in the Bible, they felt no need for the support of documented secular sources. Today, the situation is reversed: scholars do not accept anything in the Bible unless it is supported by secular evidence.

Mr. Orr continues: “Rarely . . . are the disciplines of archeology, sociology, anthro­pology, linguistics, or historiography applied to Anglo-Israelism.” His point, while not completely applicable to Anglo-Israelite literature, is true in some cases. However, historical evidence for Anglo-Israelism does exist!  British-Israelite publications in the nineteenth century contained considerable hard evidence which was never included in the WCG literature on the subject. Addition­ally, the modern scientific com­munity has discovered much new evidence concerning Israelite history, which was not available to the nineteenth century writers. However, one has to search diligently through secular sources to find this evidence, because it is not discussed in a Biblical context.

Let us now examine a supposed “conflict” in the Bible which Mr. Orr’s article discussed. He notes that II Kings 17:18 states (regarding the removal of the ten tribes from Israel when Samaria fell): “only the tribe of Judah was left.” The fall of Samaria was approximately 721 B.C.4  Mr. Orr correctly notes that “at face value, the verse appears to say that only the tribe of Judah escaped captivity.” Yet he does not take this scripture literally because during the reign of King Josiah of Judah (circa 639-608 B.C.5), II Chronicles 34:9 states Josiah collected donations to repair the Temple “from the people of Manasseh, Ephraim, and the entire remnant of Israel.” Indeed, verse 6 adds that Naphtalites and Simeonites were also then present in Palestine!

Faced with this apparent contradiction, Mr. Orr resorts to the typical rationalizations used by “minimalists” and “apologists” in various Christian denominations. While the specifics vary, their responses always have the “bottom line” conclusion that “you can’t take the Bible literally.” Jesus Christ himself might say to such people: “O ye of little faith. . . .” Let us examine a combination of Biblical and secular evidence to demonstrate that there is no conflict here, and that both sections of the Bible are historically true and can be taken literally.

The supposed conflict is this: How can the Bible say all the tribes of Israel (except Judah) were removed from Palestine in 721 B.C., but also assert that significant numbers of the ten tribes were again present in Palestine by Josiah’s reign a century later? Notice first that II Kings 17:18 does not prophesy: “no Israelites will ever return to Palestine.” It only asserts that none of the ten tribes were present in Israel in the year 721 B.C., just after the Israelite capital of Samaria fell.

The answer to the supposed conflict is partially found in Mr. Orr’s own article. He observes: “Fundamental to the Anglo-Israel argument is the belief that all significant parts of the house of Israel went into captivity. Biblical and archeological scholars harbor serious doubts about the accuracy of this view.” This statement reveals Mr. Orr has not widely read available Anglo-Israel literature. For example, Col. Gawler’s nineteenth century publication (mentioned earlier) conclusively makes the case that many Israelites did not go into captivity!  To assert that it is “funda­mental to the Anglo-Israel argument” that “all significant parts of the house of Israel went into captivity” is simply not true. Indeed, the solution to our apparent “contradiction” lies in the fact that they did not!

Col. Gawler’s writings also belie another myth that the detractors of Anglo-Israelism like to spread: that all Anglo-Israel adherents are “anti-Jewish.” Col. Gawler wrote that Jews attended the meetings of the nineteenth cent­ury British-Israelites and credits a “Jewish gentleman of great learning”6 for directing him to Jewish historical sources which con­firm­ed that many Israelites escaped the Assyrians and settled independently in a new location.

Col. Gawler noted that the medieval geographer, Abraham Ortelius, recorded that, when the kingdom of Israel fell, many of the ten tribes migrated to Tartary and “took the name Gauthei because they were very jealous of the glory of God.7 Gawler also cited Armenian historians who noted that a large mass of Israelites migrated (through Armenia) into Tartary. Tartary was a region near the Black Sea (which later became a springboard for the huge migrations of the Goths into Europe in the third to sixth centuries A.D.). Another medieval Jewish writer is quoted as asserting these migrating Israelites “evaded the calamity [of an Assyrian captivity], going off with their flocks and turning nomads, and that the chief or prince whom they appointed could muster 120,000 horse and 100,000 foot.”8 With a military escort of almost a quarter-million men, it is clear the escaping Israelites could easily have numbered well over one million people.

In II Esdras 13:39-46, there is an account that a large group from the ten tribes of Israel escaped the Assyrians and journeyed for one- and-one-half years to a place called Arzareth. This passage (in an apocryphal book) records that these Israelites were determined to “keep their statutes which they had not kept in their own country,” and adds the Most High held back the waters of the Euphrates River so they could escape the Assyrians. Here again we see an account that the Israelites who escaped captivity were in a repentant state of mind. Does the Bible support this view? Yes!

In II Chronicles 28:5-8, we read of a war between Israel and Judah just decades before the fall of Samaria, in which God gave the victory to the Israelites who killed 120,000 Jewish soldiers, and were leading 200,000 Jews into captivity in Israel. Clearly, the house of Israel still had a very sizeable population at that time. Loaded with much spoil, the victorious Israelites were met by a prophet (Obed) who gave them a warning from God not to carry their Jewish brethren into captivity. The house of Israel had long spurned God’s prophets, but verses 13-15 record the elders of Ephraim heeded this prophet. Indeed, they gave back all the spoil to the captive Jews, fed and clothed them, and gently assisted the “feeble” to make the journey back to Judah. Interestingly, this account indicates the elders of Israel made this decision to “bend over backwards in obeying God” without any input from their king.

A few years later when Samaria fell, II Kings 17:24-31 records the Assyrians had to repopulate the land of Israel with foreigners because the land was abandoned. Verse 25 (“the Lord sent lions among them”) implies the land had been depopulated for so long that it had “reverted to the wild.” The cuneiform texts of the Assyrian kings claim that when Samaria fell, only 27,290 people were taken captive9 (a very paltry total considering that only a few years previously the Israelites had slain and taken captive hundreds of thousands of Jews). The Assyrians made no claim of taking the rest of the Israelite nation captive at that time.

As discussed above, historical sources indicate the escaping Israelites migrated north of Armenia into the Black Sea region. Many ancient historians note that the Black Sea region thereafter acquired the names of “Iberia” and “Scythia” (the “Sacae”). Genesis 21:12 prophesied that Abraham’s seed would be known by the name of Isaac, and since ancient Hebrew deleted vowels, Isaac’s name is present in the root consonants of “Sac” or “Saac.” The Sacae Scythians kept the name of Isaac in their tribal name, fulfilling the prophecy of Genesis 21:12. Iberia preserved the name of the Hebrews’ namesake “Eber,” and, importantly, Iberian kings bore the name of “Phares.” The Roman historian Tacitus mentions Iberia and their kings named “Pharesmanes,”10 as does the famous British historian George Rawlinson.11

King David had been promised by God that his seed would “never lack a man sitting on the throne of the house of Israel,” Jeremiah 33:17. Some Israelites who migrated to the Black Sea had kings named “Pharesmanes,” and “Phares” was the lineage from which King David was born, Matthew 1:3-6. This strongly argues that the Israelites who migrated to the Black Sea abandoned their old king to the Assyrians and selected a prince from the house of David to be their new king. Why else would they proclaim the name “Phares” in their dynastic name? There is much more evidence that Davidic kings ruled over other Asian Israelites as well, but the above will suffice for this article.

Greek historians indicate that the Black Sea Israelites (now called “Sacae” Scythians) were obedient to prominent Old Testament laws. Herodotus notes they avoided swine’s flesh12, and scrupulously avoided foreign idols and religious customs.13 Herodotus recorded that a Scythian king (with the Israelite name: “Saulius”) executed a prom­inent Scythian for participating in a Greek festival honoring “the mother goddess,” and a Scythian king was even executed for partici­pating in an idol­atrous religious celebration.14 By no means did all Scythians exhibit Israelite customs. The “Turanian” Scythians, for example, were not related to the Sacae Scythians, and their tribes exhibited some bizarre customs. When discussing “Scyth­ians,” one must be careful to determine which Scythians tribes are being discussed, because not all of them were Israelite.

The Bible supports the thesis that many of the ten tribes resettled in the Caucasus/Black Sea region. In the reign of King Hezekiah of Judah (soon after Samaria fell), II Kings 19:37 states that Sennacherib, the king of Assyria, was assassinated by his sons who sought safety by fleeing to “the land of Ararat.” When fleeing for their lives, these assassins would go to an area which was so anti-Assyrian that they would be certain to receive asylum. They fled to the region of Ararat (the Caucasus/Black Sea region) where refugees of the ten tribes had established a new homeland. The anti-Assyrian Israelites would surely give refuge to assassins of an Assyrian king, and the fact these assassins fled to Ararat is consistent with historical records that Israelites had migrated to that region.

The Bible also confirms that the Israelites who fled to the Black Sea experienced at least a limited revival in serving the God of Israel. In Jeremiah 3:11-12, God sent a message to the ten tribes of Israel via Jeremiah in about 620 B.C. (100 years after Israel had been removed from Palestine). God’s message was:

“. . . backsliding Israel hath justified herself more than treacherous Judah. Go and pro­claim these words toward the north, and say, Return thou backsliding Israel, saith the Lord . . . .”

Did God’s use of the word “return” mean “return to God,” “return to Palestine,” or both? Whatever the intent, history records the Israelites did “return” to Palestine at that time! While the above quote was not a glowing tribute to the ten tribes’ spiritual condition, God nevertheless acknowledged that they were clearly more obedient to God at that time than the tribe of Judah. Also, He directs Jeremiah to address his message to the ten tribes: “to the north.”  If He was address­ing Israelites carried captive to Assyria, God would have said “to the east.”  Draw a line straight north of Jerusalem (where Jeremiah was) and you will come exactly to the Black Sea region of the Sacae Scythians.

Were the ten tribes of Israel “lost” a century after the fall of Samaria? Obviously not! God himself sent a message at that time via the prophet Jeremiah to the “free Israelites” near the Black Sea.

What does this have to do with the supposed conflict raised in Mr. Orr’s article? That will now be answered, but it was first necessary to establish the Israelite origin of the Sacae Scythians before any sense could be made of what follows.

Secular historians record that (circa 625-605 B.C.) the Scythians poured out of the Black Sea/Caucasus region to invade the regions to the south. Their armies marched in the direction of Assyria and Palestine. The Scythian armies who marched to Assyria devastated Assyria’s homeland. The Encyclo­paedia Britannica states simply: “Nineveh was captured and destroyed by the Scythian army . . . and the Assyrian empire was at an end.”15 However, the Scythian army that marched into Palestine was peaceful as they continued to Egypt (which avoided an invasion by paying tribute to the Scythians). Herodotus notes that while the Scythians also conquered Media and “took possession of all Asia,” they marched into Palestine, “doing no harm to anyone.”16

 Harper’s Bible Dictionary records that this massive Scythian presence in Palestine occurred in the reign of King Josiah (639-608 B.C.),17 and during the ministry of the prophet Jeremiah (who had sent God’s message to the ten tribes which said “return”). The Scythian invasions clearly exhibit motives that confirm their Israelite origin. By conquering Media, they liberated the Israelites held captive in “the cities of the Medes,” and by destroying the Assyrian Empire, they exacted revenge for the Assyrian destruction of the old kingdom of Israel. [Interestingly, while the Assyrians drove the ten tribes out of Palestine, we can now know that the ten tribes of Israel ultimately destroyed Assyria and its empire.]

If the Scythians had been marauding nomads from the steppes (a common assump­tion of history books), they would have looted Palestine and Judah as well. However, Herodotus’ account of their presence in Palestine indicates a friendly/protective oc­cupa­tion. This makes sense when we understand the Sacae Scythians recog­nized the Jews as a brother tribe. Even the Bible acknowledges the Scythian presence in Palestine during Josiah’s reign, in the very passage to which Mr. Orr points as a Bible contradiction! The Greeks called the Black Sea Israelites “Sacae” or “Scythians,” however, the Bible called them by their Israelite tribal names because the Jews still recognized the Scythians as Israelite tribes! That is why II Chronicles 34-35 records King Josiah issuing donations and Passover invitations to people of Manasseh, Ephraim, Naphtali, Simeon, and “Israel.” King Josiah was, in fact, interacting with the Sacae Scythians who had just recently reoccupied their old tribal lands! These passages are powerful Biblical proof that the Sacae Scythians were the ten tribes of Israel! Precisely when Greek history records that the Sacae Scythians had poured into Palestine, the Bible states many of the ten tribes of Israel were again present in the land.

II Chronicles 34:6 records that the ten tribes of Israel had reoccupied their old homelands “with mattocks.” While the Scythians attacked Assyria with swords, they occupied Palestine with agricultural tools! The ten tribes apparently intended to reclaim and resettle the old kingdom of Israel. However, history records they decided to return to their new Black Sea homelands within a few decades. Werner Keller states the Scythians returned to the Black Sea region within ten years18, while Herodotus records they remained in the Mideast 28 years before returning.19

The events of King Josiah’s reign take on new meaning when it is realized that the more devout ten tribes of Israel had reoccupied Palestine during his reign! King Josiah’s spiritual reform of Judah began in the eighth year of his reign, II Chronicles 34:1-3. What motivated him to do this? The eighth year of his reign was 623 B.C., about when the Sacae Scythians (the ten tribes of Israel) reoccupied Palestine. He began to destroy pagan idols and images even though he did not recover the “book of the law” until at least ten years later (verses 3-15). Who taught him how to please the God of Israel? The Scythian Israelites!  Jeremiah records the Israelites were closer to God at that time, and Herod­otus wrote the Scythians avoided unclean meat and forbid the use of idolatrous images.20

After 10-28 years, the Israelites mostly returned to “the north” after discovering that Palestine was no more a “land of milk and honey.” It had been occupied by foreigners (brought in by Assyrians) for a century, and was now undesirable compared to the Israelites’ Black Sea region. However, a few Israelites likely stayed in Palestine, account­ing for limited contingents of Israelites being present in future generations. After the Scythian Israelites left Palestine, a city in the old tribal territory of Manasseh (Beth-Shan) was renamed “Scythopolis”21 in honor of the Scythians who had liberated Palestine from Assyrian domination. The city was still named Scythopolis when it was one of the cities of the Decapolis22 in which Jesus walked, Mark 7:31.

The above is an example of how a careful reconciliation of secular history and Biblical historical accounts mutually verify the accur­acy of the Bible! What Mr. Orr regards as a conflict is, in fact, no conflict at all. Since the accounts are factually and literally true, the many rationalizations utilized by Mr. Orr to put new meanings on the terms “Judah” and “Israel” are moot.

Mr. Orr is correct in stating: “The Bible records that Jews and Israelites were still living side by side in the days of the early Church,” but he errs in asserting that it was because Israelites were joined to the house of Judah. Mr. Orr’s assumption is contradicted by Josephus, a contemporary of the early Church.  Josephus states that during the time of the early Church:

“There are but two tribes in Asia and Europe subject to the Romans, while the ten tribes are beyond Euphrates till now, and are an immense multitude, and not to be estimated by numbers.”23 (Emphasis added.)

Josephus makes it quite clear that the “two tribes . . . subject to the Romans” were Judah and Benjamin, and that the “ten tribes” of Israel were still in Asia during the days of the early Church. Ezra 1 and Nehemiah 11 also confirm that only Judah and Benjamin had returned to Judea and (with Levi) became the ancestors of the Jews of Roman Judea. Note also that Josephus did not regard the ten tribes as “lost” during the 1st century A.D. He even names the Euphrates River as one of their borders. It is important that Josephus recorded that the ten tribes’ population had grown very immensely in Asia; it confirms the Israelites had not “disappeared” or “died out.” Indeed, it confirms the Biblical prophecy of Hosea 1:6-10 that God would make the ten tribes of Israel “too numerous to count” after He removed them from Palestine.

At the time of Josephus, the Euphrates River had long been the recognized border between the Roman and Parthian Empires. Josephus’ euphemism, “beyond Euphrates,” was tantamount to saying the ten tribes were “in Parthia.” Parthia was an immense Asian Empire, which stretched from the Euphrates River to India. Historians have long recog­nized that the Parthians (who fought many wars with Rome) were fellow tribesmen of the Sacae Scythians.24 There is an immense volume of evidence that the Parthian Empire was ruled by the ten tribes of Israel, but there simply is not space enough to examine that evidence in this article.

During the time of Jesus Christ and the early Church, there was a long period of “detente” between the Roman and Parthian Empires during which extensive travel and trade between the two empires took place. The “Wise Men from the east,” Matthew 2:1, who brought gold, frankincense and myrrh to the young Jesus were Parthians (“Magi” and “Wise Men” were the official titles of Parthia’s priests and nobility).25 Acts 2:9 states that “Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia . . . and Asia,” were present in Jerusalem to keep the Feast of Weeks. All the above named regions were part of Parthia’s Empire. Verse 10 states these devout people were “Jews and proselytes (i.e., non-Jews).” The “non-Jews” were Israelites from the Parthian Empire, and Peter openly called them “men of Israel” when he addressed them, Acts 2:22. Mr. Orr mistak­en­ly puts a different meaning on Peter’s comment, but Peter (like Josephus) knew the many Parthians in his audience were Israelites, and addressed them as such.

Because Parthian merchants, pilgrims, and diplomats could travel freely in Roman Pale­stine at the time of Christ, there were many Israelites present in Judea throughout the time of Christ, especially (as Acts 2 confirms) dur­ing the Annual Holy Days.

Sadly, the arguments in Mr. Orr’s article are consistent with those of Biblical “minimal­ists” and “apologists,” people who have lost their faith in a literal interpretation of the Bible, and therefore “apologize” for it. As we can see, no apologies for the Bible are needed; its historical accounts can be taken literally!

There is a valid challenge which needs to be made to those who oppose “Anglo-Israelism.” If they claim to be Christians who believe the Bible is the inspired word of God, then they should accept Hosea 1 and Genesis 49, which prophesy that the ten tribes of Israel would have huge populations after their captivity and will be present and identifiable among the nations during the “latter days.” If they do not agree with the “Anglo-Israel” identifications of which modern nations are Israelite, they should offer their own alterna­tive identifications for the modern ten tribes of Israel. If a person really believes the Bible is God’s literal word, they will offer such alternatives. Those who cannot (or will not) offer alternatives, reveal that they don’t really believe in a literally-true Bible. They are simply wasting our time.

In conclusion, there is abundant evidence that Biblical historical accounts are literally true, and that the United States of America and Britain are the modern descendants of the Israelite tribes of Manasseh and Ephraim (space did not permit a discussion of that subject in this article). There is also much historical evidence that the ten tribes of Israel can be traced in all parts of their history from the fall of Samaria till the present.

The author of this article has spent many years researching evidence about the tribes of Israel, and this information has been published in 1996 in a major book, The “Lost” Ten Tribes of Israel. . . Found!  It is 440 pages long. This book contains the information offered in this article and much, much more. It examines the subject of the ten tribes of Israel from a historical, linguistic, archeological, and anthropological basis. It traces the empires, migrations, and histories of the ten tribes from the time of King David until the present. It not only documents the whereabouts of the tribes of Israel in the modern world, but also documents that the Israelites ruled major empires at several stages of their history. After reading The Lost Ten Tribes of Israel...Found! you can believe in “Anglo-Israelism” (and the veracity of the Bible) not in spite of the scientific evidence, but rather because of it!  This book is based on hard evidence, not folklore and legend.

If you are interested in a scientific documentation of the history and modern locations of the ten tribes of Israel, you may order a copy of this excellent book.  See ordering information below.

 (Steve Collins plans additional books documenting further evidence of the identity of the Lost Ten Tribes of Israel.)




1. “Our Scythian Ancestors Identified with Israel,” and “Dan...the Pioneer of Israel,” Col. J.C. Gawler, were published by W.H. Guest of London, England in 1875 and 1880, respectively.

2. “Jeshurun...”, Mrs. E.C. Daubenay, published by W.H. Guest, London, p. 7.

3. “The U.S.A. in Bible Prophecy,” F.E. Pitts, originally published in 1862, now printed by Hoffman Printing Co., Muskogee, OK.

4. Harper’s Bible Dictionary, “Samaria,” p. 895.

5. Ibid, “Josiah,” p. 510.

6. Gawler, Our Scythian Ancestors Identified with Israel, p. 9.

7. Ibid, p. 9.

8. Ibid, p. 9.

9. The Bible as History, Werner Keller, p. 246.

10. The Annals of Imperial Rome, Tacitus, Books VI, XI-XIV.

11.  The Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy, George Rawlinson, pp. 231-270, 320-321.

12. The History, Herodotus, 4.63.

13. Ibid, 4.76.

14. Ibid, 4.76-80.

15. Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1943 Ed., Vol. 2, “Babylonia and Assyria”, p. 857.

16. The History, Herodotus, 1.104-105.

17. Harper’s Bible Dictionary, “Josiah,” p. 510.

18. The Bible as History, Werner Keller, p. 273.

19. The History , Herodotus, 1.106.

20. Ibid, 4.76-80.

21. The Bible as History, Werner Keller, p. 273.

22. Harper’s Bible Dictionary, “Beth-shan,” p. 109, and “Decapolis,” p. 215.

23. Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus, XI, 2.

24. The Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy, George Rawlinson, p. 19, and The Scythians, Tamara Rice, p. 45.

25. The Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy, George Rawlinson, p. 85.


British-Israel, Fact or Fiction? BYAlan Campbell B.A.


Is British-Israel a Cult?

Rev. Dunlop states in the course of his sermon on British-Israel, that:

"The British-Israel theory is a dead, God-dishonouring, anti-Scriptural fraudulent and deceptive lie from the pit of hell. It is every one of these things and more."

He makes mention of us in relation to Mormonism and Armstrongism, and includes his message against us as part of a series on the cults. He goes as far as to say:

"Of course Mormonism and British-Israelism are blood brothers."

and at another point in his sermon he boldly declares regarding Identity-believers that:

"when people use methods like this, they must also deny the Holy Scriptures."

He couldn't make his viewpoint much clearer.
Let me say British-Israel is no cult. We have included within our ranks such outstanding Evangelicals, and Gospel preachers, as the late Rev. Robert Bradford M.P., Principal George Jeffreys, founder of the Elim Church, and Dr. James Mountain the great Baptist Fundamentalist.
Let me put again on record for Rev. Dunlop and all others of similar ilk from:

What A British-Israelite Really Believes

  1. That the Old and New Testament Scriptures in their original languages are the inspired, infallible Word of God.
  2. In the Virgin Birth, Sinless Life, Absolute Deity Miraculous Ministry, Blood Atonement, Bodily Resurrection, Ascension and soon-coming of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Are these the words of heretics? Is this the doctrinal statement of a cult? British-Israel Truth is the purest form of Fundamental Bible Protestantism, and British-Israel believers will always be in the front line of the battle to defend the honour of our precious Saviour and His Holy Word. Even our opponents have had to admit as much.

A) Rev. J Stafford Wright MA, Principal of Tyndale Hall, Bristol:

"I myself could never group BI with others, it would be fairer to recognise it as a particular interpretation of prophecy within the Orthodox Church of Christ."

B) Dr. Townley Lord, Editor of the Baptist Times:

"From what I know of them, they are fervent and devoted to Evangelical Christianity."

To Rev. Dunlop and others who wittingly or unwittingly seek to misrepresent us we would answer in the words of Paul the Apostle:

"But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets."
Acts 24:14


Do British Israelites Deny Personal Salvation or Christ's Atoning Blood?

Rev. Dunlop in his sermon stated:

"You will not find in the British-Israelite literature, the Deity of Christ lifted up, or the precious blood spoken of. No you will not find that there."

"It is ancestry not atonement."

"So many people, who by it (British-Israel) have got their mind and eyes of Christ, they have got their eyes of the Son of Righteousness, the blessed Morning Star and have their eyes on the Star of David."

Once again Rev. Dunlop is trading in fiction not fact. Quoting from:

What A British Israelite Believes - Point 3

we read:

"That Salvation is available to the individual by Grace through faith alone, and that except a man be born again he cannot see the Kingdom of God."

The membership application forms of the three main recognized identity movements in the British Isles, The British-Israel World Federation, The Covenant People's Fellowship and the British Israel Bible Truth Fellowship all make personal saving faith in Jesus Christ a prerequisite for membership. Sure, you can believe British-Israel Truth and not be saved, just as you can support the stand of the Free Presbyterian Church and not be born again. However in neither case can you be in membership. Let me bury this blatant lie, let me lay it to rest once and for all; We do not believe that being born a flesh and blood descendant of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob will save you. Jesus rightly stated:

"And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the Kingdom of Heaven but the children of the Kingdom (flesh and blood Israelites but unrepentant) shall be cast out into outer darkness."
Matthew 8:13

and it was through Dr. Paisley preaching on that very text that I personally came to a saving knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ on 19th September 1965 in the old Ravenhill Free Presbyterian Church.

We make it crystal clear in our sermons and our publications that there is only one way of entry into God's Kingdom, to repent and trust in the atoning blood of the Lord Jesus, shed on Calvary. We believe the New Birth is a necessity and with Peter we would proclaim to all who hear this sermon or read this book, that you must:

"Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."
Acts 2:38

We could tell Rev. Dunlop of many who, coming to realise that they were literal, flesh and blood Israel, also came to see the need to make their calling and election sure by trusting in the finished work of Christ alone for salvation.

Furthermore whilst I cannot be responsible for every British-Israelite, let me make it clear that in the nine years that we have been publishing booklets on the Kingdom Message, we have never yet failed to exalt the Lord Jesus, emphasising His Deity, His Blood Atonement and the necessity of personal salvation.


Was Israel Ever Lost?

This is a key issue and it is one according to Rev. Dunlop:

"Upon which this theory (British-Israel Truth) must either stand or fall."

Amazingly his own answer to this question is a resounding NO, and he actually states:

"There is no such thing as Ten Lost Tribes. There cannot ever be Ten Lost Tribes."

Now let us compare the clear-cut words of the Holy Scripture with those of this misguided clergyman:

  1. "The Lord was very angry with Israel and removed them out of His sight; there was none left but the Tribe of Judah only"
    II Kings 17:18

    Surely if they were removed out of God's sight, this was the start of their punishment, whereby they became lost to the world at large. Between 744 and 676 B.C. the Assyrians invaded and progressively deported the vast bulk of Ten-Tribed Israel together with the inhabitants of all the fenced cities of the Southern Kingdom, who according to the Assyrian records numbered about 200,000 people. The Bible tells us that these captives were placed in Halah and Habor by the River of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes (II Kings 18:11-13). They never returned to Palestine.

  2. "Thou shalt be called by a new name which the mouth of the Lord shall call."
    Isaiah 62:2

    A new name, in exile hundreds of miles from home. Little wonder these Israelites soon lost their identity.

  3. "It shall come to pass in that day, that a great trumpet shall be blown; and they shall come which were LOST in the land of Assyria."
    Isaiah 27:13 (marginal rendering)
  4. "My people hath been LOST sheep."
    Jeremiah 50:6
  5. "I will seek that which was LOST and bring again that which was driven away. "
    Ezekiel 34:16

Could it be that the inspired prophets of God got it wrong and Rev. Dunlop has got it right? We think not; let God be true and every man a liar.

Continuing in his blindness, Rev. Dunlop actually says:

"There was no such thing to Christ as Lost Tribes."

Now hear the words of Deity clothed in Humanity, hear the words of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, for never man spake as He did:

  1. "I was not sent but unto the LOST sheep of the House of Israel."
    Matthew 15:24
  2. Sending forth the Disciples, He says:

    "But go rather to the LOST sheep of the House of Israel."
    Matthew 10:6

Rev. Dunlop says they were never lost, that Christ knows nothing of Lost Tribes. The very words of the Master confound his error. I'd rather take the word of the Lord Jesus as that of any clergyman.

Furthermore the Greek word which the Lord Jesus used for "lost" literally means to be "put away in punishment." He was referring to the House of Israel who were divorced and cast away because of their national sin. They had indeed been put away in punishment, lost in Assyrian captivity. They had not returned to Palestine, they had become Gentilised. Rev. Dunlop is incorrect when he says:

"To the Lord Jesus Christ... the only lost area was the lostness of their souls."

He was concerned for their national restoration, both spiritually and physically. He came to institute by the blood a New Covenant whereby they could be redeemed, and their putting away in punishment brought to an end. He came to cancel their Bill of Divorce, by His atoning death on Calvary. Wonderful Jesus, our Kinsman Redeemer!! Blessed be His Holy Name forever.
Not only do we have the infallible testimony of Scripture that Israel was lost, but also:


The Evidence Of Secular History

  1. Josephus the famous Jewish Historian wrote in his book "Antiquities of the Jews":

    "The entire body of the people of Israel remained in that country; wherefore there are but TWO TRIBES in Asia and Europe, subject to the Romans; while the TEN TRIBES are beyond the Euphrates till now and are an immense multitude not to be estimated by numbers."

    So the fate of Israel was well known in the First Century A.D., and they were not back in Palestine.

  2. The ancient historian Kitto states:

    "After the captivity we hear very little of the territories of the Tribes for Ten of them NEVER RETURNED."

  3. In the Second Book of Esdras in the Apocrypha we read:

    "These are the Ten Tribes... carried away prisoners out of their own land... whom Shalmaneser, King of Assyria led away captive; and he carried them over the waters... but they took counsel among themselves that they would have the multitude of the heathen and go forth into a far country where never mankind dwelt. They entered into the Euphrates... for the Most High held still the flood till they were passed over."

    This journey took the Israelites through a narrow gap in the Caucasus called the Dariel Pass or the Pass of Israel to the land of Arsareth in the steppes of what is now Southern Russia. Their gravestones are there to this day and we read, e.g.:

    "I am Jehudi, the son of Moses, the Son of Jehudi the Mighty, a man of the Tribe of Naphtali, carried captive with other tribes of Israel by Prince Shalmaneser... to Halah and Habor, to Gozan and to the Chersonesus."

    Another Crimean gravestone reads:

    "Zadock the Levite died 785 years after our exile."

    Prof. Chirolson of Petrograd deciphered over 700 of these epigraphs in the Crimea where Lost Israel passed through. Thence they migrated across Europe into these islands.

  4. Henry's Commentary in its early editions written before there was any organised British-Israel movement says:

    "The greatest part of Ten of the Twelve Tribes were LOST in captivity."

  5. Dr. Scofield and the seven co-editors of the Scofield Reference Bible stated:

    "From the Assyrian captivity the Ten Tribes NEVER RETURNED."

    Can all these authorities be wrong and Rev. Dunlop correct? Now to the evidence of Scripture and History we will add the statements of those so dear to the heart of Rev. Dunlop; the Jews. Surely even he must admit that they should know where Israel is today.


The Jewish Evidence

  1. The famous Rabbi Kimchi who lived in the 13th century wrote commenting on Hosea 1 v. 11:

    "This will come to pass in the days of the Messiah: for unto the Second Temple there only went up Judah and Benjamin who were carried away captive to Babylon, and the children of Israel were not gathered together at that time."

  2. The Jewish Chronicle of May 22nd, 1879:

    "While not a link is missing of the historical chain so far as the romance of the House of Judah is concerned, the Israelites who were subjected by the Assyrian power disappear from the page of history as suddenly and completely as though the land of their captivity had swallowed them up... the Ten Tribes are certainly in existence, all that has to be done is to discover which people represent them."

  3. The Jewish Quarterly Review of July 1903:

    "The career of the Jews can be traced without difficulty... until the present day. Of that of the Israelites... nothing authoritative is known after their departure from the fatherland, to Habor and Halath... they seemed to have passed from human knowledge."

  4. The Jewish Religion by Isaac Leiser, Vol. 1, page 256:

    "By the return of the captives from Babylon, the Israelites were not restored, since the Ten Tribes... were left in banishment and to this day the researches of travellers and wise men have not been able to trace their fate."

  5. C. and A. D. Rothschild in History and Literature of the Israelites, Vol. 1, page 489:

    "The Ten Tribes of Israel were not even permitted like the sister kingdom of Judah, to bequeath to later ages... the memory of rich and varied destinies. They were irretrievably LOST."

  6. Rabbi Gershom:

    "We are longing to find our LOST brethren who for two thousand years have baffled all our efforts to discover their whereabouts, and are at this time a riddle to the greatest of our illustrious Rabbis."

  7. Former Chief Rabbi - Dr. H. Adler:

    "You are quite right to assume that the Ten Tribes did not return to the Holy Land."

  8. Dr. Hertz - Chief Rabbi in 1918:

    "The people known as Jews are the descendants of the Tribes of Judah and Benjamin, with a certain number of the Tribe of Levi. So far as is known, there is not any further admixture of other tribes. The Ten Tribes have been absorbed among the nations of the world. The Jews look forward to the gathering of all the tribes at some future date."

  9. Rabbi Aaron Werner of Spokane, U.S.A., when asked by the late Dr. Schiffner - "Do the Jews represent all Twelve Tribes?" replied:

    "No, the Ten Tribes of Israel were carried away by Sennacherib King of Assyria and have become LOST. The Jews of today are but a remnant made up of the Tribes of Judah, Benjamin and Levi."

  10. Rabbi A. H. Fink of Temple Immanuel - Spokane, U.S.A., in reply to the same question stated:

    "The Jews do not claim to represent the Twelve Tribes for the Ten Tribes never returned from captivity and are LOST to history"

  11. The Authorised Daily Prayer Book of the United Hebrew Congregations of the British Empire contains this prayer:

    "As for our brethren, the whole House of Israel, such of them as are given over to trouble or captivity... have mercy on them and bring them from trouble to enlargement, from darkness to light, from subjection to redemption, now, speedily and at a near time."

  12. Rev. Elieser Bassin - born of wealthy and pious Jewish parents in Russia, in his book "British and Jewish Fraternity" says:

    "The Hebrew Scriptures point to the British Isles as the home of God's first-born."

    "It is my conviction that Britain is the nation with whom God has from first to last identified Himself. I an Israelite of the House of Judah, claim you (British) as Israelites of the House of Ephraim. As believers in the faithfulness of our Covenant keeping God I call you to awake from your sleep."

    So Rev. Dunlop is proved wrong on the very battlefield of his own choice. The unanimous verdict of Scripture, History and the Jews, combines to substantiate the British-Israel Truth that the Tribes were lost. The Jewish evidence furthermore proves that they were not merely spiritually lost, but physically as regards their identity. The Jewish sources confirm the clear-cut distinction between Israel and Judah, which is denied by Rev. Dunlop and they state categorically that Lost Israel never returned to Palestine, from Assyrian captivity, thereby refuting Rev. Dunlop's Amalgamation Theory, which we will consider next. Israel clearly having been lost, we have to proclaim that they are found again in these last days, in Celto-Anglo-Saxondom, the great Christian Nation and Commonwealth of Nations, Great Britain, U.S.A., Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa together with a large proportion of the Dutch and Scandinavian peoples; the very nations which embraced the Protestant Reformation and took the Bible and the Gospel of Christ to the ends of the earth as prophecy declared the Seed of Abraham would do.


    Are Jews And Israelites Synonymous Terms?

    Despite the proven fact that some 120 years had intervened between the captivities of Israel and Judah, not to mention a distance of at least 500 miles between the destinations of the two groups of captives, who besides everything else were restricted as to where they could travel, our opponents continue to assert that the people of the two Israelite Kingdoms amalgamated in captivity. With this as their false foundation they go on to assert that Israelite and Jew mean the same thing and that the terms are interchangeable. Rev. Dunlop goes down this path and he insists:

    "The Scriptures are plain that Israel and Judah are terms for one people... the term Israel and Judah and Israel and the Jew are synonymous that they speak of one nation before God."

    Yet just a little earlier in his sermon, Rev. Dunlop read extensively from the Book of Jeremiah in the 31st chapter and he actually quoted these words:

    "Behold the day will come saith the Lord that I will make a New Covenant with the House of Israel AND with the House of Judah."
    Jeremiah 31:31

    This promise is repeated again in the New Testament in Hebrews 8:8, and again the clear-cut distinction between the House of Israel and the House of Judah is stressed.

    Again we read in the Book of Jeremiah:

    "Considerest thou not what this people have spoken, saying the Two families which the Lord hath chosen, he hath even cast them off."
    Jeremiah 33:24

    Even the Psalmist distinguishes between the two Israelite nations, stating:

    "Judah was his sanctuary and Israel his dominion."
    Psalm 114:2

    Throughout the prophetic Scriptures they are called Two Nations, Two Families, Two Houses, Two Peoples, Two Sons, Two Sisters and Two Sticks. Whilst it is correct to say that all the people of Judah were Israelites, not all Israelites were of the Tribe of Judah. To put it in simple modern terms, the peoples of England, Scotland, Wales and Ulster are all British, but not all British people are Welsh; how many Ulster folk want to be thought of, or called, English? Similarly whilst all Texans are Americans, not all Americans are Texans, and not many Texans would want to be called Californians or vice versa.


    Was Paul A Jew?

    To substantiate the claim that the terms Israelite and Jew are interchangeable, Rev. Dunlop quotes three statements by the Apostle Paul. Let me give them to you and explain what is meant by them.

    1. "I am a man which am a Jew"
      Acts 21:39

      This was either a statement of RELIGION or PROVINCIAL RESIDENCE. Paul was merely stating that he followed the religion known as Judaism and/or that he was resident in the Roman province of Judea.

    2. "I also am an Israelite."
      Romans 11:1

      This is a statement of RACE/NATIONALITY, Paul is stating that he is of that race which sprang from the loins of the Patriarch Jacob/Israel.

    3. "Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the Tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews."
      Philippians 3:5

      Here Paul is making a statement of TRIBAL DESIGNATION.

    To sum it up then:

    • Paul was by RACE - A HEBREW.
    • Paul was by TRIBE - A BENJAMINITE.
    • Paul was by RELIGION - A JEW.
    • Paul was by SECT - A PHARISEE.
    • Paul was by CITIZENSHIP - A ROMAN.
    • Paul was by CONVERSION - A CHRISTIAN.
    • Paul was by CALLING - AN APOSTLE.

    These statements do not and never will make Jew and Israelite interchangeable terms. If I stated that I was a Protestant from Belfast, Northern Ireland, United Kingdom, it would not mean that every UK citizen was a Belfast Protestant.


    Was Anna A Jewess?

    In the midst of his sermon Rev. Dunlop makes the bold assertion that the prophetess Anna was a Jewess; He actually says:

    "Anna, that old mother in Israel, not in the physical sense, but in the spiritual sense, who dwelt in the Temple, she was of the Tribe of Asher, she was one of the Ten, she was called a Jewess... because the two are one in God's eyes."

    We would like to ask Rev. Dunlop, where in the Authorised King James Version of the Bible, Anna is ever called a Jewess? She is only mentioned once and that is in Luke's Gospel where we read this description of her:

    "And there was one Anna a prophetess the daughter of Phanuel of the tribe of Aser: she was a great age, and had lived with her husband seven years from her virginity, and she was a widow of about fourscore and four years, which departed not from the Temple, but served God with fastings and prayers, night and day"
    Luke 2:36-37

    One would be tempted to offer Rev. Dunlop a reward if he can show us the word Jewess in these verses.

    As to the presence in Jerusalem at this time of a member of one of the Ten Tribes, some might think this refutes the Anglo-Israel message. Far from it, for Anna is that exception which proves the rule. It was necessary in the plan of Almighty God for representatives of both sections of His people to be in the Temple to welcome the baby Jesus. As Simeon was representative of the Judah section, Anna represented the Israel section. We have already pointed out that during times of religious revival in the Southern Kingdom, some Northerners went south, a few may even have stayed. Furthermore when the vast bulk of Ten Tribed Israel were carried into Assyrian captivity, a few stragglers may have fled south escaping the mopping up operations which lasted until 676 B.C. Did not the prophet declare:

    "Yet gleaning grapes shall be left in it as the shaking of an olive tree, two or three berries in the top of the uppermost bough, four or five in the outmost fruitful branches thereof saith the Lord God of Israel."
    Isaiah 17:6

    By this we understand that a tiny remnant, a mere handful of Israelites, referred to as the gleaning grapes and the berries in the furthermost extremities of the tree, would escape the overall mass deportations into Assyrian captivity. This accounts for the presence of Anna a member of the Northern Tribe of Asher being in Jerusalem after Christ's birth. There with Simeon she awaited her Messiah, so that the little Lord Jesus might be received, praised, worshipped and adored by the representatives of the Two Houses of Israel, between which Bible Prophecy makes such a clear distinction.


    A Jewish Testimony to the Saving Power of British-Israel Truth

    Rev. Dunlop in company with many other Evangelicals and Fundamentalists has an obsession with the Jews, and viewing them through rose coloured glasses, he sees them as God's ancient, chosen people. Now the bulk of the modern Jews are neither true Israel or true Judah, they are a mixture of Idumean/Edomites, who accepted the Jewish religion in the days of the Maccabees, those out of all races who converted to Judaism in the days of Esther, out of fear not faith, and the descendants of the Turko-Mongoloid Khazars who embraced Talmudic Judaism in the Eighth and Ninth Centuries A.D. Amongst this mixture there is a small remnant of true Israelites of Judah, Benjamin and Levi. Here is the testimony of one such true Jew out of Judah, and how he found Christ through the British-Israel Truth:

    "I, Cyril Leach, a Jew of pure extraction, write testifying to the great light given me by British-Israel Truth, and how through this wonderful key to the Bible, I came to the belief that Jesus Christ is of a truth the Son of God and the Redeemer of Israel... I come from a line of Rabbis on both my father's and my mother's side known far and wide in Palestine for their piety, charity and wide learning. Indeed to this day one of my great grandfathers has a synagogue dedicated to his name in the Holy City... it was not until I reached the age of sixteen that I began to reflect at all seriously or deeply about religion. One of the first things that sorely perplexed me was the position of my own people in the world... I began to wonder if the words 'God's chosen people' were not more platitudes... why had our people no King when God had sworn to David "Thy throne shall be established for ever"? God said to Abraham "Behold my Covenant is with thee and thou shall be the father of many nations." These and other points let me to doubt whether the Bible was after all God's Word... I was assured that the Saxon people were a Gentile people, inferior as regards race to the Jews, and I remember asking my father "If the Jews are God's chosen people, why is such a wonderful Empire (Britain)... doing the very work the Jews should be doing"... One day a book was lent me, setting out what appeared to me at the time a preposterous idea, that the Saxon race is the continuation of the Northern Kingdom of Israel carried into captivity in 721 B.C. a long time before the Southern Kingdom of Judea was shattered by Babylon. I laughed at the notion that an uncircumcised people who believed in an imposter called Christ who set Himself up as the Son of God, could be the Seed of Abraham. For the first time in my life I began a most careful search of the Word of God - the acid test of all religious movements to see if there was any truth in this astounding assertion. To my intense surprise I found that prophecy after prophecy had materialized and was in the process of materializing in the Saxon people. I now saw quite clearly that it is discrediting God's Holy Name, and His reputation as a God who fulfils His promises, to assert that the Jews form the whole Seed of Israel."

    I trust that Rev. Dunlop will now take his own advice, given in the course of his sermon, when he said:

    "If you ever hear of a Hebrew (Jew) who has become a Christian, you go and hear him, and you sit and listen as he expounds the Scriptures as only a Hebrew can."

    Well here is the Testimony of a Jew brought to Jesus Christ and faith in God's Word by British-Israel Truth. We pray sincerely that Rev. Dunlop will read and inwardly digest it.


    The Throne Of David

    Concerning our belief that our present Queen and Royal Family are the direct blood descendants of David King of Israel, and that the stone encased within the Coronation Chair of Britain, is the very Bethel Stone on which our father Jacob rested his head when he dreamt of angels ascending and descending a ladder from heaven; Rev. Dunlop has this to say:

    "The interesting thing is that the Queen of England knows nothing about it. Would not you think that the one who is actually sitting on the Throne would know where she came from? She knows nothing about it. There is a letter in existence from the Lord Chamberlain which denies the British Israel belief entirely, and there are no such records of any ancestral hocus-pocus concerning the Queen. She knows nothing about it."

    This is quite a sweeping statement and it requires to be answered in several parts.

    1. The Royal Family are most careful to guard their honour and reputation, not to allow themselves to be exploited in any way. The recent legal action taken by the Palace authorities, over the publication of just one unauthorised photograph in a leading daily newspaper proves this point. Yet in spite of this Rev. Dunlop would try to make us, believe that for at least a century, the Royal Family have declined to take any action whatsoever against the numerous Anglo-Israel groups, not only in the United Kingdom, but all over the English-speaking world, who have been distributing literally hundreds of thousands of charts and books, many bearing the Royal Coat of Arms and demonstrating that our Royal Family are the direct blood descendants of King David, and of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Many of these books attribute Anglo-Israel beliefs to the late Queen Victoria and yet Rev. Dunlop expects us to believe that the Royal Family either ignore or are unaware of all of this!!
    2. Rev. Dunlop claims that our Queen knows nothing about the British-Israel Message; and yet for a life-time her close relative, Princess Alice, Countess of Athlone, grand-daughter of Queen Victoria and cousin of King George V was patroness of the British-Israel World Federation. His claims become even more ridiculous when we know that the present Queen has been receiving and responding to the telegrams of loyal greetings sent to her each year from the various British-Israel Conventions, not to mention the many petitions and appeals to her by these same bodies requesting her to call a National Day of Prayer.
    3. As for the supposed letter from the Lord Chamberlain, we understand that the first mention of this document is by a certain missionary to the Jews, Henry Hedyt. It is surprising that if indeed it does exist, that it has not been distributed widely by the opponents of the British Israel Message. Even if such a letter did exist we are only too well aware that our Monarch is not always free to express her own viewpoint, and that to prevent a constitutional crisis she has had to give her assent to much which would be personally repugnant to her.
    4. Rev. Dunlop claims that the Stone of Scone which rests in the Coronation Chair in Westminster Abbey was removed in 1955, subjected to scientific research and proved to be of Scottish not Palestinian origin. In the interests of accuracy we should state that the Stone was actually stolen by Scottish Nationalists in 1950, and that when it was being repaired before being replaced in the Abbey, chippings were obtained by the late Rev. George Thompson. When scientifically analysed together with chippings from the Bethel area of Palestine they were found to be very similar. Furthermore even our most ardent critics admit in the light of historical evidence that the Stone was brought from Ireland to Scotland by King Fergus and hence could not be of Scottish origin. More honest and detailed research would prevent such biased misrepresentation of our case being made.
    5. By far the most serious implication of all of this is not whether or not the present Queen accepts or rejects British-Israel Truth, but more important, whether or not Almighty God has kept His word, His Covenant Promise to David. What saith the Scriptures?
      • "I will establish the Throne of his Kingdom FOREVER... Thy Throne shall be established FOREVER."
        II Samuel 7:13&16
      • "I have made a Covenant with my chosen, I have sworn unto David my servant thy seed will I establish forever, and build up thy Throne to all generations. Selah.''
        Psalm 89:3&4
      • "My Covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips. Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not be unto David. His seed shall endure FOREVER, and his Throne as the Sun before me. It shall be established forever as the moon and as a faithful witness in heaven. Selah.''
        Psalm 89:34-37

        If Rev. Dunlop is correct and the Davidic dynasty and succession did not endure, then Jeremiah the Prophet must have been mistaken when he declared:

      • "For thus saith the Lord; David shall never want a man to sit upon the Throne of the House of Israel... Thus saith the Lord. If ye can break my Covenant of the Day and my Covenant of the Night that there should not be day or night in their season, then may also my Covenant be broken with David my servant that he should not have a son to reign upon his Throne... Thus saith the Lord; If my Covenant be not with day and night and if I have not appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth; Then will I cast away the seed of Jacob and David my servant, so that I will not take any of his seed to be rulers over the seed of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob."
        Jeremiah 33:17-26

        Almighty God has given a seven-fold witness to the enduring character of the Royal Davidic line, Heaven and Earth, Day and Night, Sun, Moon and Stars.

      • "The Lord God shall give unto Him (Jesus) the Throne of His father David and He shall reign over the House of Israel forever."
        Luke 1:32-33

    If Rev. Dunlop is right and the Throne had ceased to exist, then the Angel should not have made such an announcement to the Virgin Mary.

    We say let God be true and every man a liar, for if one of these promises can be broken, if God can change His mind, then we have no guarantee of our eternal salvation, for the God who promised us Everlasting Life, promised David an Everlasting Throne.


    Who is Anti-Christ? or is Rev. Dunlop a Historist or a Futurist?

    The Free Presbyterian Church and its ministers subscribe to the Westminster Confession of Faith which rightly identifies the whole dynasty of Popes including the present one John Paul II as Anti-Christ. Their Moderator Dr. Paisley has recently published an excellent book on this subject, a book which he has dedicated to the ministers of his Church, and in fact made an outstanding protest at the European Parliament, branding the Pope as the Man of Sin, to his face; it was a protest that we and all true Protestants commend. This school of prophetic interpretation is known as the Historist. In opposition to it is the Futurist theory invented by such Jesuit priests of Rome as Ribera and Lacunza, who look for a future Anti-Christ, who will be a politico-military dictator, one man at the end of time. This delusion diverts Protestants from seeing the true identity of the Papacy.

    Now in the course of his sermon Rev. Dunlop states:

    "There is going to be no restoration of the Jew... until Anti-Christ and his hordes encompass the Holy City"

    "He will destroy the Anti-Christ with the brightness of His coming, and where will Anti-Christ be? He will be at the very gates of Jerusalem, that's where he will be. His armies will be gathered there and the great city will be surrounded."

    "One day the armies of the world headed up by the man of sin, the Anti-Christ - will surround her (Jerusalem)."

    We would like to ask Rev. Dunlop, which Anti-Christ is this? the Pope of Rome, or a Coming World Dictator? The Scriptures teach that it is the hosts of Gog/Magog, atheistic Russian Communism, which will come to do battle at Jerusalem (Ezekiel 38), not the Pope of Rome. There is the smell of Futurism about these statements, how many Anti-Christs does Rev. Dunlop believe in? Is he a Historist or a Futurist? Perhaps, with his Bible in one hand and his Moderator's excellent book in the other, he should take his own advice when he said in his sermon:

    "Be a Bible student."


    Dan, Britain, The Evidence of Place Names

    The validity of the British-Israel Message rests on Scripture not place names. Even if there were no such evidence our case still stands solid. However Rev. Dunlop seeks to make this issue important and he says in his sermon:

    "In their migration they say across Europe, the Ten Tribes left landmarks and names behind them which prove that they were there. For instance the Danube is supposed to be named after Dan."

    The Bible tells us that the Danites had a custom of renaming occupied territory in honour of their progenitor:

    "The children of Dan went up to fight against Leshem and took it... and possessed it and called Leshem, Dan after the name of Dan their father."
    Joshua 19:47

    Again we are told that Dan was to be a "serpent by the way" in Genesis 49:17, meaning a trail blazer who would leave clear marks in the territories he pioneered. Furthermore in the days of Deborah in the Book of Judges, the Danites were already a sea-faring migrating people, who were rebuked for not being available in the day of battle because they were in their ships. No less a person than the British Prime Minister, W. E. Gladstone in his book "Juventus Mundi" tells us that the name Danai is used 147 times in the Iliad, and he links these Danai of Greece with the Tuatha de Danaan of Ulster, a fact confirmed by ancient Irish history. The manuscript known as the "Psalter of Cashel" says:

    "The Tuatha de Danaans ruled in Ireland for about two centuries, and were highly skilled in architecture and other arts from their long residence in Greece and intercourse with the Phoenicians."

    In Ptolemy's ancient map of Ireland we find marked such places as Dan's Lough, Dan Sowar (Dan's Resting Place), Dan Sobairse (Dan's Habitation). Would it really endanger Rev. Dunlop's eternal salvation to accept these historical facts? Would believing in the Danite origin of our Irish place names detract from our Christian faith?

    Rev. Dunlop also takes exception to the claim that the word British comes from two Hebrew words Berith and Ish meaning Covenant Man. He says:

    "They can only ever mean Covenant and Man; they could never mean Man of the Covenant."

    Why should he find this so hard to believe when the Jews for whom he has such a high regard have a fraternal society known as B'nai-Brith or Sons of the Covenant. Once again we are getting the double standard; Jewish evidence is useful to appeal to unless it happens to substantiate the British Israel Truth which it frequently does.


    Despising Patriotism and Patriotic Symbols

    Rev. Dunlop has some strange statements to make with regard to Patriotism and love of our country and its national symbols. He quotes the words of the Apostle Paul:

    "But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ, yea and do count all things but dung that I may win Christ and be found of Him."
    Philippians 3:7-8

    Rev. Dunlop continues:

    "He was glad he was saved, he wasn't glad he had the Star of David round his neck, he wasn't glad he had the Stone of Scone to gaze at, he wasn't glad that the Throne of Israel that David sat on would be preserved in England, he wasn't glad he had an Ulster flag stuck in his hip pocket as proof of his descendancy ... he counted it all but dung."

    Does Rev. Dunlop really believe that our National identity, our flag, our throne are "dung"? We are proud to be British, proud to be loyal subjects of Queen Elizabeth II, proud of our Ulster ancestry, proud of our British Heritage, proud of our Ulster flag, our Red Hand and Crown, our Union Jack, the old red, white and blue - long may it continue to fly over an Ulster that is Protestant, British and free.

    Rev. Dunlop goes on to state, based on a defective view of Galatians 3:28, that:

    "There is no nationalism in the Gospel."

    "You want a new nationality tonight come to Christ. One in Him a new nation."

    Let me say that the Lord Jesus Christ gives men and women a NEW NATURE not a NEW NATIONALITY. It was my guilty, scarlet sins that were washed away in Calvary's atoning blood, not my Ulster Loyalism or my British Patriotism.

    I knelt down a sinful, White-Anglo-Saxon Protestant and got up off my knees a saved one.

    Paul actually wrote to the Galatian Church:

    "There is neither Jew, nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female, for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."
    Galatians 3:21

    Surely Rev. Dunlop would not be so enthusiastic as to remove the distinction between the sexes as he is that between the races. Salvation never made a male - female, a white - black, a brown - yellow, an employer - an employee; it is a purely spiritual experience.

    The serious implication however is that if we abandon our British nationalism when we accept Christ as Saviour, then what does it matter to what nation we give our citizenship and allegiance? What difference does it make if Ulster is under a Union Jack or Tri-colour? What has the struggle of the last twenty years been for? Yes and the struggles of the centuries before. Have not the very cream of loyal Ulstermen given their very lives to keep this province British and under the Union Jack and Crown.

    Rev. Dunlop's remarks are all the more peculiar coming as they do from a minister of a denomination whose fellow clergymen have been elected to serve in District Councils, Stormont Assemblies, Westminster Parliaments and even the European Parliament from platforms festooned with Union Jacks and Ulster flags, on the pledge of using all lawful and legitimate means to keep Ulster as an integral part of this United Kingdom.


    Scurrilous and Emotive Language

    When reasoned argument is absent, the opponents of truth sadly find it necessary to resort to scurrilous abuse and emotive language, which paints their opponents in an unfavourable light. Thus instead of saying that British-Israel believers are and have been for generations members of our three Loyal Orders, the Orange, Black and Apprentice Boys, he says:

    "British Israelism has INFILTRATED the Orange and Black Institutions and the Apprentice Boys of Derry"

    The idea conveyed is of a furtive, dishonest group of people who are engaged in a carefully thought out conspiracy to take over certain otherwise worthy organisations. As loyal British citizens, as Christian patriots, and as faithful Protestants, British Israel believers have every right to join these bodies or any political party of their choice provided they meet the qualifications and abide by the rules. One of the finest life long British Israel believers in Ulster was the late Mr. John Bryans, loved and admired by all, he served with distinction as Grand Master of the Orange Institution in Ireland. We challenge Rev. Dunlop to state whether he regards him as an infiltrator. When not searching for British-Israel moles or "British-Israelites under the bed," he comes up with such gems of Christian phraseology as:

    "There is not another 'ism' that is so bankrupt as the British-Israel theory"


    "The British Israelite theory is a dead God-dishonouring, anti-Scriptural fraudulent, and deceptive lie from the pit of hell. It is every one of these things and more."

    Such descriptions of another group of Bible-believing Protestants speak for themselves, and reflect on the one using them rather than on the objects of his abuse. We take his slurs and insults and wear them proudly as a badge of honour not of shame, for did not our blessed Lord Jesus warn us:

    "The disciple is not above his master nor the servant above his Lord... if they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they call them of His household."
    Matthew 10:24-25

    Let Rev. Dunlop abuse us if he will, let him try and treat us like religious lepers, we will gladly take this reproach for the truth of Christ and His Kingdom. To Rev. Dunlop we would like to quote a very accurate and much used statement of his own Moderator:

    "You can tramp truth down, but you will never tramp it out."


    Guilt by Association

    By the crafty technique of seeking to equate British-Israel believers with Armstrongism, because that movement also believes in Anglo-Saxon identity, and by calling us the "blood-brothers" of Mormonism, because they too teach that not all Israelites remained in Palestine, Rev. Dunlop is using the old smear method of "guilt by association."

    The fact that Rev. Dunlop believes in the Virgin Birth and the Trinity, surely does not make him a Romanist, for they also hold these beliefs.

    The fact that Dr. Paisley's excellent books against the new versions of the Bible have been sold and distributed by Covenant Books of 6 Buckingham Gate, London, the major British-Israel publishing group in the United Kingdom, does not make him a British-Israelite.

    These sort of misleading statements are a double edged sword, and one that Rev. Dunlop would be as well not using.


    What Good Is The Knowledge Of Our Israel-Identity?

    When all else fails the opponents of the British-Israel message fall back on the defensive line of argument that even if it were true, of what benefit would it be. Rev. Dunlop actually says:

    "There is no benefit being an Israelite."

    Let me therefore point out some five benefits of this much maligned British-Israel Truth.


    When Bible denying Modernism raised its head in the last century and eventually took control of the major Theological Colleges, under the disguise of Scholarship and Higher Criticism, the faith of multitudes was undermined and destroyed. The leading Atheists and Agnostics, i.e., Bradlaugh, Paine and Ingersol, pointed to the Covenants that God had made with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob/Israel and pointing to their non-fulfilment either in Jewry or the Christian Church, thereby they branded God a failure and His precious word untrue. Yet at that very era Almighty God revealed the knowledge of our Israel/Identity. Prophecy fulfilled in the Celto-Anglo-Saxon peoples was the very weapon that would have slain doubt and disbelief, but stubborn and misguided Evangelicals counted the revelation of British-Israel Truth as a heresy. They belittled and opposed the very message which is the antidote to Modernism and today we have a nation where only 10% of the population attend a Christian Church of any type.

    British Israel Truth builds and restores faith and confidence in an all powerful God and an infallible Bible.


    Paul the Apostle wrote these words:

    "Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved."
    Romans 10:1

    The true British-Israelite will make this their very own personal prayer. When we discover the wonderful truth of our national identity as the literal seed of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob then we will dedicate ourselves to greater prayer and evangelistic zeal to tell our fellow Israelites of the wonderful, free salvation obtained for them at Calvary by Jesus Christ their Kinsman-Redeemer, and of their need to repent and obey the Gospel.


    Once we know that we are Israel, we will want to dig into the Scriptures and search out every passage, every chapter, every verse which gives us enlightenment on Israel's ultimate destiny and our part in God's great plan. With the knowledge of British-Israel Truth we will be able to rightly identify the nations of the world, pin point events as they were fulfilled in history, and look forward to those final end-time events which will herald the return of our dear Redeemer King to take the Throne of His father David and begin His reign of peace and righteousness, here upon the Earth.


    When we realise who we really are, then we know that we are the inheritors of the Covenant oaths and promises made by Almighty God to the Patriarchs. We have the guarantees of inviobility, indestructibility, and ultimate deliverance from all of our enemies, from the hands of these that hate us. Knowing the Israel/ldentity Truth removes all fear for the future, we don't need to emigrate, evacuate or prepare for a Secret Rapture; Ulster is in for Revival not Revolution and we can boldly declare with Joel the prophet:

    "Fear not O land be glad and rejoice for the Lord will do great things:


    For far too long Christians have been so heavenly minded as to be no earthly use. For far too long we have fixed our eyes on heaven, and abandoned our dominion mandate on earth. For far too long we have been made to feel ashamed of our Patriotism and Loyalism, and told we should abandon it all when we are born again. The British Israel Truth refutes this serious error. Britain is part of God's vineyard, Ulster is our own Promised Land, peopled by the very seed of Israel planted here as a light in darkest Ireland, and we must occupy until Jesus comes.



    It has been no pleasure to have to preach this sermon and compile this booklet. I am deeply saddened that any minister who professes to love the Lord Jesus could be so blinded by prejudice as to make such baseless charges against British-Israel believers.

    Nevertheless it was necessary for the Apostle Jude tells us to:

    "Contend earnestly for the faith."

    Whilst Peter exhorts us to:

    "Be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear. Having a good conscience; that whereas they speak evil of you, as of evil doers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ."
    I Peter 3:15-16

    Let us pray that Rev. Dunlop and all the other opponents of our message may have their eyes opened to the British-Israel Truth. Pray that they will come back to the Bible and reassess their position with an open mind. Pray for our nation and province that God will send a mighty Holy Ghost Revival. Pray that men and women may discover in British-Israel Truth, that God keeps His Word and that the Bible is true, and that from that discovery they may come to repentance and saving faith in the Lord Jesus without which we cannot enter His soon coming Kingdom.

    Watch the Signs of the Times, uphold these truths most surely believed among you, and occupy until Jesus comes.


    Queen Victoria's Testimony

    Queen Victoria once attended a service in St. Paul's Cathedral and listened to a sermon that interested her greatly. Afterwards she asked her chaplain, "Can one be absolutely sure in this life of eternal safety?" His answer was that he knew no way that one could be absolutely sure.

    This incident was published in the Court News and came to the notice of a humble minister of the Gospel, John Townsend. After reading of Queen Victoria's question and the answer she received, he prayed much about the matter and then sent the following note to the Queen.

    "To her gracious Majesty our beloved Queen Victoria from one of her most humble subjects: "With trembling hands, but heartfilled love, and because I know that we can be absolutely sure now for our eternal life in the Home that Jesus went to prepare, may I ask your Most Gracious Majesty to read the following passages of Scripture: John 3:16; Romans 10:9,10.
    "I sign myself, your servant for Jesus' sake,"
    John Townsend

    John Townsend was not alone in praying about his letter to the Queen. He took others into his confidence and much prayer was offered up to God in Her Majesty's behalf. About two weeks later he received a modest-looking envelope in which was enclosed the following letter.

    "To John Townsend:
    "Your letter of recent date received and in reply, would state that I have carefully and prayerfully read the portions of Scripture referred to. I believe in the finished work of Christ for me, and trust by God's grace to meet you in that Home of which lie said, `I go to prepare a place for you'."
    (Signed) Victoria Guelph.

    Yes, Queen Victoria knew that she occupied the Throne of David, and she ascribed Britain's greatness to the Word of God. Yet so exalted a person was not ashamed to make this humble confession of her faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. She knew Him to be the great Saviour and Healer of men, the Redeemer of Israel, and the Architect of this nation's history, but she confessed Him also as her own personal Saviour.


Your British-Israel Questions and ABCOG's Answers

Question: The "ancient Irish annals" to which the B.I theoreticians refer, do not exist. At least, no one has ever found them (this has been pointed out by the .... Ministries).
Reply: The "Annals" of Irish History (Annals of Ulster, Annals of the Four Masters, etc.) are only reliably historical from 1,000 A.D. onwards. All material relating to time periods before the time of St. Patrick (430 A.D.) is legend. Poor copying of manuscripts and alternative possible translations complicate matters. Irish legend is not conclusive, only suggestive.
According to an Astronomy magazine, the description of "part of the sun obscured" in A.D. 689 is definitely an eyewitness account of the eclipse of Friday, 3 July A.D. 688. This event was recorded in three separate annals, the Chronicon Scotorum, the Annals of Tigernach and the Annals of Ulster. The narrow band of annularity went through N. Ireland, the Island of Iona and all the way to Archangel, Russia, but there is no record of it outside Celtic sources. Tigernach, who died in 1088, was abbot of Clonmacnoise and reputed to be "the most accurate and most ancient prose chronicler of the northern nations."

Question: I hope you don't think I am mocking British-Israelism, which I consider a very valuable theory, an ideal building block for those that are interested in prophecy. However, I think that there is no way that the claim that America is Manasseh can stand.
Reply: As for the identification of the USA with Manasseh, there is no stronger case for any other nation. Either the USA is Manasseh, or this prophecy is yet to be fulfilled, or it will never be fulfilled because it has been superseded (as some claim). Some claim that the USA is a multitude of "nations" (states) and so corresponds to Ephraim. The Pledge of Allegiance contradicts this sophistry.

Question: By preaching that the USA and British Commonwealth are modern-day descendants (as nations) of Joseph's sons Manasseh and Ephraim aren't you propagating the racist views of neo-Nazis such as the "Christian Identity" movement?
Reply: We propagate God's truth as best we understand it. We vehemently oppose racism, anti-Semitism and everything else that is opposed to Christian love and fellowship. We preach that modern-day Jews are national descendants of Judah. (Of course, every Jew is not a physical descendant of Judah, but that did not matter in Biblical times nor does it today). Similarly many other modern-day nations are national descendants of the other sons of Jacob (Israel).

Question: Did any British realize that their blessings came from God, and take seriously their responsibility to use their blessings in His service?

God of our fathers, known of old,
Lord of our far-flung battle-line,
Beneath whose awful Hand we hold
Dominion over palm and pine -
Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet,
Lest we forget - lest we forget!

The tumult and the shouting dies;
The captains and the kings depart:
Still stands Thine ancient sacrifice,
An humble and a contrite heart.
Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet,
Lest we forget - lest we forget!

Far-called, our navies melt away;
On dune and headland sinks the fire:
Lo, all our pomp of yesterday
Is one with Nineveh and Tyre!
Judge of the Nations, spare us yet,
Lest we forget - lest we forget!

If, drunk with sight of power, we loose
Wild tongues that have not Thee in awe,
Such boastings as the Gentiles use,
Or lesser breeds without the Law -
Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet,
Lest we forget - lest we forget!

For heathen heart that puts her trust
In reeking tube and iron shard,
All valiant dust that builds on dust,
And guarding, calls not Thee to guard,
For frantic boast and foolish word -
Thy mercy on Thy People, Lord!

Rudyard Kipling, June 22, 1897

Here is an excerpt from a sermon entitled "True Imperialism", delivered by John H. Jowett, London, ca. 1900. Printed as Chapter 2 of "Apostolic Optimism", London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1901

"Behold, thou shalt call a nation that thou knewest not, and nations that knew not thee shall run unto thee, because of the Lord thy God, for He hath glorified thee" (Isa. 55:5). What does that mean? It means that a true and glorified national life is to create a true and glorified Imperialism. "Nations that knew not thee shall run unto thee because of the Lord thy God."

That is the true imperialism - empire by moral and spiritual sovereignty, allurement and dominion by the fascinating radiance of a pure and sanctified life. "Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising." What is the vulgar imperialism of to-day? It is empire by grab. It is expansion by coercion. It is aggrandizement by the power of the sword. Mark the contrast. "Nations that knew not thee shall run unto thee because of the Lord thy God." Such is to be the imperial gravitation of a people exalted and inspired by the purifying and energizing presence of the Eternal God.

This, I repeat, is the true imperialism, the imperialism which I covet for my nation; the glory which constitutes a fadeless dignity; empire - not by the aid of Maxim guns, but by great and heartening evangels proceeding from a redeemed and glorified people. When are we going to learn that this is the shining goal of all worthy national ambition? The mission of a truly great people is to be "a witness to the peoples, a leader and commander to the peoples" (Isa. 55:4),

a "witness," ceaselessly reiterating the glad tidings of the eternal love which she herself has proved in the power of her own redemption;

a "leader," a pathfinder, going out among the benighted peoples who are groping blindly for the way that leads to liberty and light, and revealing unto them the road whose entrance-gate is the beginning of the gladsome dawn;

a "commander," commanding her willing and waiting servants to go here, there, and yonder, bearing her shining lines through all the earth, and her words to the end of the world.

"Thou shalt be called the restorer of paths to dwell in" (Isa 58:12). That is a glorious title, and it describes a glorious mission of a great nation which has "hearkened diligently" (Isa. 21:7) unto God, and has surrendered herself to a glad and invincible obedience. "Her soul shall live" (Isa. 55:3) and her life shall be "the light of men" (Matt. 5:16, John 1:4).

Question: Is the Blarney Stone part of the Stone of destiny?
Reply: Blarney Castle was built in 1446 by Dermot Lá MacCarthy. It stands on a rock high above the River Martin most probably on the site of a Norman fortress. Blarney Castle is a magnificent building set in lovely grounds, and has breathtaking views from the top. This Castle is famous for the Blarney Stone, a piece of limestone, apparently of the same type as the rest of the Castle, (but the story is that the current Blarney Stone is a fake, substituted for the real one.)
According to one story, Cormac MacCarthy received half of the Stone of Scone in gratitude for his support of Robert Bruce's troops at the Battle of Bannockburn in 1314. It was set into the castle keep just below the battlements and came to be called the Blarney Stone. But King Edward I of England took the Stone of Scone to London 18 years earlier. (But legend says Edward I took a fake to London.)
There is no mention of its magical properties until early 19th century. It is said that anyone who kisses the Blarney Stone will receive the gift of eloquence. To do so involves hanging head-first over the castle wall, the legs firmly held by two strong men. The orgin of the legendary power of the stone is a mystery. One tale tells of a king of Munster who saved a witch from drowning. In return she promised that if he kissed the stone he would have such a persuasive tongue that his subjects would obey his every command.

Question: The Stone of Destiny was stolen by Scots in 1950 , can you tell me what day that took place.

The Stone of Destiny was soon recovered after that theft, but it was recently returned to Scotland and is now in Edinburgh Castle, see I have not been able to obtain exact details of the 1950 theft. You could contact:

"Seven centuries after Edward the First marched triumphantly out of Scotland with the ancient symbol of Caledonian nationhood effectively tucked under his arm, the Stone of Destiny has crossed the border again, receiving an emotional homecoming in Edinburgh. The sandstone slab, also known as the Stone of Scone, was the seat for all Scottish kings. But in 1296, the English King Edward the First ordered it be seized and taken south, where it has been held since at Westminster Abbey. The Stone was incorporated into the English - now British - throne, and from the 13th century, kings and queens have been crowned on it.

"The fact that the Stone was not being returned to its natural home in Scone, a little north of Perth, is irksome to the Scots. Instead, it will be housed alongside the Honours of Scotland - effectively, Scotland's Crown Jewels - in Edinburgh Castle. Historians are rumbling that the Stone will never rest easy there "as it has no connection with Edinburgh at all". The Scottish Office responds briskly that it would be impossible to install the necessary level of security at Scone Palace, as it continues to be used as a private home by the Earl of Mansfield. So Edinburgh Castle it is, with all the trimmings that go with it. It is an emotional moment for Scots, at home and abroad.

"But while we might feel a satisfying glow that the Stone has come back to Caledonia, we will also find time for a wee grin as well. For the Stone came back in 1950, thanks to some daring young students from Glasgow University, who sneaked into Westminster Abbey in London and nicked it on Christmas morning. There were roadblocks set up across England; border patrols were stationed at the main crossings into Scotland; yet still the Stone made it north to Glasgow. For a moment, these thirsty students carried it out of the car and placed it on the bar of the Arlington Pub whilst they took a quick pint. Some historians argue the Stone should be displayed here, instead of Edinburgh! Within two weeks, the game was up, and the police were tipped off that the Stone could be found at Arbroath Abbey. The students, under enormous pressure, had decided to hand it back. Or did they? Stories abound across Scotland that the students had a replica made, and THAT was the one the police picked up in 1951. The "real" Stone, depending on which story you believe, is in a stonemason's yard in the west end of Glasgow, or part of the portal at a church in Dundee.

"Experts are studying the Stone to see if it needs any restoration work done before going on public display on November 30, 1996, St. Andrew's Day. And perhaps one of the first visitors will be the one who quietly knows the truth, passed down from father to son over the centuries. Perhaps this visitor knows that King Edward was the one who was cheated; that he stole the wrong Stone; that the Stone of Destiny, the real Stone of Scone, remains, to this day, on the Isle of Iona..."
Charles Fletcher (11-18-1996)

"While standing and looking at the Jacobs Stone for a long period of time in Westminster Abbey, a curator of the museum, a lovely older woman, inquired about my prolonged interest in the stone. I told her a little bit about our unusual theological ideas about the stone, at which she surprised me in knowing of the USBC theory quite well. Apparently every COG person who has ever been there has laid the theory on her, as well as others. I asked her if there are any unusual legends or facts about the stone. She said that there is a legend that the stone can actually SPEAK! It is said that if a usurper to the thrown attempts to be crowned on the chair that the stone will "Groan and Moan" and cry out "NO!!!" It is stated that this has happened on at least a couple of occasions, although the last was supposedly several hundred years ago."
Bill Lussenheide, Menifee,CA USA

[There is a similar legend about the stones of the 2nd Temple, which, according to Jewish legend, cried out at least 3 times against blatant injustice. It may have been to this that Jesus referred when He said: "The very stones would cry out."]

"I remember two years ago geochemical analysis of the stone of Scone indicated that the rock was a (pelitic) schist that has geochemical signature particular to Scotland (the highlands!?) and not of origin in the land of Palestine."
Caleb Ames

In Jacob's Pillar, p.53, E. Raymond Capt writes, "Dean Stanley, one-time custodian of the Stone , in his book Memorials of Westminster Abbey, sums up its historical importance in these words; "It is the one primevel monument which binds together the whole Empire . The iron rings, the battered surface, the crack which has all but rent its solid mass asunder, bear witness of the English Monarchy -- an element of poetic, patriarchal, heathen times... carries back our thoughts ... a link which unites the Throne of England to the traditions of Tara and Iona".
For a full account, see



Sixty Anglo-Israel Difficulties Answered

Chiefly from the Correspondence of the late
John Wilson
compiled by his daughter.

London: S. W. Partridge and Co., 9, Paternoster Row. 1877

John Wilson, 1877. Sixty Anglo-Israel Difficulties Answered

Answering Critics of the British-Israel (or Anglo-Israel) Belief:


website here

British-Israel, Fact or Fallacy?

by R.K. Phillips website here