Anglo-Israelism – A Brief Exposure and Refutation

PART I – INTRODUCTION

When studying the prophecies of the Old Testament, it is evident we are confronted with expressions that are unfamiliar to us and difficulty arises quickly in ascertaining their meaning and intent. Understanding the literary and linguistic styles of the original writers, as well as the cultural, historical and other influences of the day in which they were written is important in interpreting prophetic messages. If we do not take the time to consider these influences, we can misappropriate their purpose and intended audiences.

When this happens, Christians will default to applying their own current attitudes, societal standards of wealth, justice and acceptance in their interpretation of prophetic texts, and project them on the promises God had made to the patriarchs. They often morph their relevancy in ways to find modern application, rejecting more informed contemporary scholarship. Lost in the process is an appreciation for the divine pathos – God’s passion for an ancient people, their life and times – a people for which the modern Christian, centuries later, has no intimate connection with.

This is avoidable. A sincere effort to understand the original time or era in which prophets prepared their texts as God spoke through them opens a pathway to a more holistic and rewarding approach to interpreting these literary passages. We are not left altogether unequipped to understand them, as many Bible helps are available to students from scholarly sources that help navigate these complexities. When the modern reader can release himself from applying modern biases to ancient Biblical texts, proper clarity and appreciation will develop.

This process has been largely thwarted by the teaching of Anglo-Israelism, or often referred to as British-Israelism (AI and BI throughout this article). For decades the Church of God has been subject to this pervasive teaching. It is a teaching that is hard to define, as it has morphed and adapted itself to societal and political norms as they also have evolved. Modern AI advocates have now distanced themselves from the term British Israelism in their writings due to its earlier and less palatable claims for the modern audience, but the foundational teaching is the same. It has evolved and developed sophisticated defenses as contradictions continue to surface.

Wikipedia defines British-Israelism in part as “… a movement which holds the view that the people of England (or more broadly, the people of the United Kingdom) are “genetically, racially, and linguistically the direct descendants” of the Ten Lost Tribes of ancient Israel”. This definition extends to the United States, and a teaching that has increased in proliferation in America over the last 100 years due to its increasing influence and wealth and has diminished in the United Kingdom as its empire receded. For the purpose of this book, AI is the theory in any form that the predominantly white races of Western Europe and North America are the descendants of the northern tribes of Israel, with focus on the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh, and that God is fulfilling promises to Abraham through their latter-day generations. This includes the teaching that belief in AI is needed to “unlock” the recognition of the Unites States and the British Commonwealth in Bible prophecy.

Movements arise out of commonly shared fears, particularly prejudices, racial, political leanings and worldviews that develop in wide social circles. Anglo- Israelism is a product of these and is a belief system that is not born out of the Bible and forgotten truths as its adherents would have us believe. It is a movement that, when it finds fertile soil, will flourish, and regrettably has found such soil in the Churches of God. When this happens, believers begin to see only distorted images of themselves; a particular problem in our more developed societies in the western world.

There is nothing new or unique here. Believers of all faiths have a susceptibility to read their own positions into their sacred writings and hold tightly to the belief systems that come out if it. The early Christian church had to fight against these early identity issues when certain isms found traction such as Gnosticism, various legalisms and isms of other forms. These matters are complicated, but also at its core, Anglo-Israelism is not any different in injecting yet again an unauthorized element of identity into the Christian faith.

It is a tragic reality that many Bible believers put their confidence in self-assured preaching personalities, book authors, and in institutions with marketing resources for assurance that AI is true. Though these proliferators of AI teaching may invite their prospective audiences to examine their teachings for themselves, they at the same time make concerted efforts to discredit academic historians and Biblical scholars that would have otherwise been a great benefit to appreciating and navigating the text in a much more discerning and disciplined manner.

It is discouraging when brethren adopt these attitudes and insist that qualified historians and scholars are deceived, even willfully blinded to the “truth” of AI. They often gravitate toward alternative historical narratives by amateur, uncredentialled writers such as Steven M. Collins as authorities in historical and linguistic analysis. Dismissed are the scholarly works that contain essential interpretive analysis of Semitic and Greco Roman texts.

When faced with clear contradictory evidence, reactions can vary depending on the degree of personal investment that an individual may have in AI teaching. When someone is being told they are not who they thought they were, having already for years or decades held on to the identity and security of being a favored genetic descendant of the Biblical patriarchs of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the reaction can vary from denial to outright hostility to the messenger.

This writer is sympathetic to the situation. To be found wrong in such a significant way, having trusted those who have taught AI and yet reached many with otherwise much truth does create a dilemma for some. I cannot speak for the Head of the Church however, who takes His Gospel message more seriously than we might not have considered, given His patience with us. He died for His own, and any teaching that disrupts the process of growth in grace and knowledge will undoubtedly get His attention in the most negative way.

In this article we examine the very common assertions of AI teaching and expose some of the false Biblical and historical narratives and attitudes that have spawned out of it. In it we also want to encourage the reader to think differently by an examination of how we may have been trapped by its tenets, and how such things as critical thinking skills can help us navigate through almost any form of false teaching.

PART II – HOW DID WE GET HERE?

The belief in Anglo-Israelism has secured a hold on a significant element in the Sabbath keeping world of the Church of God.  This belief appears to have been solidified in doctrinal statements and literature in many facets of the Church, from corporate bodies with thousands of members, to independent groups down to isolated individuals with no affiliation, that, in large part, trace themselves back to the Worldwide Church of God.  The belief in BI is not unique to these groups as the teaching dates back many years as early as the mid 17^th century.  Herbert Armstrong, the founder of the World Wide Church of God, got his inspiration from materials written by early 20^th century authors such as J. H. Allen with his book Judah’s Sceptre and Joseph’s Birthright.

In the last few decades adherents of this teaching have developed even more historical evidence to support the theory.  The average Biblical reader is not equipped to navigate and investigate the many claims of AI literature and video programming which have become increasingly sophisticated and, in some cases, dogmatic.   AI campaigns take advantage of the very fact that most of their followers do not have the aptitude or the resources to investigate their teachings.  This is also combined with exuded confidence in their presentation styles and resources which has always been an effective draw to would-be converts to their organizations or materials.

BI researchers are very selective in their citation of secular references for their historic, linguistic and ethnic findings to align with their thesis.    The reader should also understand these subjects are far more complicated than most of us can imagine.  History is simplified in BI literature, heavily biased, and because of that fact one can know for certain one is not getting the full truth.

The intended recipients of this article are those who have not integrated BI into their belief system in any form to the point of no return.  Admittedly, God is surely capable of changing minds at His will, but most of us should well recognize that we have been given free will to choose the paths we take, and we own the choices we make.  This author has also become increasingly aware that the belief in BI is not innocuous as a whole.  It is a teaching that for some has become a truth and has been integrated into their identity in Christ.  It has also cultured divisions in the Church.  Just as identity politics sparks so much derision between peoples, BI is an identity teaching that also misleads its followers as to their place in the world, the church, and in prophecy.

The teaching of BI may not completely unravel within the Church of God until such time as its believers start finding themselves on the wrong side of history.   The United States and other western nations are gentile nations prophesied to be dominant before Christ Himself brings this age to a close and puts an end to the economic systems of the world.    God does not make mistakes with history.  Even before the Christ came with the Gospel, He used the developed societies and systems of the Greco-Roman world to prepare for and further the Gospel worldwide[1].  These were empires of the evolving image of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream as interpreted by Daniel that began with Babylon and has taken us to the modern age.  God is still using the dominant gentile nations for His purpose to further His invitation to the world, but their idolatry He will also end when His time comes.  Until that time, the destiny of the nation of Israel and those scattered in among other nations are under the control of the gentiles.  The United States and Great Britain have certainly played a significant role in that capacity in the last 100 years.  The prophesies of Daniel, Haggai and Zechariah, and God’s use of the nations is a study recommended for those willing to examine the subject in even broader Biblical context.

Followers of AI have been taught a different Biblical and historical narrative.  To condense it here, AI asserts that because of their lineage to Abraham, it is evident that the greater responsibility to spread the gospel has fallen on the shoulders of America and other English speaking countries of the west, even though they are not aware of it.   Due to a prophesied moral decay, weak immigration policies and other disobedient behavior, the United States and others will be punished and taken into captivity by European powers who are gentile descendants of Assyria.  Variations of the above exist, but the above is not unfamiliar to most even slightly acquainted with the teaching.

The suggestion that America and the British Empire are gentile nations may be offensive to some with staunch AI persuasion.  Yet, the same do not hesitate to point the finger at certain countries of mainland Europe as gentile and forming the prophesied Beast power to come.

The purpose of this paper is to help the reader to start questioning and investigating some of the main scriptural proofs and historical evidence that many BI advocates repeatedly present to their audience.  This subject and related topics will be addressed further in forthcoming papers and sermons by this writer and others.

Why this Teaching is Believed

Because, through our modern perceptions of the world and with a few assumptions, it intriguingly makes sense.   The United States and the British Empire seem to fit the bill of certain prophecies in the Abrahamic blessings (to be discussed later), particularly that of the tribes of Manasseh and Ephraim.    How else would one explain the dominant world role of the United States and its allies in the British Commonwealth, the freedoms that their citizens largely enjoy, their charity to less privileged peoples around the world, and the keepers of peace had they not been a chosen and blessed people?   How can such dominant countries be omitted in the words of the prophets whose reach often takes us to the end times, even pointing to Jacob’s Trouble?   AI seems to answer all these questions and more.

There is also an appeal for our inherent need for an identity that comes through AI.  The apostles battled various ‘isms’ before, where Gnosticism in its various forms gave their believers added assurance in the faith.  It is a powerful carnal need to be significant and BI appeals for a calling that goes beyond salvation by faith in Jesus Christ.

An example of this appeal can be seen near the conclusion of a YouTube presentation by a spokesperson for the Canadian British-Israel Association:

“When combined with faith in Christ, this may be referred to as the high calling.”     “… so that you can get a renewed appreciation of your divine heritage and responsibilities as Children of God. – Spirit of Truth – Canadian British-Israel Association.

These statements appeal to the need to have a greater significance to God and higher view of oneself in the faith.  These statements cannot be supported by scripture and can be dangerous to those who accept them.

Is it revealed Truth?

One of the more well-known BI advocates in the 20^th century was Herbert Armstrong, and along with the church he founded, popularized the theory much further than his predecessors. Marketing is about getting someone to believe in the presenter and the presenter’s product.   If you get both to work at the same time, you have the ingredients to achieve greater success in perpetuating your products.  It would seem Herbert Armstrong with his marketing background inherently knew this, and this is reflected in his book presented as his own research titled The United States and Britain in Prophecy.  The book is merely an adaptation of an earlier book:  Judah’s Sceptre and Joseph’s Birthright by J. H. Allen, introduced to him by others.   In some cases there was significant plagiarism of Allen’s book[2].

The teaching of AI was around as early as the 17^th century prior to Armstrong’s release of his own literature.   Mr. Armstrong was ahead of his time by offering materials for free, which accelerated its proliferation.

The United States and Britain in Prophecy makes no reference to Allen’s book, and is presented as his own discovery.  This book in its various editions was the most requested book published by the Worldwide Church of God.  This is not to suggest that Mr. Armstrong did not teach truth in other areas, of which this author has personally benefited.  This article is directed only at BI teaching and the false narrative that many individuals are using to sustain its belief in the Church.

Therefore we want to know why we believe what we believe.   Even the most dogmatic believers in I would say they do not accept this teaching by faith–claiming to have proved it out sufficiently.  We do not want to believe anything by how it is marketed, and yet, this teaching has been well marketed for decades, and whether we like it or not, is largely believed because of its marketing by confident ministries and subsequent back-proofs that have come through runaway Biblical eisegesis and confirmation biases as mentioned in the introduction to this paper.

In the last few decades, authors of other free books and booklets have been written since Herbert Armstrong had written his own.  Capturing Armstrong’s lead, corporate Churches of God recognize the need to have their own BI material given the appeal that this teaching has to possible new converts.

This writer recognizes that he is up against a behemoth teaching adopted and defended by many, but that does not make it truth.  AI appears to have attained a life of its own.

After a number of years of examining this teaching, it really did not occur to this writer until well into the study of it what the background assumptions are and how those assumptions got established.  Once the assumptions are believed, they become a bias filter in perceiving just about everything else.  It would take us well into the millennia to address all the claims behind AI, so if we can expose the main assumptions that are behind it as well as the perceptions that are born out of them, perhaps something can be accomplished.

The value of this paper should not be based on winning an argument against the AI case; it is a witness against the falsehood that AI simply is.  It is given as a witness to BI believers whether they reject it or not. However, more targeted are a new generation of believers that are coming who need to be protected from it, and be helped to investigate AI teaching with a greater awareness.

Even as convincing AI is to some, the burden of proof rests heavily on the supporters of AI theory.  Answering all the many conjectures for decades that this belief system has given rise to is not something we intend to do.  We are looking at BI’s foundational tenets–for as the scripture tells us regarding building on our foundation of faith “…let each one take heed how he builds on it” (1 Corinthians 3:10).

PART III – GENESIS 49 ALWAYS COMES UP

The prophecies of Genesis 49 invariably come up in just about every conversation, Church telecast and piece of literature to advocate AI.  It is a foundational set of scriptures that believers in AI feel that detractors of BI teaching must face as a reality concerning the end times or latter days.   We will address this prophecy in particular for this reason.  We would like to address all the prophetic claims of BI, but unfortunately, in the whole of all the literature, sermon messages and outreach broadcasts supporting this belief, just about every prophetic scripture in the Old Testament has been quoted to support the theory, and in many cases, stretching them to limits beyond imagination.  It seems BI writers feel they have license to interpret prophetic and Old Testament covenant scriptures as they see fit, and the burden of proof is not on this ministry to have to deal with all BI claims.

Genesis 49 is perhaps considered the most irrefutable scriptural evidence of an existing dominant and national presence of Israel in the end times, particularly the nations of Ephraim and Manasseh:

And Jacob called his sons and said, “Gather together, that I may tell you what shall befall you in the last days (Genesis 49:1 NKJV)

…what shall befall you in the last days is an intriguing set of words, slightly ominous in nature, and at first glance clear evidence of prophetic end time/end of age scriptures are to follow.   We will not quote the whole chapter, but we will quote Jacob’s prophecy concerning Joseph, thus also pertaining to Ephraim and Manasseh:

“Joseph is a fruitful bough,
A fruitful bough by a well;
His branches run over the wall.
The archers have bitterly grieved him,
Shot at him and hated him.

But his bow remained in strength,
And the arms of his hands were made strong
By the hands of the Mighty God of Jacob
(From there is the Shepherd, the Stone of Israel),
By the God of your father who will help you,
And by the Almighty who will bless you
With blessings of heaven above,
Blessings of the deep that lies beneath,
Blessings of the breasts and of the womb.
The blessings of your father
Have excelled the blessings of my ancestors,
Up to the utmost bound of the everlasting hills.
They shall be on the head of Joseph,
And on the crown of the head of him who was separate from his brothers” (Genesis 49:22-26).

Of  all the sons of Jacob, it seems quite evident that Joseph’s descendants would receive ample blessings and strength in the far future leading up to the last days.  This would seem like clear support for wealthy and strong nations of the United States and the British Commonwealth, Manasseh and Ephraim respectively, as perpetuated in all BI literature.   This sounds especially convincing given the other scriptures that support the promises to Abraham having descendants inheriting great blessings and national greatness.

Great care should have been taken in interpreting Genesis 49:1 by certain influential expositors in the Church of God, and of the whole chapter for that matter.   As it was not, it has become the staple set of scriptures in support of BI in all literature and presentations that this author has seen.  Even so, it’s never too late to correct error if we are willing.  We are fortunate to have some resources at our disposal that will help us dispel Genesis 49 as any kind of clear evidence of Jacob having prophetic visions of nations that exist in our modern era. Let us take an honest look at Jacob’s words.

We have noted that we have used the King James translation for our quotation of Genesis 49:1.  Other translations would seem to agree:

After this, Jacob called his sons together and told them, “Assemble yourselves around me so I can tell you all what is going to happen to you in the last days.”  (ISV)

And Jacob called unto his sons, and said: ‘Gather yourselves together, that I may tell you that which shall befall you in the end of days.’ (JPS Tanakh 1917)

And Jacob called unto his sons, and said: ‘gather yourselves together, that I may tell you that which shall befall you in the latter days.’ (ASV)

And Jacob called unto his sons, and said: ‘Gather yourselves together, that I may tell you that which shall befall you in the latter days.’ (ERV)

Other translations however do not suggest an end of age fulfillment of the prophecies

Then Jacob called for his sons and said: “Gather around so I can tell you what will happen to you in days to come.” (NIV)

Then Jacob called together all his sons and said, “Gather around me, and I will tell you what will happen to each of you in the days to come.” (NLT)

Then Jacob called his sons and said, “Gather yourselves together, that I may tell you what shall happen to you in days to come.” (ESV)

Then Jacob called for his sons and said, “Gather around so that I can tell you what will happen to you in the days to come:” (BSB)

Then Jacob summoned his sons and said, “Assemble yourselves that I may tell you what will befall you in the days to come.” (NASB)

Then Jacob called his sons and said, “Gather around, and I will tell you what will happen to you in the days to come.” (CSB)

Jacob called for his sons and said, “Gather around, and I will tell you what will happen to you in the future:” (GNT)

Then Jacob called his sons and said, “Gather around, and I will tell you what will happen to you in the days to come.”  (HCSB)

This is not an exhaustive list, but which translations are correct?  The staunch BI advocate would perhaps argue that the latter set of translations are not accurate, not reflecting the magnitude of Jacob’s words, and accuse the translators of being unable to perceive the truth of Genesis Chapter 49.  This writer has no problem with all of them, however the JPS Tanakh 1917 with “end of days” may be misleading to some–it sounds like a blockbuster movie title and indeed it is.

“days to come” and similar better reflect Jacob’s perspective vision for his offspring; a special prophetic look into their future. A proper and patient Biblical investigation is needed before conclusions should be drawn regarding Jacob’s prophecies.  Failure to do so can send us down the path of compounding error, which profoundly defines BI teaching.  Fortunately, we can begin to get some help with Brown Drivers Briggs Lexicon on this very expression:

בְּאַחֲרִית הַיָּמִים in the end of the days, a prophetic phrase denoting the final period of the history so far as the speaker’s perspective reaches; the sense thus varies with the context, but it often = the ideal or Messianic future; Genesis 49:1 (of the period of Israel’s possession of Canaan) Numbers 24:14; Deuteronomy 4:30 (of the period of Israel’s return to God after adversity) Deuteronomy 31:29 (of the period of Israel’s rebellion) Hosea 3:5; Isaiah 2:2 ( = Micah 4:1) Jeremiah 23:20 (see Graf) = Jeremiah 30:24; Jeremiah 48:47; Jeremiah 49:39; Ezekiel 38:16 (of the period of Gog’s attack upon restored Israel) Daniel 2:28 (Aramaic) Daniel 10:14 (of the age of Antiochus Epiphanes): compare הַשָּׁנִים ׳כְּא Ezekiel 38:8.

What the scholars of the Lexicon point out is that the expression the end of days is indeed prophetic, but reaches the period of history so far as the speaker’s perspective is concerned.  As we will examine further, though much of  Jacob’s prophecies are regarding Israel’s future in Canaan, or the extent of the Promised Land in the Middle East, they also capture the importance of Israel to humanity.  This is lost on BI teaching which instead focuses on the use of Genesis 49 as a proof text to support its belief.

It is therefore important to recognize that Jacob, including Moses, who re-iterated much of Jacob’s prophecies and blessings in Deuteronomy 33, recognized a future Messiah, but their prophecy concerned the people of Israel to the extent that was revealed to them at that time and for God’s purposes.  In particular, Jacob is not uttering cryptic words regarding Joseph’s descendants inhabiting Great Britain and the North America.

“In dealing with the predictive aspect of prophecy, we must remember that when God spoke to and through His servants, He did not give them unlimited vision. Instead they were confined within a divinely limited perspective. “[3]

God’s servants are given the measured amount of revelation as needed as history unfolds, particularly in relation to time.   Modern readers must guard against presuming to take what was a limited perspective, and transforming it beyond its original intent.    When this happens, we lose the significance and appreciation of the text, and AI in particular robs Genesis 49 of its original purpose.

In isolation, this understanding may be met with resistance by those confident of their BI persuasion, especially given the widespread cemented mindset regarding Genesis 49.  Before we look at a more wholesome appreciation of Genesis 49, it will help then to look to two other occasions where it would be a stretch beyond comprehension to consider the phrase end of days as an exclusive reference to the end of this age:

“For I know that after my death you will become utterly corrupt, and turn aside from the way which I have commanded you. And evil will befall you in the latter days, because you will do evil in the sight of the Lord, to provoke Him to anger through the work of your hands” (Deuteronomy 31:29).

Here in Deuteronomy 31:29, is the exact same Hebrew phrase in question translated in the King James as latter days.  We do not see this verse quoted (at least as far as this writer has seen) to support BI theory, as Moses is speaking to the peoples with him whose descendants would populate the Promised Land.  Moses’ prophecy did indeed occur. As the Lexicon correctly points out–the expression reaches the final period of history of Israel insofar as the speaker, Moses, is concerned.  This is not to suggest Moses could not foresee a millennial Kingdom (Hebrews 12:26) and a coming Savior (Deuteronomy 18:18-19), his prophecy was concerning the period of their latter times in the Promised Land.

Moses is not speaking to those who have been persuaded they are descendants of Manasseh living in Texas or Illinois who are now compelled to send more money to the Church of God organization who are telling them they are, and that they need help to get this message out.

These words of Moses are a reminder of what he emphasized earlier.   We direct the reader to Deuteronomy Chapter 4:

“And the Lord will scatter you among the peoples, and you will be left few in number among the nations where the Lord will drive you. And there you will serve gods, the work of men’s hands, wood and stone, which neither see nor hear nor eat nor smell. But from there you will seek the Lord your God, and you will find Him if you seek Him with all your heart and with all your soul. When you are in distress, and all these things come upon you in the latter days, when you turn to the Lord your God and obey His voice (for the Lord your God is a merciful God), He will not forsake you nor destroy you, nor forget the covenant of your fathers which He swore to them” (Deuteronomy 4:27-31).

Here again above is the expression of latter days, and is the same Hebrew expression found in Genesis 49:1.

The same selection of scripture above was quoted in the latest edition of a typical US and Britain in Prophecy book published by a corporate Church.   The authors of the book immediately try to direct their readers to believe that modern day Israelites in the United States will learn in their distress in those “latter days” they are really not gentiles, but Israelites, and turn from their evil ways.  The inference is that they should have listened to the literature their organization made available, and of course the believing reader will feel empowered because he or she knows it already, especially if they identify with being white (Caucasian), or having Anglo-Saxon ancestry.

That stated, the verses immediately prior were conveniently omitted by its authors:

“When you beget children and grandchildren and have grown old in the land, and act corruptly and make a carved image in the form of anything, and do evil in the sight of the Lord your God to provoke Him to anger, I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that you will soon utterly perish from the land which you cross over the Jordan to possess; you will not prolong your days in it, but will be utterly destroyed” (Deuteronomy 4:25-26).

Expressed clearly here is the context in which Moses spoke: it is the land on the other side of Jordan, the Land of Promise where they will be in the latter days in Deuteronomy 4:30.  This is not a reference to the end of this age.

Indeed Moses’ foretelling of what would happen did come to pass, and it also came to pass that God remembered the covenant He made with their fathers and did not obliterate them altogether.   For now, it is an extreme reach to ignore past fulfillments of Israel’s dispersion and God’s faithfulness to suggest this is  in regards to a future captivity or some other form of punishment of the United States and other western countries given the clear historical context.

Without question the Hebrew expression for “latter days” in Genesis 49:1 is most often used in regards to the end of the age, and this is commonly the argument to use it exclusively in this capacity.   But when it does not, it does not, and the Bible student should take heed in examining the context it is used.  Nevertheless we will look at a case where the expression introduces prophecy concerning our time:

^“Now I have come to make you understand what will happen to your people in the latter days, for the vision refers to many days yet to come.” (Daniel 10:14)

Here a glorious Angel (verses 5-6) is addressing Daniel near the end of the prophesied 70 years of captivity.  The Angel’s perspective reaches supernaturally into the future with detailed events that will lead up to the time of the end when Christ returns.  Clearly the context of verse 14 and what follows make that so, for the Angel’s discourse to Daniel takes us to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes in antiquity, and then even to Chapter 12, before Christ’s return and the end of this age.

We have here a clear example of where the prophetic latter days phrase must be interpreted in context and to the point where the speaker’s perspective reaches.   It would not be a stretch to believe that the Angel could even see beyond that, but what we have here is the Angel’s revealed perspective given to Daniel.  The reader is invited to explore all references in regards to the phrase “end of days” or “latter days” for a proper exegesis of its use, to understand the source and context of the expression.

The idea that Genesis 49:26-29 is a prophetic blessing by Joseph being fulfilled in America today cannot be Biblically supported.  However, as it is one of the foundational scriptures of BI teaching, we will afford more time to it.

The Jewish Study Bible – Tanakh Translation is recommended for Bible students examining the Old Testament.  The editors and commentators of this Bible are exceptional scholars and can provide the student guidance through these ancient texts with culturally balanced interpretation.

The following commentary relates to Genesis 49:

“49:1-28 interlaces commendation and condemnation.  Rich in wordplays it is impossible to capture in English as well as cryptic phrasings and rare expressions (including unusual, and probably very ancient, divine names), Jacob’s tribal sayings have long provoked disagreements among interpreters.”[4]

These expressions cannot be fully grasped by the English language or any other modern language for that matter.  These words were meant as an encouragement for what would be a struggling people under God’s affection in the times to come through enslavement in Egypt and the challenges they would face entering into the promised land.  It was a poetic discourse given to help them interpret their identity in the times upon them.  There are layers of understanding and reference that we are not privy to.

Jacob wanted to impress on them that their character not only affects their own destiny, but also the conduct and fortune of future generations.   The lesson for the generations to come is the same Jacob sought to teach his sons, and that is present actions have future results and repercussions.   The degree of fulfillment of the blessings they would receive in the Promised Land has everything to do with the past and their future obedience to God’s laws.  This principle generally applies to all peoples throughout history, except their original intent becomes useless under BI interpretation.

Yet, because of the difficulty in modern interpretation, and with the misunderstanding of the phrase latter days as explained above, BI interpreters have difficulty finding or accepting fulfillment in Biblical texts, or discussing the importance to the Israelites as discussed above.  Thus, AI presentations often become quite emphatic in regard to asserting the fulfillment of the blessings of Joseph in the British Empire and the United States.

Genesis 49 fulfillments can be found in regards to the prophesies if they are more closely examined.  We repeat a portion of the prophecies of Joseph here:

“Joseph is a fruitful bough, a fruitful bough by a well; His branches run over the all. The archers have bitterly grieved him, shot at him and hated him. But his bow remained in strength, and the arms of his hands were made strong by the hands of the Mighty God of Jacob (From there is the Shepherd, the Stone of Israel), by the God of your father who will help you, and by the Almighty who will bless you with blessings of heaven above, blessings of the deep that lies beneath, blessings of the breasts and of the womb” (Genesis 49:22-25)

The above is generally interpreted in BI as the fruitful and productive colonization of the British Empire in peoples and land.   Paragraphs are spent discussing the wealth of America challenging their audience to consider where else could such blessing have occurred in history.  The BI narrative also adds this text as a reference to Britain and America being unjustly provoked, yet resulting in major military conflicts, and would be victorious with God’s help.

The above would be a very appealing interpretation to some who are citizens of America and British patriots, but ignored is the fulfilment of this prophecy found in Joshua 17:14-18:

Then the children of Joseph spoke to Joshua, saying, “Why have you given us only one lot and one share to inherit, since we are a great people, inasmuch as the Lord has blessed us until now?”

So Joshua answered them, “If you are a great people, then go up to the forest country and clear a place for yourself there in the land of the Perizzites and the giants, since the mountains of Ephraim are too confined for you.”

But the children of Joseph said, “The mountain country is not enough for us; and all the Canaanites who dwell in the land of the valley have chariots of iron, both those who are of Beth Shean and its towns and those who are of the Valley of Jezreel.”

And Joshua spoke to the house of Joseph—to Ephraim and Manasseh—saying, “You are a great people and have great power; you shall not have only one lot,  but the mountain country shall be yours. Although it is wooded, you shall cut it down, and its farthest extent shall be yours; for you shall drive out the Canaanites, though they have iron chariots and are strong” (Joshua 17:14-18).

From the abundant blessings promised for Joseph’s descendants in Genesis 48 and 49, the mountains were too narrow (the upmost bound of the everlasting hills) for Ephraim and thus were given more land. They were so numerous they effectively overflowed their borders (branches run over the walls).  They were up against powerful enemies as they swelled, and God made them strong in overcoming them (But his bow remained in strength…).

Even faced with the above, BI theory has an answer for this too.

Former and Later Fulfillments

The following quotation captures much of the difficulty in dealing with BI teaching:

“British-Israelism is a theological sponge. Its methodology, not being seriously encumbered with the facts, renders it so flexible that when evidence becomes obvious which seems to refute or embarrass it, it simply exercises its syncretistic system, absorbs the contrary evidence, and declares that both are true“.[5]

In my experience, this quotation brilliantly and succinctly captures the difficulty in witnessing the falsehood behind the rationale used to support AI belief.  The assumption behind most BI adherents is that the burden of truth rests on the laps of BI dissidents as they wrestle with BI syncretism.  As AI absorbs much of the Biblical and historical contradictions it is confronted with in this paper, which is by no means an exhaustive compendium, and fulfillments of the promises in the Promised Land, the AI system executes the “principle of dual fulfillments” to re-affirm its position as truth.

Former and latter fulfillments in interpreting prophetic scriptures is an effective defense for AI when it is faced with contrary evidence, allows for a non-conclusion with the AI satisfied in preserving the mere open possibility of the latter fulfillment – in AI thought, so long as the possibility exists, it therefore exists.

When confronted with the reality of the importance of the prophecies concerning Joseph’s sons as discussed above, the lessons for their generations up to and including their time in the Promised Land, and their fulfilments described in Joshua,  the AI response is often that later fulfillment must be the answer.  We will discuss this now.

It seems quite evident that former and later fulfillments exist in God’s expression of executing His will.

Examples of former and later fulfillments:

“When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called My son” (Hosea 11:1).

The former fulfillment is a reference to the exodus of the children of Israel out of Egypt.   The later fulfillment is found in Matthew 2:15:

When he arose, he took the young Child and His mother by night and departed for Egypt, and was there until the death of Herod, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, “Out of Egypt I called My Son” Matthew (2:14,15).

Perhaps another is Psalm 118:22:

The stone which the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone. This was the Lord’s doing; It is marvelous in our eyes (Psalm 118:22).

This primarily referred to the Jewish nation being conquered and carried away and rejected as of no use, but still destined to a future importance (Matthew 21:42).

Peter quotes Psalm 118 in 1 Peter 2:7 in reference to Christ being rejected, only to become the Chief Cornerstone.

The examples above have compelling reasons to believe their dual or later, sometimes called ultimate fulfillments.  This is an important principle in interpretation that unless we are compelled to believe by scripture to interpret a former and later fulfillment, we are not to accept or even speculate there is one.

There is no scriptural support for dual fulfillment of Genesis 49, there is no New Testament reference to Genesis 49:22-26, which causes most BI interpreters to avoid dual fulfillments in the first place, and instead focus their interpretive energies exclusively on a single fulfillment in the end times.

A Proper Appreciation

We stated earlier, we will touch on the importance of Jacob’s words as they capture the importance of Israel in God’s plan for humanity.

“Jacob’s last words to his sons have become the occasion for a final statement of the book’s major theme: God’s plan to restore the lost blessing [lost in the Fall] through the offspring of Abraham”[7]

The Promised Land may not mean such a big deal to the modern reader to those in the British Empire at its peak, or the United States now in its wealth, but it meant a great deal to each tribe of Israel.  It meant a great deal to the Lord their God to fulfill His promises to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

But even more, in these verses is a beautiful revelation of a gracious God who cared for His servant Jacob over so many years.  There is a revelation of the Messiah (verse 10), the Mighty One, the Shepherd and the Stone of Israel (verse 24), all of these having relevance to the salvation of all nations.  Jesus Christ and creation’s reconciliation to God are the ultimate subject of the Bible, and Israel will again be restored in the Land of Promise.  Claims that Britain and America form part of the fulfillment of these prophecies takes away the intent of these scriptures and God’s plan of salvation as a whole.

Interim Conclusion

Today, it is unfortunate to the Sabbath Keeping Community when outspoken AI advocates in our midst use the expressions found in Genesis 49 such as “Blessings of the deep that lies beneath” as a reference to the oil and mineral reserves found in the United States, where the Bible interprets Joseph’s blessings as the well springs of water (Deuteronomy 33:13-16).

It is a tragic waste of valuable scripture when BI interpretation of Genesis 49 almost exclusively attempts to persuade their audience to only see true fulfillment with the United States and the British Empire along with other western European nations.

Those who contend the interpretation of Genesis 49 regarding the blessings attributed to Joseph, as being fulfilled through the United States and Britain, seem to be unaware they are implying that Jacob’s words were almost meaningless to its initial hearer, Joseph himself, and also to his sons he shared them to, and for generations after.  It is a sad commentary – the original audience is dismissed as being less relevant by BI interpreters, who then hijack the words of Jacob to support the BI argument.

If a believer is persuaded Genesis 49:1-28 pertains to the end of the age, it forms a part of the narrative that leads him or her to accept that there is an obligation by God to bless Joseph’s descendants up to the time of the end. The other major part of the BI narrative that works in tandem with its interpretation of Genesis 49 is its exclusive ideas of the fulfillments of the promises to Abraham, along with unsubstantiated historical, linguistic and prophetic interpretations. A few historic and linguistic claims will be examined next.

PART IV – AN HISTORICAL CAUTION

It is a shame that academic historians and qualified biblical scholars are often labeled blind as to the truth of the identity of Israel by the teachers and proliferators of AI thought.    One BI author emphasized that Biblical scholars fail to acknowledge “the depth and richness of the promises of materials blessings” God offered to Abraham and his descendants.  He further added that they are “blinded to the truth about the identity of modern-day Israel.”[8]  This dramatic language would sound convincing enough to some however.

Proliferators of AI are well aware that Biblical scholars and accredited historians are least likely to accept their claims, not because they are blind or stupid, but because they are studious and disciplined–traits also expected of Christian believers.    It is therefore necessary to discredit them in the minds of their audience to further their teaching.  If AI is truth, it should not be so necessary to discredit entire professions. Rather, they should be inviting scholars and historians to review their writings and encourage their readers to ask professionals in the relevant fields to study about it.  God calls and opens the hearts and minds to understand and receive the Gospel of Jesus Christ, even AI enthusiasts know AI is not the Gospel, and it does not take divine intervention to remove any blindness from a historian or scholar if AI is true or not.

Academics are not the enemy; they can be a great asset to us if  their work is considered appropriately.  Their methods of interpretation can also be a great resource for us to appreciate, as we will touch on momentarily.

There are only a handful of independent researchers who have published material promoting AI.  They are often cited as resources by religious groups as authorities on the subject.  They are typically amateur historians who have spent many years without peer review on the subject of tracing the migration of peoples and their identities.    In reality, migrations of peoples, geo-political influences and cultural agendas of ancient times and other complications are far beyond the scope of the expertise of these authors and presenters of AI material.  AI writers have not discovered for you any missing links or secretive keys God has revealed to them.  It is what they are not telling you that would give their case and cause so much trouble.  We are doing that in a very small way here.

We can also recognize that virtually all of us do not have the time and resources to check out the bewildering historical claims of AI material.  Most of us do not have academic credentials in history and other professional fields that may be necessary to verify what is being taught. They also take advantage of our modern biases and filters as we read in our own attitudes and self-perceptions of the world we live in.    As we said earlier, AI can seem to make so much sense – Biblically, historically, and prophetically it does not.

We do not have to become researchers ourselves and obtain academic degrees on the related subjects of history, language, archaeology or any discipline that is needed to decipher the sophisticated claims of the endless AI historical rhetoric.  Nor do we have to invest exorbitant amounts of time and energy into investigating it.  It would actually take away from our experience in Christ and the growth of His grace.  Fortunately, there is an easier method this author suggests, it is often called critical thinking, and we can all use it to help navigate out and through AI teaching and the mess AI has created without exhausting our precious time on more important Christ-centered activities. Even a small element of critical thinking skills can help us altogether in our walk in this age of distraction and misinformation.

Critical Thinking

History, linguistics and archaeology are disciplines of professional study – AI is not a disciplined study, yet it touches on all these areas.  Christianity is considered a discipline–Christ called for disciples, and by definition they must be disciplined in their research.  For this writer, when confronted with material and arguments in areas that are not my area of expertise, a small element of critical thinking can go a long way in deciphering what is real and relevant from what is deceptive and unhealthy.   The Apostles actually taught a form of critical thinking, and we should take their advice.   One element of proper academic training is the use of critical thinking to decipher the available evidence.

Critical thinking is a foundational component of an historian’s work. When conducting research, they use critical thinking to interpret primary sources and consider what these sources reveal about the individuals, groups, cultures, and societies that existed within humanity’s past. Historians must also refer to other sources.   They must examine and verify what others have said about cultures, activities and belief systems.  They must thoughtfully evaluate the evidence and arguments presented.   This is discouraged in AI literature, and their readers are encouraged to refer to material that only supports the BI thesis instead.

Critical thinking includes self-awareness, which I believe is crucial in our walk as Christians.  We should be cognizant as to why we believe what we believe.     There is a branch of philosophy called Epistemology. It is the study of what distinguishes justified belief from formed opinions.  It studies how we know what we know, and even the study of whether we can know certain kinds of things. What this means to us as believers is that we must also pay careful attention to the role presuppositions play in our own belief systems and reasoning.   Confidence in a tradition, such as the doctrine of BI has become, (even though many around us still believe it, or how long it has been taught, and how much sense it seems to make, and how many questions it seems to answer) does not make it truth.

More recently, critical thinking has been described as “the process of purposeful, self-regulatory judgement, which uses reasoned consideration to evidence, context, conceptualizations, methods, and criteria.”[9]  Critical thinking of this kind can help us escape confirmation bias which has played a dominant role in sustaining the teaching of AI.

Therefore, self-regulatory judgement and self-awareness are traits that can protect us from false teaching altogether.  You are responsible for what you believe.

Therefore take heed how you hear. For whoever has, to him more will be given; and whoever does not have, even what he seems to have will be taken from him” (Luke 8:18).

For most historians, their agenda is a passion for discovery, not an agenda to develop a following or membership in an organization, or to sell their self-published books on their web pages.   One aspect of critical thinking is how to manage error, as error in understanding does not discredit the aptitude and the intent in the balance of scholarly or historical work that is available and we can all benefit in substantial ways.  Many in the Church of God have been programmed to dismiss contrary Biblical and historical evidence by pointing to the ignorance of scholars regarding the Sabbath or Holy Days.   In reality, truth and factual understanding does not work that way.

“This is proof” is a common phrase I come across in listening to and reading AI presentations.  This phrase sets off alarm bells every time.   It is not the objective of this ministry to exhaust itself on this subject by addressing all the “proofs” that AI theorists have presented.   That is fundamentally your responsibility.

It would help to look at a few examples of historical and Biblical interpretations that have been used to argue the case for AI.   We are not going to exhaust ourselves with all AI cases, so this author will be selective to discuss a few below. 

The Declaration of Abroath

This document, signed in 1320,  would almost seem like another clear piece of evidence that the Scottish people hundreds of years ago recognized their Israelitish origins.  It is another “proof” offered on BI thinking.

The document contains the following curious phrases:

They “… came, twelve hundred years after the people of Israel crossed the Red Sea, to their home in the west where they still live today”, thereafter “[holding] it free of all bondage ever since”

And

“…in their kingdom there have reigned one hundred and thirteen kings of their own royal stock, the line unbroken [by] a single foreigner.”

This is often cited as a proof of AI theory by various groups.  Is it proof?

The historical context of this document must not be underestimated.   In appealing to the Pope the signatories to the declaration make clear their commitment not merely to Scotland’s independence but also to its nationhood.   It, as an expression of Scottish nationalism, cannot be doubted. It is known as one of the most articulate, eloquent and heartfelt expressions of Scottish nationhood ever written.  It needs to be understood by its purpose: it was designed to persuade the Pope of their cause.  It was not an exercise in writing accurate history, or to give the Pope a history lesson.  The heart of the declaration was a passionate cry for freedom and liberty, seen also with the past reflection of the Exodus across the sea.   It is a product of their cultural sensitivities, rather than an expression of an historical truth. It has elements of truth, a touch of romanticism and assumptions that can easily be debunked.  Even to this day, this document sparks emotion with the citizens of Scotland.

The example of the Declaration of Abroath is good as it is a classic example where examination of the evidence presented must be through the cultural and political lenses to understand the context before making any conclusions.   The reader is encouraged to examine history more critically without the influence of AI thinking. 

Gates of Their Enemies?

“… and your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies” (Genesis 22:17).

When BI advocates list the sea gates under the control of the British and Americans, they often give the strategic histories with them that contributed to their dominance as world powers. Then they will shift the reader’s attention to developments where control of these sea gates has been lost or will soon be lost by these nations.  They assert they are being lost due to their disobedience to God, and quote for example Leviticus 26:19:  “I will break the pride of your power;…”

Usually, the conclusion is an invitation for the reader to request their United States and Britain in Bible Prophecy book to understand such trends in Biblical prophecy. This is a marketing tactic.

The casual reader, member of their organization and prospective member may be inclined to believe them and follow the line of expounded reasoning the presenter gives them.  Its sounds very compelling, but are they telling the truth?

This has to be one of the worst interpretations of the Bible that have come out of the Church of God, or out of anywhere that has used it.  Although God said that Abraham’s seed would possess the gate of their enemies, recognize that ‘gate of their enemies’ does not mean ‘sea gate of their enemies’. A sea gate is where access is given to the sea, or a gate that acts as a barrier protection against sea surges.  The Suez and Panama Canals for example are not sea gates, but channel ways from one body of water to another.  Regardless, Abraham never heard of a sea gate, or channel locks if the reader insists, and therefore the implication by BI expositors is that Abraham did not know what God was talking about, but their readers now should.  They never seem to explain who the enemies are regarding the gates either.  The Suez Canal often tops the lists of BI “gates” under British control, however its history is more complicated than that as it was a joint British-French enterprise.  They use the Suez Crisis in 1956 as another sign of God removing his blessings from the British Empire due to their recent sins. Such an explanation for Britain losing control of the Suez Canal falsifies history and presents God as a passive aggressive deity.

Gates in Biblical times were massive gates made of stone, iron, brass or wood, and frequently sheeted with metal and were entrances to walled cities.  It took many men to move it.

Whoever controlled the gates of a stronghold ruled the city and those in it.    It was the space between those two gates – sometimes just a corridor with recessed guardrooms, sometimes a more spacious courtyard – that the Bible calls “in the gates.” Much life took place within that gate area.

Gates in biblical times weren’t just a doorway into the city. They were where prophets cried out and kings judged.  The gates were seats of authority (Ruth 4:11), where wisdom was uttered (Proverbs 1:21), officials administrated and justice was serviced at the gates (Deuteronomy 16:18).

The gate of the city was where a prophet would hold audience:

“Hate evil and love good,” declaimed Amos, “and establish justice in the gate”  (Amos 5:15).

Jerusalem had these gates.  Through the prophet Jeremiah, when judgement was pronounced on the city, it included that control of its gates would fall into the hands of their adversaries:

Then the Lord said to me: “Out of the north calamity shall break forth on all the inhabitants of the land. For behold, I am calling all the families of the kingdoms of the north,” says the Lord; “They shall come and each one set his throne at the entrance of the gates of Jerusalem, against all its walls all around, and against all the cities of Judah” (Jeremiah 1:15).

Setting their throne at the gates means that Jerusalem would be controlled by them. This prophecy was then fulfilled:

Then all the princes of the king of Babylon came in and sat in the Middle Gate: Nergal-Sharezer, Samgar-Nebo, Sarsechim, Rabsaris, Nergal-Sarezer, Rabmag, with the rest of the princes of the king of Babylon. (Jeremiah 39:3)

The book of Joshua is highly ignored and diminished in BI literature.  The reason for that is it accounts for so many of the promises God gave Abraham being fulfilled in the Land of Promise, which will be further emphasized in this paper.

Under the leadership of Joshua, the Israelites conquered most of the Promised Land. Joshua chapter 12 lists 31 city-states that the Israelites conquered, and Chapter 13 shows what more territory they were being offered. The detailed accounts of their victories and projected victories in this book are recorded for a specific reason–that God is glorified in keeping His promises to His people.  BI literature gives so little attention to this fact to draw the attention of the audience away from Biblically fulfilled promises to the agenda of their own message.  This does a disservice to God and themselves, and takes away from the delight in God for what He did for His people.

The reader is never directed by BI writers to examine these scriptures in their proper context and to appreciate their fulfillment.  They are instead asked to believe their writings.  It is time to sober up and escape the delusion that the United States and the British Empire are the beneficiaries of this promise to Abraham.

Saxons = Sons of Isaac?

Almost every single piece of BI literature argues the linguistic case that Saxon is a derivative of “Sons of Isaac”.  BI claims that the Israelites were often called the sons of Isaac.  The proof text for this is found in Genesis 21:

So the child grew and was weaned. And Abraham made a great feast on the same day that Isaac was weaned.

And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, whom she had borne to Abraham, scoffing. Therefore she said to Abraham, “Cast out this bondwoman and her son; for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, namely with Isaac.” And the matter was very displeasing in Abraham’s sight because of his son.

But God said to Abraham, “Do not let it be displeasing in your sight because of the lad or because of your bondwoman. Whatever Sarah has said to you, listen to her voice; for in Isaac your seed shall be called. Yet I will also make a nation of the son of the bondwoman, because he is your seed” (Genesis 21:9-12).

It is clear from the context of this passage that the subject is the rivalry between the two sons of Abraham. God is simply affirming that His promises to Abraham would be passed on through Isaac rather than Ishmael.  He is not giving Isaac’s descendants another name to which they may alternatively be identified if the time came.  It is an extreme reach to then suggest the post exilic Israelites adopted identification as a people under the name of Isaac despite having been known as Israelites for centuries.

Always ignoring this, BI authors then take their audience on a wild linguistic ride to then argue that Saxon is a derivative of sons of Isaac which we need not waste space on.   Some admittedly write that this is the name given to them by the Assyrians, Persian-Medians and the Greeks in various forms, but nowhere in Greek historical records do we see them identified as Israelites other than this name that BI literature argues they gave them.  It is never explained why these nations would use sons of Isaac, or why the exiles would adopt the name, we just simply are asked to believe it to have happened.

They then take us down a migration story to include the Celts, sub-tribal identities, languages and other historical claims.  Yet, through all of this, even the least astute of us all might detect the simple lingering question of identity.  Did the Saxons keep their identity as Sons of Isaac throughout the centuries to the point where many of them landed on the shores of what is now England, or not?  Given they have already argued that that is the name God Himself said they would be called, then the answer must be yes.   However, this question is avoided by AI literature as its adherents know full well that this is not the reality–the Saxons never carried that claim with them in their culture.  There are no first-hand accounts ever saying they were descendants of Isaac or Jacob.  The Saxons had no religious practices that would point to their roots as Israelites.  Even most AI adherents admit to this.

So essentially they must have lost their identity, as AI acknowledges, yet maintained their cultural name as Sons of Isaac, not knowing how they got it or who gave it to them.  This is never explicitly explained in AI literature. It is also not explained when the Saxons were no longer Saxons, that is, when they took on a new post exilic name to continue the Sons of Isaac traditional name BI adherents said God promised they would in Genesis 21:11.   If this all sounds confusing to you, do not worry,  it actually gets worse, but we will spare you most of it here and leave you, the reader, to research it for yourself.

Briefly however, when some of the Saxons entered England after the Romans left, what did they do?  It is generally agreed they all but wiped out Christianity.  They effectively destroyed most of the religious institutions established in England at the time.  It is well known that the Saxons’ religious beliefs were polytheistic and had no semblance to the Hebrew God.   They ultimately converted to Catholicism, and the selling point they bought into was that the Christian God would give them victory in battles.  The reader is asked to thoroughly investigate Saxon history from reliable sources, but in the end of it all,  AI would like us to believe that the Saxons, through some ethnic destiny, were to fulfill God’s promises to Abraham to be a blessing to other nations and be the primary instrument to proliferate the Gospel to the world.    To do that, it is important to leave out inconvenient details in the historical record of Saxon culture and activities.  For BI, it is best to stick to the romantic narrative to sell a product.

The simple conclusion that the claim Saxon is the eventual derivative of “Sons of Isaac” has no Biblical, linguistic or historical basis.

Are Scythians Israelites?

It is assumed that most of the readers of this paper are fairly familiar with the AI teaching that the emergence of an ancient tribe of warriors called the Scythians, who flourished in the general region of the Eurasian steppes and mainly based along the coast of the Black Sea (Ukraine and southern Russia), are the actual re-emergence of post exile Israelites no longer under Assyrian control.    BI asserts that these peoples migrated westward and ultimately became known as Saxons.

There is good evidence that many Scythians did in fact migrate westward and are the ancestors of the Anglo-Saxons.   The historian Sharon Turner and his book “The History of the Anglo-Saxons” is often cited by BI literature as a source for this.  However, there is nothing in the writings of Sharon Turner where he supported the belief that they were Israelites.

BI literature argues a very weak historical case that the Scythians are Israelites.   We are not going to go through BI arguments in this section as we feel it is a simpler and more reasonable approach for us to simply look at what is known of them from reliable historical records and let the reader make their own conclusions.      The reader is encouraged to investigate what has been written about these peoples outside of BI literature and this article.  Not all can be fully known about them given some of these peoples did not leave writings about themselves.

A study of Scythian peoples can be revealing, and sobering.   The Greek historian Herodotus in his History of the Persian Wars, included details of the cultural behavior of Scythians and other nomadic groups with whom the Greeks were familiar. Modern archeology has vetted much of his work and it remains the basis for our knowledge of the Scythian peoples.   Herodotus reported that the Scythian custom of the warrior was to drink the blood of the first man he killed.  The heads of all the enemies they defeated in battle are taken to their king, in order to claim their share of the spoils. That done, the warrior “strips the skin off the head by making a circular cut round the ears and shaking out the skull; he then scrapes the flesh off the skin with the rib of an ox, and when it is clean works it with his fingers until it is supple, and fit to be used as a sort of handkerchief. He hangs these handkerchiefs on the bridle of his horse, and is very proud of them. The best man is the man who has the greatest number.”[10]  This scalping practice and other customs would not fit well into the BI narrative which claims the Scythians are recently dispersed Israelites.   This was not an isolated practice, Ammianus Marcellinus, another historian and Roman soldier, noted the taking of scalps by the Alani of their foes, a people of Asiatic Scythia, in a manner very similar.

The Scythians drank the blood of the first enemy killed in battle. This is a violation of the Levitical law (Leviticus 17:10-12). The Scythians drank from the skulls of their victims. They also practiced human sacrifice.   These and other practices can be found by researching the literature that examines the history and culture of these people.

Steven Collins on his website page on the Scythians, The Israelite Origins of the Scythians, attempts to confidently persuade his readers by his various interpretations of historical and Biblical references to accept the Scythians,  “were hardly wild barbarians from Central Asia”, and “were quite civilized people”[11].   Collins asserts that the commercial trade practices and artwork of those peoples is reason enough to dismiss their culture as barbaric.

Being aware of the barbaric traits of the Scythian reported by Herodotus, of which only a sample are mentioned above,  Mr. Collins, among other BI adherents,  further attempts to bring more sophistication to preserve his argument to create a differentiation between non-Israelite Scythians, the barbaric, and Israelite Scythians, the latter being an acceptable and civilized ancestor for the BI believer.   Mr. Collins interprets the writings of Herodotus for his readers to suggest Herodotus himself makes such a distinction, but there is nothing even remotely found in the Herodotus writings to make such an assertion credible.

As an example to support his thesis, Collins quotes Herodotus reporting the Scythians having a strong aversion to swine.  We quote the portion of the passage Collins selected of the Histories here:

“They never use pigs as sacrificial animals, and in fact they prefer not to keep them in their country at all”.[12]

Thus, according to Collins,  “…it is evident that the Scythians did not eat the flesh of swine either. This avoidance of swine’s flesh is a characteristic Torah-based, Israelite dietary trait”[13]

What is omitted by Collins, is the immediately preceding and immediately following text, as it would not fit well with his argument.  We will make up for that now.  In describing the sacrificial practices of the Scythians, Herodotus notes:

Their most common sacrificial victims are horses, but domestic animals are also used. That is how they perform sacrifices to most of their gods, and these are the animals they use, but in Ares’ case things are different. In every district, within each province, a sanctuary has been constructed to Ares. The design of these sanctuaries is as follows. Bundles of sticks are piled together into a block about three stades long by three stades wide, but not so high off the ground. On top of this pile of sticks is built a square platform, three of whose sides are sheer, while the other is climbable. Each year they add a hundred and fifty cart-loads of sticks, to make up for the subsidence caused by the winter’s storms. On top of this structure the inhabitants of each district place an ancient iron akinakes, which is taken to represent Ares. The festival takes place once a year, and at it they offer this akinakes more domestic animals and horses as sacrificial victims than all the other gods receive. They also sacrifice prisoners of war to this akinakes, though the method is different from when domestic animals are the victims. One prisoner in every hundred is selected; they pour wine over the prisoners’ heads, cut their throats so that the blood spills into a jar, and then carry the jars up on to the pile of sticks and pour the blood over the akinakes. While the jars are being taken up there, something else is happening down below, by the side of the sanctuary: they cut off the right arms of all the slaughtered men-the whole arm, from shoulder to hand-and hurl them into the air. Then they sacrifice all the rest of the victims and leave. The arms are left lying wherever they fall, detached from the corpses.  So that is how they perform sacrifices. They never use pigs as sacrificial animals, and in fact they prefer not to keep them in their country at all.[14]

We see that in every district, and within every province that the god of Ares is worshipped these practices apply.   The sacrifice of human prisoners is also conducted.  These are the same people that do not use pigs.   There is no differentiation in Herodotus’ mind between barbaric non-Israelite Scythians types and “Israelite” Scythians who concerned themselves with tenets of the Torah, as Collins tries to seduce his readers to believe existed.

What follows immediately is the methods of how they would deal with their enemies they killed.

Here is how they conduct themselves in war. When a Scythian kills his first man, he drinks some of his blood. He presents the king, with the heads of those he kills in battle, because his reward for doing so is a share of the spoils they have taken in the battle, but no head means no spoils.[15]

As stated earlier, this is a violation of Levitical Law.

With increasing awareness of the barbaric and savage practices of the Scythians, BI authors have needed to find a solution to preserve their Israelite-Scythian argument.  They often turn to Collins for a solution.  Without an Israelite-Scythian link, the whole historical case of BI starts to crumble.  In this author’s studies of all the claims that there where distinct cultures or ethnicities between civilized and barbaric Scythians, they come exclusively from BI adherents.

In another attempt to piece together evidence to support the Israelite-Scythian Theory, Collins comments on the Apostle Paul’s letter to the Colossians where he exhorts his readers to be renewed according to the image of God

… where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised nor uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave nor free,  but Christ is all and in all (Colossians 3:11).

Collins comments that:

“The Christian New Testament also includes a comment by the Apostle Paul that confirms the Scythians were not barbarians. In Colossians 3:11, Paul lists a series of dichotomies in which he lists “Scythian” and “barbarian” as opposites! His account indicating the Scythians were civilized peoples dates to the first century A.D.”[16]

Does this confirm that Scythians were not barbarians according to Collins?

Colossae was highly populated with Greeks.  The Greeks considered the Scynthians the lowest type of barbarian; no doubt Paul’s audience had a population of believers of the same opinion, thus Paul’s reference.  There are three clear dichotomies in the verse above as Collins calls them, but Scythian and barbarian are curiously not listed as opposites.  A few scholars have sought to understand Scythian and barbarian as another antithetical pair as the rest were given, but that is not the generally held view.  Moreover, in support of the Scythian as a savage can be found in Jewish writings[17].

If we were to be generous to Collins and accept barbarian and Scythian as opposites, it is quite evident Paul was unaware of their Israelite heritage.  If Paul failed to recognize a Israelite–Scythian heritage, why should we accept Collins theory almost 2000 years later?

The above is a sample of just a cursory examination of Collins’ claims. Those who have adopted his teaching in the past should soberly revisit their thinking.  It is unfortunate that a number of Sabbath keeping Church of God groups reference Collins as an historical or Biblical authority.

PART V — HIJACKING THE ABRAHAMIC PROMISES

When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the Lord appeared to Abram and said to him, “I am Almighty God; walk before Me and be blameless. And I will make My covenant between Me and you, and will multiply you exceedingly.” Then Abram fell on his face, and God talked with him, saying:  “As for Me, behold, My covenant is with you, and you shall be a father of many nations. No longer shall your name be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham; for I have made you a father of many nations. I will make you exceedingly fruitful; and I will make nations of you, and kings shall come from you. And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and your descendants after you. Also I give to you and your descendants after you the land in which you are a stranger, all the land of Canaan, as an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.” (Genesis 17:1-8)

The Abrahamic covenant is an everlasting covenant, which extends into the future kingdom of Christ.  It is multifaceted in nature–it includes the promise of land, the promise of numerous descendants that will possess it, royal lineages and the promises of redemption to all peoples.  God made this promise again to Isaac (Genesis 21:12; 26:3-4) and again to Jacob (Genesis 28:14-15).

When God makes covenants He makes them for His purposes, and those He makes them with are blessed by them because He wants to bless them for His pleasure.    When God blesses, He is expressing trust in person or a nation in their godliness so that they can further use it for His glory.   A covenant is in essence also an expression of Himself.  When God magnified His covenant with Abraham it was through his belief in God that we can sense God’s expression of Himself, by Abraham being willing to sacrifice his only son.

What can be seen is that the everlasting covenant was motivated by God to establish a superior covenant that would ultimately preserve His people, and His Name, though they would fail Him, was to invariably happen later in history.    In making the covenant, God placed His reputation on it which would compel Him to act for His Namesake.  This will be further elaborated on in this article.

In large part BI is a teaching that attempts to interject the United States and the British Empire into God’s fulfillment of His unilateral commitment to Abraham and his descendants.  It requires a misguided interpretation of scripture and history to support itself, and a false interpretation of God’s intent as well.

Crucial to BI theory is the argument that God must complete certain covenantal blessings, yet unfulfilled, that were promised to Abraham.  BI asserts He was unable, or never planned, to fulfill certain major elements of the covenant in the Land of Promise.  These promises included that their descendants were to possess the gates of their enemies, that they would be innumerable in multitude as the dust of the earth and the stars of heaven and that a company of nations and a mighty nation must come out of them.  As discussed earlier, the prophecies of Genesis 49 as interpreted by BI theory must yet also come to fruition. All of those claims will be dealt with in this article.

BI theory must present itself, using the confirmations made through Isaac and Jacob (to be discussed later), as a kind of unconditional covenant where God must also concurrently bless and ignore the godlessness of its participants.  He is obligated to sustain national blessings to a people even if they no longer acknowledge, have forgotten about, or have even have heard about a covenant in the first place.

The above is never explicitly stated in BI presentations, and would be denied by virtually all BI writers.  Yet, the above must be true for BI to be true also.

To show that the United States and Great Britain are a kind of restored Israel fulfilling the promises to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the BI Biblical assumption must also offer an historic parallel to support it.  Briefly, the historical BI argument is that the post exilic Israelites originally held captive by the Assyrians lost or maintained their identity and reappeared in history as Scythians, Saxons, Celts, Cimmerians, Angles and other cultures, depending on which BI proliferator is believed.   The descendants of these pagan and barbaric peoples migrated westward and populated the British Isles and ultimately the United States.

The historic narrative of BI is beset with problems that are beyond the scope of this paper.  There is no recorded first-hand account of the cultures listed above as ever realizing they were Israelites.  It is also very rare for BI presentations to include the fact these cultures were pagan and had no semblance to Israel’s culture.   They worshipped multiple gods and practiced rituals that would shock and disgust the Bible and BI believing westerner of today (See the above discussion on the Scythians).

If we are to believe that these migrating peoples were Israelites under new names, then we must also accept they never repented of their pagan beliefs and practices and never returned to God in full obedience in the manner required in God’s laws. Remarkably, BI theology has also managed to work it out that it simply does not have to account for the need of a national return in obedience to God.   The success and fortune these nations have enjoyed are sufficient enough to avoid that discussion.  It is not until the national sins of the later 20^th and 21^st centuries (while ignoring the more grievous sins and national practices of early centuries) and the national departure from God that the curses of the law conveniently work into the BI narrative.

National Departure from God?

No self-respecting Bible student would accept that Christian thought is a national return to the Mosaic Covenant where physical blessings were promised, and yet this is what BI presentations would have their believers accept!  It is in the subtle background of BI literature and is the thought that is always in play.   This process is accomplished by presenting a very romantic and pious depiction of the history of the British Empire, and particularly the United States.

There is repeated use of quotations by well-respected statesmen and politicians of the past, particularly American, that are used to capture the hearts of BI converts.  Historical Christian figures from the founding fathers of the United States are highly revered and quoted for that purpose.  None that this author is aware of subscribed to early ideas of BI theory.

Judeo-Christian values have heavily influenced laws in Britain and America, perhaps more than other nations in the world, but no assumption can be made to suggest that certain Biblical adoptions into national laws is evidence of God fulfilling promises made to Abraham.

“The Bible is the rock on which our republic rests” (Andrew Jackson).

This quote from Andrew Jackson is used in a typical United States and Britain in Bible Prophecy book.  This  indeed can be a fine quotation to use for the BI case.  However, would the following statement in the First Amendment find Biblical foundation?

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …”

God’s laws explicitly and repeatedly prohibit other religions and religious practices to be among His people.  He alone also sets the terms under which he will be worshipped in the Bible, by both individuals and nations.  Tolerance of other religions, including freedom of speech and other freedoms in a gentile nation however serves a purpose that in fact does protect Christian assemblies and God does use these nations in that capacity.  That stated, this is very far and removed from the idea that the United States should be identified as Israel in receipt of the covenant blessings and is therefore given the responsibility to bring the Gospel to the world.   The gentile nations are doing this now, not Israel, a subject that will be discussed in a forthcoming paper.

A nation that has even heavy elements of Judeo-Christian values holds no equivalency to the nation of Israel under the Mosaic covenant.  BI however will have us believe that America and the British Empire have enjoyed the blessings promised under the Abrahamic covenant, but will use selective curses spelled out in the Mosaic covenant such as in Deuteronomy when it comes to what we should anticipate due to their national departure from God.

I recently watched a sermon where the presenter, a BI adherent, suggested the demise of the western nations will come through multiculturalism and immigration, and not by military invasion which BI has often taught.  In doing so he quoted Deuteronomy in support of what he believes is happening:

“The alien who is among you shall rise higher and higher above you, and you shall come down lower and lower” (Deuteronomy 28:43).

The Mosaic covenant demanded purity from all other cultural and religious belief systems.  When introducing this scripture into a sermon to a Christian audience in a nation that has been since its inception a multicultural society, it is irresponsible, and  creates all kinds of problems on ethnic levels given the Gospel does not distinguish between cultures.  He later points out that his emphasis is cultural and religious, not ethnic, to avoid the racist concerns, however many of his listeners will not be so inclined to recognize that, and continue to see other ethnic groups as a threat and with disdain.

That stated, he neglected the words that follow two verses later:

“All these curses shall come upon you and pursue you and overtake you till you are destroyed, because you did not obey the voice of the Lord your God, to keep his commandments and his statutes that he commanded you.  They shall be a sign and a wonder against you and your offspring forever” (Deuteronomy 28:45).

BI is a belief system that continues to be selective in its use of Mosaic covenant scriptures, particularly the curses, and apply them as needed to forward the BI argument.

America has never kept God’s commandments and statutes demanded by the Mosaic covenant, so we must recognize the embedded contradiction in BI teaching when BI based literature and sermons start to warn of curses that will soon befall these America.

Once again, exhausting ourselves in dealing with all the evidence BI presentations have to offer, including past military conquests, noble Christian quotations in speeches, and the writings on monuments in Washington D.C. that are being used to convince converts of an ancestral heritage to Israel is a vain endeavor.  The reader must exercise Biblical awareness to see through the false image BI tries to create of America and Britain, both the good and the bad.

Nevertheless, the Abrahamic covenant is everlasting; it will not go away or be forgotten.  God’s passions are behind it.   It will find its way back to the forefront and will always have a perpetual impact in dealing with His people, and the future of the world.  This will become evident as we conclude this article.  We need to first further expose the manipulation and abuse in BI teaching of the covenants promised to the patriarchs.

Covenant Abuses

And God said to him, “Your name is Jacob; your name shall not be called Jacob anymore, but Israel shall be your name.” So He called his name Israel.  Also God said to him: “I am God Almighty. Be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall proceed from you, and kings shall come from your body” (Genesis 35:10-11).

This promise is often used as identification for United States as a nation, and the British Empire as a company of nations.  BI literature and video broadcasts often insert “commonwealth” in brackets after the term “company” to encourage the reader to think in terms as they do.

What is discouraging is that more often than not, the BI evangelist omits the following verse that comes immediately thereafter:

“The land which I gave Abraham and Isaac I give to you; and to your descendants after you I give this land” (Genesis 35:12).

This is the land on which Jacob stood, and that land was the land of Canaan (verse 6).  It is not a reference to India, Manitoba, Ireland or anywhere else but the land God promised which was the land Jacob occupied. The same land Jacob stood on was the land where Abraham and Isaac lived when the promises were given and re-affirmed.  The consistency is there–the nation and company (fullness) of nations would occupy that land. No other land is promised.  There is no Biblical support for the Promised Land going overseas.

This promise was reaffirmed onto Joseph’s son Ephraim:

But his father refused and said, “I know, my son, I know. He also shall become a people, and he also shall be great; but truly his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his descendants shall become a multitude of nations” (Genesis 48:19, NKJV).

Again, BI advocates insist that a multitude of nations could not have been fulfilled in such a small area in the region of the Levant.   I would certainly agree with them if that was what Jacob was actually expressing.

The word for “multitude” means also “fullness” (see Strong’s 4393).   The Holman Christian Standard Bible translates this as a “populous nation”.  Darby’s and Young’s Literal Translation has it as “fulness of nations”.  Ephraim fulfilled this prophecy.

What also must not be overlooked is that it is ONLY Ephraim’s offspring (descendants) that would fulfill this destiny.  No other race can make up a part of this prophecy.  No other race, tribe or affiliation of people can take part in fulfilling this promise.

Groups that publish their booklets showing all the pink/vermilion colors showing a “multitude” of nations conveniently omit that many of the countries were of other races and peoples, only ruled over by British.  The Irish were by no means willing participants in this “prophetic blessing”, and resisted even more than the other occupied countries.

The claim that the British Empire is Ephraim, fulfilling the prophecy of Jacob, is a false claim and does a disservice to those who associate themselves with it.

The simplicity of the above commentary may be offensive to those heavily persuaded by BI theory, especially given the complicated arguments that have developed over the decades.  So much has been invested into this belief it must be defended by its advocates regardless of all the red flags that surround it.

One BI book I have in front of me tries to create doubt for the reader by questioning how the land of Canaan could possibly qualify as a place for many nations.  He called it “impossible”. The author then calls the land of Canaan “a mere down payment”.  Most often BI writers must become aggressive in their writings to persuade their readers to believe that there is more to these promises than just a “mere plot of land” as another BI author has also put it.  It is not for us to make such assumptions, and it is dangerous to do so.

The conclusion of Deuteronomy affirms again the limits of the Promised Land that God swore to give Abraham, Isaac and Jacob:

Then Moses went up from the plains of Moab to Mount Nebo, to the top of Pisgah, which is across from Jericho. And the Lord showed him all the land of Gilead as far as Dan, all Naphtali and the land of Ephraim and Manasseh, all the land of Judah as far as the Western Sea, the South, and the plain of the Valley of Jericho, the city of palm trees, as far as Zoar. Then the Lord said to him, “This is the land of which I swore to give Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, saying, ‘I will give it to your descendants.’ I have caused you to see it with your eyes, but you shall not cross over there” (Deuteronomy 34:1-4).

Ephraim and Manasseh are mentioned specifically here.  There is no mention from God to Moses that the land was a “mere down payment”. Nor is there even the slightest suggestion of “and beyond” in the Lord’s words.

BI writers try to play along with the assumption of their audience in what they must perceive a nation should be.   Today, most consider a nation in terms of a geo-political entity with sovereign land, and assuredly, they say, a multitude of nations could not have been achieved in a mere plot of land in the Middle East.   It is simply more of the same kind of believer bait they have used for decades.

When the Israelites entered the Promised Land, they were instructed to bring a special offering of first fruits and bring it to the priest, and as part of their offering they were to declare before the Lord God:

“My father was a Syrian, about to perish, and he went down to Egypt and dwelt there, few in number; and there he became a nation, great, mighty, and populous…” (Deuteronomy 26:5).

Israel became a great nation; they did not have their own land, but dwelt in Egypt.  What the Bible is referring to as a nation is also referring to them as a people, not countries.  Jacob’s sons became distinctive in their generations over time and increased in size dramatically to become nations.

Thus, in reading BI literature, the writers must repeatedly use scriptural references that would imply a worldwide spreading to other lands and other inheritances.  We will look at a few.

His glory is like a firstborn bull, and his horns like the horns of the wild ox;
Together with them He shall push the peoples to the ends of the earth;”  (Deuteronomy  33:17)

The “horns”, claims one BI[18] author, to push at the nations to the ends of the earth–“clearly suggests worldwide influence and military reach”.

The Hebrew word translated “earth” is also translated “land”, and depends on context. The BI author does not seem to mind that he is implying that the Israelite tribes have been ordained by God to subject the whole world to some kind of military subjugation.  Yet, within the original promise to Abraham “…and in you and in your seed all the families of the earth shall be blessed” the world will be ultimately blessed in Abraham’s offspring in Jesus Christ.  It is therefore interesting that it seems the BI author does not see the contradiction that, in his view, the nations of the earth should also be blessed by being pushed to the ends of the earth by military influence.  Is this the purpose of Israel in the first place?

This glaring contradiction can be easily overlooked by those sheltered within societies having dominating militaries and international influence,  and in fact can feel very appealing, and thus they are marketed to with this interpretation in BI literature.  However, the reality is that it grossly misrepresents God’s intentions with Israel and the Gospel of Christ.

The most often used covenant scripture to support BI is the following:

“Also your descendants shall be as the dust of the earth; you shall spread abroad to the west and the east, to the north and the south; and in you and in your seed all the families of the earth shall be blessed. Behold, I am with you and will keep you wherever you go, and will bring you back to this land; for I will not leave you until I have done what I have spoken to you” (Genesis 28:14-15).

At first look, this would appear to the modern interpreter favoring BI as a worldwide promise of a dominion that would go overseas and resemble of course, the American and British dominance of the world we live in today, particularly of the white races that had most to do in establishing it.

Again, the verse immediately following the above promise is often omitted, or diminished in BI Literature:

And behold, the Lord stood above it and said: “I am the Lord God of Abraham your father and the God of Isaac; the land on which you lie I will give to you and your descendants (Genesis 28:13).

It is the land which they would occupy and fill that is the context for the population being as the dust of the earth, and the extent in all directions they would occupy.

No assumption should be made that “abroad” (Strong’s 6555) is to mean overseas, as we would commonly use the term.  Most translations have the expression to “spread out” which correctly reflects the Hebrew and the Speakers intent: that Jacob’s descendants will fill the land as far as the eye could see.  See also Genesis 13:14-15.

One BI writer wrote that this scripture in Genesis 28 “suggests colonization, placing no limits on how much land God would ultimately give Abraham’s descendants”[19].  Here again the BI writer needs to plant an assumption into the minds of his audience.  Once an interpretation such as this is believed, the whole of BI is believable, or must become believable to satisfy the audience’s intrigue.

Some past BI writers would attempt to label the understanding that the birthright promises being limited to the Promised Land as being cynical, perhaps lacking vision regarding God’s promises, but this is a tactic to persuade their audience to see things through modern filters, planting seeds of assumption, and to doubt more scholarly and disciplined approaches.

Did the Israelites grow to a population that was as the dust of the earth?  Did they grow in multitude as the stars in heaven[20]?  Could the promised land contain such a proverbial population? The scriptures said they did achieve such numbers, and they did so before and after they established themselves in the Promised Land:

Before:

“The Lord your God has multiplied you, and here you are today, as the stars of heaven in multitude” (Deuteronomy 1:10).

”Your fathers went down to Egypt with seventy persons, and now the Lord your God has made you as the stars of heaven in multitude” (Deuteronomy 10:22).

And After:

Judah and Israel were as numerous as the sand by the sea in multitude, eating and drinking and rejoicing (1 Kings 4:20).

You also multiplied their children as the stars of heaven,
And brought them into the land
Which You had told their fathers
To go in and possess (Nehemiah 9:23).

This covenant commitment was made in the Promised Land.  It is not being fulfilled elsewhere, where the descendants are now few and scattered in nations not their own, as also was promised, but denied in BI theory, as mentioned prior in this article.

Fulfillments

BI writers do not often or at all discuss the prior fulfillments of the promises to the patriarchs as it would not help support their thesis, however we will do our best to compensate.  These scriptural excerpts are provided for the reader to consider when confronted with attempts to persuade them of promises to the patriarchs were not sufficiently fulfilled until the times of the US and British Empire.

So the Lord gave to Israel all the land of which He had sworn to give to their fathers, and they took possession of it and dwelt in it (Joshua 21:43).

There were some tracts of land still in possession of the Canaanites, but their gradual extermination was unfulfilled.  However, insofar as the Israelites did not possess the absolute full extent of the boundaries laid out in Numbers 34, the promise of the land was fulfilled[21].  Joshua himself indicated in 23:5 there was more land they needed to possess, but that remaining territory is laid out specifically in 23:4.  Moreover, it was their obedience to the Mosaic covenant that would ensure their success in the land (23:5-16).   The conclusion is simple; North America, Europe or other lands are neither promised or needed for fulfillment of this promise.

The Lord gave them rest all around, according to all that He had sworn to their fathers. And not a man of all their enemies stood against them; the Lord delivered all their enemies into their hand (Joshua 21:44). See also 1 Kings 4:20 and 25.

This is a fulfillment of the promise reaffirmed through Moses to the Children of Israel In Deuteronomy 12:10.   This period of peace lasted for many years.

Not a word failed of any good thing which the Lord had spoken to the house of Israel. All came to pass (Joshua 21:45).

This statement should be a befitting end to the whole of BI argument regarding the promises.  This and other scriptures must therefore be denied or diminished to perpetuate the BI thinking.

A denial of God’s faithfulness, no matter how small, is the denial of the praise God is worthy of deserving.  Omission of these above scriptures is often necessary in literature promoting BI, and that is not any small omission.   To diminish past fulfilled promises by God and claiming more significant physical promises elsewhere in the future is a serious misstep we want to avoid.

We shall continue.

Then the children of Joseph spoke to Joshua, saying, “Why have you given us only one lot and one share to inherit, since we are a great people, inasmuch as the Lord has blessed us until now?”

So Joshua answered them, “If you are a great people, then go up to the forest country and clear a place for yourself there in the land of the Perizzites and the giants, since the mountains of Ephraim are too confined for you.” 

But the children of Joseph said, “The mountain country is not enough for us; and all the Canaanites who dwell in the land of the valley have chariots of iron, both those who are of Beth Shean and its towns and those who are of the Valley of Jezreel.”

And Joshua spoke to the house of Joseph—to Ephraim and Manasseh—saying, “You are a great people and have great power; you shall not have only one lot,   but the mountain country shall be yours. Although it is wooded, you shall cut it down, and its farthest extent shall be yours; for you shall drive out the Canaanites, though they have iron chariots and are strong” (Joshua 17:14-18).

Genesis 49:24 offers Jacob’s prediction that the house of Joseph would be a mighty people, and nothing could be more evident in that fulfillment as expressed in Joshua’s own words above.  Through our modern lenses, we are tempted by images of America’s powerful military as more of a reflection of the fulfillment of Genesis 49:24 and simply dismiss or just read by them the many scriptures we should be appreciating in seeing God’s faithfulness to the people of Israel.

The Promise to Abraham – The Everlasting Covenant

We need to focus where God’s Word would desire to take us, which includes a proper appreciation of the Abrahamic covenant.  The Apostle Paul takes us to a fuller appreciation of the promises to Abraham:

For the promise that he would be the heir of the world was not to Abraham or to his seed through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. For if those who are of the law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise made of no effect, because the law brings about wrath; for where there is no law there is no transgression.

Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace, so that the promise might be sure to all the seed, not only to those who are of the law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all (as it is written, “I have made you a father of many nations”) in the presence of Him whom he believed—God, who gives life to the dead and calls those things which do not exist as though they did; who, contrary to hope, in hope believed, so that he became the father of many nations, according to what was spoken, “So shall your descendants be” (Romans 4:13-18).

We are not to make the conclusion that the Church is to replace Israel.  Paul later expounds on the future of Israel in Romans 11.  God’s future plans for the nation of Israel are that, when unfolded, will fully vindicate His righteousness.  He will not turn his back on Israel for His Namesake.

God’s Faithfulness

Scripture gives us some considerations in terms of their current condition, being in a land not their own and in captivity[22], but more importantly their future under the promises to Abraham.

As for their current condition, we are faced with the reality of what Moses promised them as a people if they did not obey their covenant of obedience.  We only include a small extract of the cursing of disobedience here:

 “If you do not carefully observe all the words of this law that are written in this book, that you may fear this glorious and awesome name, THE LORD YOUR GOD, then the Lord will bring upon you and your descendants extraordinary plagues—great and prolonged plagues—and serious and prolonged sicknesses. Moreover He will bring back on you all the diseases of Egypt, of which you were afraid, and they shall cling to you. Also every sickness and every plague, which is not written in this Book of the Law, will the Lord bring upon you until you are destroyed. You shall be left few in number, whereas you were as the stars of heaven in multitude, because you would not obey the voice of the Lord your God.  And it shall be, that just as the Lord rejoiced over you to do you good and multiply you, so the Lord will rejoice over you to destroy you and bring you to nothing; and you shall be plucked from off the land which you go to possess” (Deuteronomy 28:58-63).

All of these same promises of cursing were fulfilled in full measure.  The books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings take pains to point out how God fulfilled what Moses said here, in Israel’s later history.   It has even been suggested that the subsequent history of Israel so accurately fulfilled these warnings that someone must have written them much later, perhaps after the Babylonian captivity.   They, at a time, were as the stars in heaven, and have been brought to a comparative nothing.

It would seem to some that this would contradict the everlasting covenant (Genesis 17:7,8) God promised Abraham.  Therefore, BI theology seems to try and reconcile this by claiming the United States and the British Empire are the manifestations of the promises to the patriarchs due to the unconditional nature of the promises, and His need to fulfill His purposes.

What seems to be lost on BI theology altogether however, is that God promised to bless His people, but their enjoyment of that blessing in any given generation depended on their walking with Him in trust and obedience. 

Therefore, the promise of this cursing remains in place today.  Though God allowed the return of many after their captivity in Babylon, under the authority of a gentile nation, there has been no restoration to match God’s commitment to Abraham.  They are still left few in number.  They are still scattered in nations not their own.  They are still being subject to the gentile peoples.

How then will the promises be upheld?

‘But if they confess their iniquity and the iniquity of their fathers, with their unfaithfulness in which they were unfaithful to Me, and that they also have walked contrary to Me, and that I also have walked contrary to them and have brought them into the land of their enemies; if their uncircumcised hearts are humbled, and they accept their guilt—then I will remember My covenant with Jacob, and My covenant with Isaac and My covenant with Abraham I will remember; I will remember the land.

The land also shall be left empty by them, and will enjoy its sabbaths while it lies desolate without them; they will accept their guilt, because they despised My judgments and because their soul abhorred My statutes. Yet for all that, when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not cast them away, nor shall I abhor them, to utterly destroy them and break My covenant with them; for I am the Lord their God. But for their sake I will remember the covenant of their ancestors, whom I brought out of the land of Egypt in the sight of the nations, that I might be their God: I am the Lord.’ ” (Leviticus 26:40-45)

There are a few important elements of God’s oath here that are not to be overlooked, and not properly taken into consideration in BI theory.

The first is that the land is the integral part of the covenant that God will remember–it will not be separated from the covenant as a whole.  There is no promised or implied restoration of the people that is outside the Promised Land where they would reunite as a nation or nations again.  Moreover the lands to which they are scattered will not be their own. This is ignored by BI teaching, which would have us believe despite their infidelities and non-repentance, they would become a great nation and company of nations.  As clearly stated in God’s Words above, it is only when they confess their iniquities will God remember the covenant He made with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.  This has never happened in history with the United States and Great Britain. 

We can now start to consider appropriately the nature of the everlasting covenant, and why God instituted it in the beginning.  The cursing upon Israel due to their disobedience is backstopped by the everlasting Abrahamic covenant.  It is what sustains Jacob’s descendants from being lost and forgotten altogether.    It is only when the people of Israel would confess their iniquity before God would they again be restored to realize the blessings available to them under the promises to Abraham.

The Abrahamic covenant is a theme in prophetic literature that we will consider now for its further appreciation.   If we appreciate it properly, there becomes no need to exhaust ourselves on Israel’s latter time identity and prophetic speculations, as all of BI literature does. 

God’s commitment to the everlasting covenant made to Abraham is also revealed in the prophets.  A glorious future to a restored Israel in the land with peace all around it and a restored relationship with God is assured.  In God’s words through the prophets, we can get proper appreciation for what God will do, and in doing so, we can escape the demoralizing teaching of BI, and appreciate God’s wisdom on what true restoration means.

Though some of the harshest words ever spoken through a prophet to the people of Israel came through the Prophet Hosea, we see God’s reaffirmation to the everlasting covenant:

“Call his name Lo-Ammi,
For you are not My people,
And I will not be your God” (Hosea 1:8).

Following this word of judgment, what follows comes words of promise:

“Yet the number of the children of Israel
Shall be as the sand of the sea,
Which cannot be measured or numbered.
And it shall come to pass
In the place where it was said to them,
‘You are not My people,’
There it shall be said to them,
‘You are sons of the living God.’
Then the children of Judah and the children of Israel
Shall be gathered together,
And appoint for themselves one head;
And they shall come up out of the land,
For great will be the day of Jezreel!”  (Hosea 1:8-11)

Looking at this prophetic scripture closely  “Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured or numbered” is an obvious mention to the Abrahamic covenant.  The implication is that their violation of the Mosaic covenant which leads to them becoming “Not my People” (verse 8) is backstopped by the Abrahamic covenant. Because of God’s promises to Abraham, “in the place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ it shall be said to them, ‘children of the living God.’” Failure to observe the laws and precepts of the Mosaic covenant might lead to them being no longer His people, but the promises of the Abrahamic covenant ensure that they will one day be reunited and be identified as God’s children.

Certain BI authors use this passage of scripture in an attempt to convince the readers that after exile God promises to greatly multiply them after their exile, namely the United States and Britain.  This does violence to the covenant and intent of the above message.

The Future of Israel

The major prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel all point to a restored physical Israel.  When that occurs, it will be again to God’s delight and to His glory–He will not be denied, and nor will Abraham.   It is indeed unfortunate that God’s expressions through the prophets have been hijacked instead to point to the United States and other western nations to further the BI narrative.

Ezekiel prophesied a day when Israel would be fully restored to the Promised Land (Ezekiel 20:33-37, 40-42; 36:1—37:28) as a nation. Israel as a nation will also be restored, blessed and redeemed, as promised (Romans 11:25-27). Best of all, not only Israel, but all people, have access to God’s kingdom through the Messiah, who was a descendant of Abraham (John 3:16-17).

PART VI – THE DAVIDIC LINE

According to the AI teaching, Queen Elizabeth II occupies the throne of David. It is believed that after the fall of Jerusalem, Jeremiah took the daughters of king Zedekiah to Ireland, where one of them married a ruler who was reputed to have been a descendant of Judah among the lost tribes of Israel. Supporters of the British Israelite theory insist that the so-called breach that occurred at the birth of the twins Pharez and Zareh had to be healed generations later when Zedekiah’s daughter married a King Herremon in Ireland who was reputed to be of the Zarah line. This scenario is based on speculation and myth; it is not Biblically provable. The more likely explanation for the Pharaz/Zarah birth incident is simply that God had predetermined that Christ would be of the Pharez line and not the Zarah line. They maintain that the throne was overturned three times, from Judah to Ireland, then to Scotland and finally to England fulfilling their interpretation of an Ezekiel prophecy. Are these claims supported in the Bible?

What Did God Promise?

The statement that, “David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel;” (Jeremiah 33:17), is used to confirm that the throne will be occupied continuously until Christ returns to claim it.

God certainly did promise that David’s throne would be established forever:

“And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men: But my mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee. And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever.” (II Samuel 7:12-16).

Although the throne was established forever and will eventually be occupied by Christ for all eternity, David told Solomon that the continual occupation of the throne, that is, the physical continuance of his line, in the meantime was conditional on obedience:

“Now the days of David drew nigh that he should die; and he charged Solomon his son, saying, I go the way of all the earth: be thou strong therefore, and shew thyself a man; And keep the charge of the LORD thy God, to walk in his ways, to keep his statutes, and his commandments, and his judgments, and his testimonies, as it is written in the law of Moses, that thou mayest prosper in all that thou doest, and whithersoever thou turnest thyself: That the LORD may continue his word which he spake concerning me, saying, If thy children take heed to their way, to walk before me in truth with all their heart and with all their soul, there shall not fail thee (said he) a man on the throne of Israel.” (I Kings 2:1-4).

David made it very clear that it was possible for the throne to exist even though unoccupied.

Later when the kingdom of Israel split into the nations of Israel and Judah, Jeroboam, Solomon’s servant, set up his own throne to rule over the nation Israel while David’s throne remained with Judah as Jacob had said it would:

“The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.” (Genesis 49:10).
What is Meant by ‘Overturn’?

The concept that the throne of David was to be overturned three times stems from the way the following verse has been interpreted:

“Thus saith the Lord GOD; Remove the diadem, and take off the crown: this shall not be the same: exalt him that is low, and abase him that is high. I will overturn, overturn, overturn, it: and it shall be no more, until he come whose right it is; and I will give it him.” (Ezekiel 21:26-27).

The Hebrew word ‘avvah’ translated ‘overturn,’ is more correctly translated as ‘ruin’. The Tanakh (New JPS Translation According to the Traditional Hebrew Text) uses the correct word:

“Ruin, an utter ruin I will make it. It shall be no more until he comes to whom it rightfully belongs;” (Ezekiel 21:32 JPS).

This is also confirmed by the RSV translation, which says “ruin, ruin, ruin” and Moffatt who says “in ruins, ruins, ruins”.

The word ‘ruin’ clearly indicates that the throne is to be left in a state of ruin, or unoccupied until it is claimed by Jesus Christ the rightful heir. The point is emphasized by repeating the word ‘ruin’ a number of times.
Who Is the Rightful King?

It is believed that the statement that David shall “never want for a man to sit upon the throne.” (Jeremiah 33:17) means that the throne must be continually occupied, and that this was accomplished when the throne was transferred through Zedekiah’s daughter to Ireland, then Scotland and finally to England where it has remained until this day. Does the Bible support this claim? Did the royal line to the throne continue through Zedekiah?

The Bible records the legal line of heirs to the throne through David’s son Solomon in Matthew 1:1–16. However, there is no mention of Zedekiah and it can be argued that is because Zedekiah was not a legal heir to the throne. Although Zedekiah was Jehoiachin’s uncle and a member of the royal family he was not in line for the throne. On the particular occasion when God used Ezekiel to portray Zedekiah’s fate he referred to Zedekiah as a prince, which he was, rather than king (Ezekiel 12:12-13).

Zedekiah was a vassal king appointed not by God, but by Nebuchadnezzar. Jehoiachin was King when Judah’s Babylonian captivity commenced. As long as King Jehoiachin remained alive and did not abdicate he was the rightful king on David’s throne. There is no evidence that Jehoiachin abdicated. He outlived Zedekiah, and his captors eventually afforded him the respect of his royal position (II Kings 25:27-30). Zedekiah was not the king of Judah in God’s eyes otherwise he would have been included in the genealogy of Matthew 1:1-16.

The royal line continued through Jehoiachin’s sons but they did not sit on the throne and had no kingdom to rule over. Everything was in ruins, the nation had been destroyed and the remnant was in captivity.
Judah’s Royal Line

No descendant of Jehoiachin sat on the throne because God had decreed:

“Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.” (Jeremiah 22:30).

There is no Biblical evidence that any of Zedekiah’s descendants sat on David’s throne, which confirms that it did indeed lie in a state of ruin.

Christ was however a blood descendant of David through the genealogy of David’s son Nathan which is listed in Luke 3:23-31. Through his mother Mary, Christ was eligible to sit on the throne of David. It should be noted that the genealogy in Luke 3:23 says Joseph was the son of Heli. This was not the case. Heli was Joseph’s father in-law, Mary’s father. Joseph’s real father was Jacob (Mat 1:16) but he became Heli’s son by marriage. Because Mary had no brothers she was entitled to inherit her father’s rights (Numbers 27:1-7 and 36:6-7 set the precedent). And Jeremiah prophesied that Christ (the Branch) would eventually be king:

“I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a king shall reign and prosper.” (Jeremiah 23:5).

When Jeremiah said:

“David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel;” (Jeremiah 33:17)

it simply meant that once Christ claims the throne we will never want for anyone else. When the time is right Christ the Branch will occupy the throne for all eternity. He will rule as a spiritual king when He returns. And when the time comes there will also be a spiritual priesthood

“And made us (the saints) a kingdom, priests to his God and Father;” and “And hast made them (the saints) a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on earth.” (Revelation 1:6; also 5:10 (RSV)).

God said that He had established the throne of David forever, but because of the sins of Judah it was to remain unoccupied until claimed by Christ.

If the words:

“David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel.” (Jeremiah 33:17)

mean that the throne of Israel will be continually occupied from Jeremiah’s time until Christ returns to take up the throne then, according to the next verse, a Levitical priesthood will also be offering sacrifices during that same period:

“Neither shall the priests the Levites want a man before me to offer burnt offerings, and to kindle meat offerings, and to do sacrifice continually.” (Verse 18).

Why would God go to great lengths to maintain the royal line through Zedekiah’s daughters as some claim and leave the matter of the priests and sacrifices unfulfilled? Both statements refer to Christ who is the king qualified to take over David’s throne. He is our sacrifice and has already assumed the position of High Priest.
Israel’s Royal Line

What happened to Israel’s royal line? When the nation of Israel split, the northern kingdom began its own ‘royal line’ through Jereboam, a servant of Solomon. Jeroboam was not of the royal family. Over one hundred years prior to the fall of Judah Hosea prophesied that Israel’s royal line would cease, “For the children of Israel shall 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:” (Hosea 3:4).

God caused the nation along with its ‘royal line’ to cease:

“And the LORD said unto him, Call his name Jezreel; for yet a little while, and I will avenge the blood of Jezreel upon the house of Jehu, and will cause to cease the kingdom of the house of Israel.” and “For I will no more have mercy upon the house of Israel; but I will utterly take them away.” and “for ye are not my people, and I will not be your God.”. He said He will not be their God until, “it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.”. This will happen when Judah and Israel are ‘gathered together” when, “they shall come up out of the land: for great shall be the day of Jezreel.” (Hosea 1:4, 6, 9, 10 and 11).

The day of Jezreel is a day of judgement. In the Tanakh (The New JPS Translation According to the Traditional Hebrew Scriptures) it says, “and they shall rise from the ground for marvelous shall be the day of Jezreel” (Hosea 1:11).

According to Hosea, Israel along with its ‘royal’ line ceased to exist and will remain that way until the restoration of Israel in the Land of Promise.
Zedekiah’s Daughters

An often-quoted passage used to support the story of the flight of Zedekiah’s daughters to Ireland is in Ezekiel 17:22-24:

“Thus saith the Lord GOD; I will also take of the highest branch of the high cedar, and will set it; I will crop off from the top of his young twigs a tender one, and will plant it upon an high mountain and eminent: In the mountain of the height of Israel will I plant it: and it shall bring forth boughs, and bear fruit, and be a goodly cedar: and under it shall dwell all fowl of every wing; in the shadow of the branches thereof shall they dwell. And all the trees of the field shall know that I the LORD have brought down the high tree, have exalted the low tree, have dried up the green tree, and have made the dry tree to flourish: I the LORD have spoken and have done it” (Ezekiel 17:22-24).

Some see this passage as supporting the concept that Jeremiah took the daughters of Zedekiah to the lost tribes. However, this is simply not the case. It is interesting to note that Bullinger (1837-1913) lived through the period when the AI theory was conceived and promoted. He spoke very strongly against the idea that Ezekiel 17 referred to the transplanting of Zedekiah’s daughters. In reference to a tender one (verse 22) in the marginal notes:

The Chaldee Tagrum interpret this of the Messiah. Those who interpret this of Zedekiah’s ‘younger daughter’ are guilty of substituting her for the Messiah Himself; Whose future Kingdom is to be “in the mountains of the height of Israel”, and not in any other country; or during the present dispensation.

Ezekiel 17:22-24 is not talking about Zedekiah’s daughters at all. It is referring to Christ the Branch (the highest Branch), who was to be planted on the mountains of Israel to be the King over Israel:

“Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.” (Jeremiah 23:5-6).

That righteous Branch is Christ. Even now as the head of the church (Colossians 1:18, Ephesians 1:22-23), He is ruling over the spiritual Kingdom of Israel and it is through Him that salvation is offered whereby all the nations of the earth are to be blessed.

The message of Ezekiel 17 is that Jerusalem, the last bastion of the Kingdom of Israel, was destroyed and its people taken into captivity and it is not going to be permanently restored until it is done through Christ.
Is Queen Elizabeth II a Direct Descendant of King David?

Is the claim that Queen Elizabeth the Second is a direct descendant of the Davidic royal line valid? We have already shown that the Davidic line did not descend through Zedekiah and his daughters through Ireland to the British throne. Similarly, any attempt to trace the heritage of Queen Elizabeth the Second back to Ireland runs into problems.

We don’t have to go very far back in the current royal line of the British throne until we strike problems in establishing the supposed line of descent. In the early part of chapter 2 of A. N. Wilson’s recent book “The Victorians” he casts serious doubt on the paternity of both Victoria and Albert. If neither Queen Victoria nor her husband Prince Albert were descended from their respective fathers then the Davidic line has been broken.

This is just one example indicating the problems of tracing the royal line through many generations spanning nearly 2,500 years, from when Zedekiah’s daughters were supposed to have landed in Ireland, to this day. It is enough to throw doubt on the validity of the concept that the “Davidic line” continued to the present British throne.
Conclusion

When Jehoiachin died in captivity the throne of David was left vacant but the royal line continued down to Christ who is to be king.

There is no scriptural proof the royal line continued through Zedekiah’s daughters who supposedly took the crown to Ireland. This theory is based on legend and myth.

The prophecies concerning Israel’s greatness were fulfilled prior to the time of the destruction of Israel and Judah. Because of their sin they went into captivity and will only come out of that captivity when they accept Christ as their savior, repent and receive God’s Spirit. It doesn’t matter who or where the descendants of Israel are today: they, like the rest of the world, are in spiritual captivity and will remain so until resurrected.

The promise that the throne of David was to be established forever and that David would never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel has clearly been fulfilled. That throne was established and because most who sat on it failed to obey His commandments God eventually denied those of the royal line access to the throne until Christ. As head of the Church He sits on that throne ruling Spiritual Israel – His church. There is no longer any need for a man to sit on the throne.

PART VII – JEREMIAH’S COMMISSION

According to AI teachings Jeremiah’s commission was to tear down and uproot the throne of David and replant it among the lost tribes of Israel. They say he accomplished this by taking Zedekiah’s daughters to Ireland where one of them married a king Herremon who was supposed to have descended from the line of Zarah, dwelling with the lost tribes of Israel. Jeremiah is also supposed to have brought with him the ‘stone of destiny’, reputed to be Jacob’s pillar-stone (Genesis 28:18) on which the kings of Ireland, Scotland and England were crowned. It is claimed that God commissioned Jeremiah to uproot the throne of David from Judah and plant it in Ireland.

But what does the Bible say about Jeremiah’s commission? Did it have anything to do with transplanting the throne to the British Isles, or not?
To Root Out, Pull Down and Destroy

In the 13th year of Josiah’s reign Jeremiah was appointed as a prophet to nations and kingdoms (plural):

“Before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.” and “I have this day set thee over the nations and over the kingdoms, to root out, and to pull down, and to destroy, and to throw down, to build, and to plant.” (Jeremiah 1:5,10).

His commission was to pronounce God’s judgment on nations and kingdoms.

The execution of judgment upon the nations and kingdoms was symbolized by making the nations drink of the cup of God’s wrath:

“For thus saith the LORD God of Israel unto me; Take the wine cup of this fury at my hand, and cause all the nations, to whom I send thee, to drink it. And they shall drink, and be moved, and be mad, because of the sword that I will send among them.” (Jeremiah 25:15-16).

Jeremiah did as he was told, he pronounced God’s judgment on his own nation Judah first:

“Then took I the cup at the LORD’S hand, and made all the nations to drink, unto whom the LORD had sent me: To wit, Jerusalem, and the cities of Judah, and the kings thereof, and the princes thereof, to make them a desolation, an astonishment, an hissing, and a curse; as it is this day;” (Jeremiah 25:17-18).

After judgement was executed on his own nation he went to the other nations including: Egypt, Uz, Askelon, Gaza, Ekron, Ashdod, Edom, Moab, Ammon, Tyre, Sidon, Dedan, Tema, Buz, Arabia and the mixed peoples of the desert, Zimri, Elam, Media, the nations of the north and finally Sheshack (Jeremiah 25:19-26). They were Jacob’s adversaries and were to be punished because of what they did to God’s people:

“Therefore thou shalt say unto them, Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Drink ye, and be drunken, and spue, and fall, and rise no more, because of the sword which I will send among you. And it shall be, if they refuse to take the cup at thine hand to drink, then shalt thou say unto them, Thus saith the LORD of hosts; Ye shall certainly drink.” (Jeremiah 25:27-28).

According to Jeremiah 51:41 Sheshack is Babylon. And Babylon, significantly, was to drink of the cup of wrath after the other nations. Many of the nations mentioned were destroyed and absorbed by the Babylonian empire and they never rose to power again.
Jeremiah in Context

To see Jeremiah’s commission in context we need to review some of the history of the execution of God’s judgment on His people – the House of Jacob.

Right from coming out of Egypt they had provoked God to anger:

“Because they have done that which was evil in my sight, and have provoked me to anger, since the day their fathers came forth out of Egypt, even unto this day.” (II Kings 21:15).

But there were times when Israel pleased God and consequently, they were greatly blessed. During the time of King David and the early years of his son Solomon the kingdom reached the peak of its prosperity. God kept His promises to make the nation great, rich and powerful. But when Solomon, swayed by his many wives, eventually led the people back into idolatry God pronounced judgment on the House of Israel (Jacob).

Judgment was on the Whole House of Israel (Jacob). That judgment began to take effect when the kingdom was wrenched from the hands of Solomon’s son Rehoboam. He was left with the remnant – Judah. The major portion of the House of Israel, the ten northern tribes, was given to Jeroboam. Jeroboam’s nation retained the name Israel:

“And he said to Jeroboam I will rend the kingdom out of the hand of Solomon, and will give ten tribes to thee: (But he shall have one tribe for my servant David’s sake, and for Jerusalem’s sake, the city which I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel:) Because that they have forsaken me, and have worshipped Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, Chemosh the god of the Moabites, and Milcom the god of the children of Ammon, and have not walked in my ways, to do that which is right in mine eyes, and to keep my statutes and my judgments, as did David his father.” and “But I will take the kingdom out of his son’s hand, and will give it unto thee, even ten tribes. And unto his son will I give one tribe, that David my servant may have a light alway before me in Jerusalem, the city which I have chosen me to put my name there.” (I Kings 11:31-33,35-36).
Judgment on Israel

Instead of obeying and trusting in God, Jeroboam was more concerned about maintaining control of the people and took the northern tribes further into idolatry by changing the format of worship. He set up his own priesthood, places of worship and feast days:

“Whereupon the king took counsel, and made two calves of gold, and said unto them, It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem: behold thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt. And he set the one in Bethel, and the other put he in Dan. And this thing became a sin: for the people went to worship before the one, even unto Dan. And he made an house of high places, and made priests of the lowest of the people, which were not of the sons of Levi. And Jeroboam ordained a feast in the eighth month, on the fifteenth day of the month, like unto the feast that is in Judah, and he offered upon the altar. So did he in Bethel, sacrificing unto the calves that he had made: and he placed in Bethel the priests of the high places which he had made. So he offered upon the altar which he had made in Bethel the fifteenth day of the eighth month, even in the month which he had devised of his own heart; and ordained a feast unto the children of Israel: and he offered upon the altar, and burnt incense.” (I Kings 12:28-33).

At that time and on several occasions after that many from the tribes of Israel who did not like the changes left to settle in Judah (II Chronicles 15:9, 31:6-8 and I Chronicles 9:3 see Table 2 below).

Because Israel continued in idolatry judgment was pronounced when God said He would destroy them:

“After this thing Jeroboam returned not from his evil way, but made again of the lowest of the people priests of the high places: whosoever would, he consecrated him, and he became one of the priests of the high places. And this thing became sin unto the house of Jeroboam, even to cut it off, and to destroy it from off the face of the earth” (I Kings 13:33-34).

Through the prophet Ahijah God said He would root up and scatter the people of Israel:

“Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Forasmuch as I exalted thee from among the people, and made thee prince over my people Israel, And rent the kingdom away from the house of David, and gave it thee and yet thou hast not been as my servant David, who kept my commandments, and who followed me with all his heart, to do that only which was right in mine eyes; But hast done evil above all that were before thee: for thou hast gone and made thee other gods, and molten images, to provoke me to anger, and hast cast me behind thy back: Therefore, behold, I will bring evil upon the house of Jeroboam,” and

“For the LORD shall smite Israel, as a reed is shaken in the water, and he shall root up Israel out of this good land, which he gave to their fathers, and shall scatter them beyond the river, because they have made their groves, provoking the LORD to anger. And he shall give Israel up because of the sins of Jeroboam, who did sin, and who made Israel to sin.” (I Kings 14:7-10, 15-16).

And all these things occurred as God said they would. The Assyrians took Israel into captivity.
Judgment on Judah

Then one hundred years later when Judah followed Israel into idolatry, Jeremiah was called to pronounce God’s judgment on Judah:

“And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.” (Jeremiah 3:8).

When the Babylonians took Judah into captivity, Jerusalem was spared from destruction. For a number of years it remained intact under a vassal king (Zedekiah) who was set up by Nebuchadnezzar.

Many people from the tribes of Israel had come to dwell in the cities of Judah including Jerusalem. Those to whom Jeremiah uttered his prophetic warnings represented the whole House of Israel, also called the House of Jacob. He was instructed to, “cry in the ears of Jerusalem” (Jeremiah 2:2), and address the whole House of Jacob:

“Israel was holiness unto the LORD, and the first fruits of his increase: all that devour him shall offend; evil shall come upon them, saith the LORD. Hear ye the word of the LORD, O house of Jacob, and all the families (tribes) of the house of Israel:” (Jeremiah 2:3-4).
Judah the Remnant

The two separate nations Israel and Judah were collectively referred to as God’s people ‘Israel’. For example, Jeremiah referred to both the Assyrian and Babylonian captivities as something that happened in a collective sense to Israel:

“Israel is a scattered sheep; the lions have driven him away: first the king of Assyria hath devoured him; and last this Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon hath broken his bones,” (Jeremiah 50:17).

When Israel was destroyed Judah was, in effect, the remnant of the House of Jacob.
Jerusalem Restored

God’s purpose in retaining the remnant was to fulfill His promise about the coming Messiah who will sit on the throne of David ruling God’s people, and in whom all nations will be blessed:

“The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.” (Genesis 49:10).

He also said:

“Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth.” (Jeremiah 23:5).

“And unto his son (Rehoboam) will I give one tribe, that David my servant may have a light always before me in Jerusalem, the city which I have chosen me to put my name there.” (I Kings 11:36).

That one tribe was Judah and of course any who were willing to align themselves with them, for example Levi, Benjamin and members from other tribes like Ephraim, Manasseh and Simeon who resettled in Judah.

When that remnant (Judah) turned from God and was also taken into captivity and the city of Jerusalem finally fell to the Babylonians, God spared a remnant from them throughout the Babylonian captivity in order to keep His promises:

“For out of Jerusalem shall go forth a remnant, and they that escape out of mount Zion: the zeal of the LORD of hosts shall do this.” (II Kings 19:31).

By the grace of God, that remnant was spared until their descendants were able to return in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, to rebuild Jerusalem and establish a community that existed, although under occupation, until the coming of the Messiah:

“Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.” (Romans 11:5).

All this happened so that Christ the Son of God and heir to the throne of David, could be born of the tribe of Judah. And it is through Christ that all nations are to be blessed by having access to the true God to receive His grace and His kingdom. This is how God fulfilled the promise to Abraham: that in his seed all the families of the earth would be blessed (Galatians 3:8, 16).

Although the name Jew may have originally referred to those of the tribe of Judah it has come to be associated with those of the nation of Judah or the land of Judea. Just as people from Europe or elsewhere who emigrate to the US for example become US residents and are called Americans, those from other tribes of Israel who became residents of Judah became known collectively as Jews. It had become a common name for what is now the only identifiable remnant of Israel (Jacob). For example, Paul was of the tribe of Benjamin and yet is referred to as a Jew, indicating that the term Jew meant more than direct descendants of the patriarch Judah:

“I more: Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin,” – “But Paul said, I am a man which am a Jew of Tarsus,” (Philippians 3:4-5 and Acts 21:39).

Once God’s purpose had been fulfilled by Christ, opening up the way for all of mankind to have access to God the Father, the New Testament church was established, then dispersed from Jerusalem, and the city was once again sacked — this time by the Romans. In Daniel 9:22-27 the prophet explains Jeremiah’s prophecy about rebuilding Jerusalem. From the time the order went out to restore the city until after the Messiah is ‘cut off’ was to be 70 weeks. Using the principle of one day equals one year the time equates to 490 years, which Daniel explains is the fulfilment of Judah’s transgression. It culminated in the rejection of Christ.

Having briefly reviewed the history of the execution of judgment on God’s people we can see that Jeremiah’s commission only spanned part of that time — from the days of Josiah, king of Judah until after the fall of Jerusalem. During that time Jeremiah not only pronounced God’s judgment on Judah and Jerusalem, He also pronounced judgment on Jacob’s adversaries.
Judgment on Jacob’s Adversaries

Jeremiah’s commission was to pronounce judgment on the other nations listed in Jeremiah 25, because of their adversity toward God’s people. For example, Edom was one of those nations. The Edomites were descendants of Esau, Jacob’s brother and when the children of Israel came out of Egypt, Edom was supposed to give them passage but didn’t (Numbers 20:20-21). They were hostile toward Israel throughout the nation’s history and their animosity was reinforced when David’s army killed every male in Edom (I Kings 11:14-15) and others like Amaziah (II Kings 14:7) and Jehoram (II Kings 8:20-23 and II Chronicles 21:8-10) subsequently oppressed the Edomites.

That hatred for Jacob still existed among Esau’s descendants at the time of the fall of Jerusalem:

“Thus saith the Lord GOD; Because that Edom hath dealt against the house of Judah by taking vengeance, and hath greatly offended, and revenged himself upon them;” (Ezekiel 25:12). And, “Because thou hast had a perpetual hatred, and hast shed the blood of the children of Israel by the force of the sword in the time of their calamity, in the time that their iniquity had an end:” and “And thou shalt know that I am the LORD, and that I have heard all thy blasphemies which thou hast spoken against the mountains of Israel, saying, They are laid desolate, they are given us to consume.” and “As thou didst rejoice at the inheritance of the house of Israel, because it was desolate, so will I do unto thee: thou shalt be desolate, O mount Seir, and all Idumea, even all of it: and they shall know that I am the LORD.” (Ezekiel 35:5,12,15).

After the fall of Jerusalem the exiles in Babylon remembered Edom’s enmity:

“Remember, O LORD, the children of Edom in the day of Jerusalem; who said, rase it, rase it, even to the foundation thereof.” (Psalm 137:7).

Obadiah records that an envoy (ambassador) was sent among the nations to pronounce judgment. He said:

“Thus saith the Lord GOD concerning Edom; We have heard a rumour from the LORD, and an ambassador is sent among the heathen, Arise ye, and let us rise up against her in battle. Behold, I have made thee small among the heathen: thou art greatly despised.” (Obadiah 1:1-2).

He then recites a similar judgment to the one given by Jeremiah (Jeremiah 49:7-22). It is highly likely that this was Jeremiah fulfilling his commission to the nations.

The judgment pronounced by Jeremiah and repeated by Obadiah was, according to Malachi, fulfilled. He said that Esau’s descendants were laid waste:

“I have loved you, saith the LORD. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob’s brother? saith the LORD: yet I loved Jacob, And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness.

“Whereas Edom saith, We are impoverished, but we will return and build the desolate places; thus saith the LORD of hosts, They shall build, but I will throw down; and they shall call them, The border of wickedness, and, The people against whom the LORD hath indignation for ever. And your eyes shall see, and ye shall say, The LORD will be magnified from the border of Israel.” (Malachi 1:2-5).

Edom was destroyed because of its animosity toward God’s people both in the past and during the punishment that fell on Jerusalem. Other nations on which Jeremiah pronounced judgment, such as Moab and Elam for example received a similar fate:

“And Moab shall be destroyed from being a people, because he hath magnified himself against the LORD.” and “And upon Elam will I bring the four winds from the four quarters of heaven, and will scatter them toward all those winds; and there shall be no nation whither the outcasts of Elam shall not come.” (Jeremiah 48:42, 49:36).

They were destroyed by the Babylonians and scattered among all nations.
Judgment on Babylon

Babylon, the last of the nations mentioned by Jeremiah on which the judgment was to be executed, fell to the Medes and Persians. The city of Babylon survived under captivity until after 312 BC when Seleucus built a new city 50 miles to the north.

The influence of the Babylonian Empire on the rest of the world was significant. Its political, religious, economic and social systems were absorbed and provided the pattern for the modern nations of this world. According to one interpretation of the Book of Revelation, Babylon represents the political, religious, economic and social systems of the end-time world power. That world power will be an alliance between a powerful religious leader — the false prophet, and a political leader — the “beast”:

“I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters: With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication. So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet colored beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication: And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH. And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.” (Revelation 17:1-6).

AI theory maintains that the modern day descendants of the lost tribes of ancient Israel will be the prime target of the beast’s power which will once again take them into captivity. However, as we shall see, there is no clear evidence in the Bible that the lost tribes can be identified as specific nations in the modern world. Rather, the prime target will be God’s people.
Judgment on the World

God made it plain through Jeremiah that having dealt with His own people (ancient Israel) He would then be dealing with the rest of the world:

“For, lo, I begin to bring evil on the city which is called by my name, and should ye be utterly unpunished? Ye shall not be unpunished: for I will call for a sword upon all the inhabitants of the earth, saith the LORD of hosts. Therefore prophesy thou against them all these words, and say unto them, The LORD shall roar from on high, and utter his voice from his holy habitation; he shall mightily roar upon his habitation; he shall give a shout, as they that tread the grapes, against all the inhabitants of the earth.” (Jeremiah 25:29-30).

In ancient times God’s people were a physical nation and the other nations of the world were their adversaries. The Babylonian empire being the most dominant power in the world at that time, was Jacob’s chief adversary. In this day and age God’s people are not a nation, but a body of spirit-begotten people known as the saints. Their chief adversary is Satan (the name Satan means adversary) who is the spirit behind the world power symbolically portrayed in Revelation as Babylon. He is also referred to as the god of this world (II Corinthians 4:4).

As foretold by Jeremiah and confirmed in Revelation, God will finally execute judgment on Babylon (Sheshac) and will be made to drink of the cup of God’s wrath:

“And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication.” and “And the great city was divided into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell: and great Babylon came in remembrance before God, to give unto her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of his wrath.” (Revelation 14:8, 16:19).

That is the final fulfilment of the destructive part of Jeremiah’s commission.
To Build, and to Plant

On one hand Jeremiah’s commission was to announce the rooting out, pulling down, and destruction of the nations and kingdoms of the ancient world; on the other hand he announced the restoration of Israel which is the building and planting:

“I have this day set thee over the nations and over the kingdoms, to root out, and to pull down, and to destroy, and to throw down, to build, and to plant.” (Jeremiah 1:10).

We have already seen how the remnant of Jacob in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah restored Jerusalem to fulfil the promise of the Messiah. But it is obvious that Jeremiah spoke about a more significant restoration that would occur in the end-time:

“At that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of the LORD; and all the nations shall be gathered unto it, to the name of the LORD, to Jerusalem: neither shall they walk any more after the imagination of their evil heart.” (Jeremiah 3:17).

and

“Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.” (Jeremiah 23:5-6).

and

“For I will set mine eyes upon them for good, and I will bring them again to this land: and I will build them, and not pull them down; and I will plant them, and not pluck them up. And I will give them an heart to know me, that I am the LORD: and they shall be my people, and I will be their God: for they shall return unto me with their whole heart.” (Jeremiah 24:6-7)

and

“Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.” (Jeremiah 31:31-33).

Jeremiah’s message was not only one about destruction and captivity; it was also about hope for the future. The Hebrew words translated ‘build’ and ‘plant’ mean to establish. What God was talking about through Jeremiah was establishing His Kingdom on this earth.
Conclusion

Jeremiah’s commission was to announce to Judah and the other nations of the world at that time what God had in store for them. They were to be destroyed in their immediate future with the exception of Babylon. According to one interpretation of the Book of Revelation Babylon represents the political, economic and religious systems of government that have infiltrated the world. Eventually even Babylon is to drink of the cup of wrath and be destroyed when Christ returns to establish God’s Kingdom here on earth.

The nation of Judah and its capital Jerusalem represented what was left of the House of Jacob. It was to be destroyed, but a remnant survived to provide the way for God’s promises about the Messiah to be fulfilled.

Jeremiah’s commission to plant and build is a message of hope for all people. It referred to the coming Messiah and eventually the restoration of Israel, as part of God’s Kingdom after Christ returns as ruler.

There is no evidence to suggest that Jeremiah’s commission was to take the throne of David from Judah and to transplant it in the British Isles. It is worth noting here that with the final fall of Jerusalem in 70AD the age of patriarchs and prophets ended. God now works through Christ (Hebrews 1:1-2). The era of the Babylonian system was fully ushered in and it continues to be the backbone of the world today. It will be finally destroyed with the return of Christ.

CONCLUSION

As often is the case, people believe what they want to believe.  Early onset BI indoctrination often forms a part of a Christians’ belief system and it is understandably difficult to escape its grip even if faced with contradictory facts.  This author at one time believed it lightly.

The Church of God has been called to be the pillar of truth.  To impress on Timothy the seriousness of the calling, Paul glorified it as the

… house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:

God was manifested in the flesh,
Justified in the Spirit,
Seen by angels,
Preached among the Gentiles,
Believed on in the world,
Received up in glory (1 Timothy 3:15-16).

The Roman Church persuaded the Saxons to convert to Christianity by selling them on the idea that the Christian God would give them victory over their enemies. If elements of the Church of God today are still compelled to market a dubious doctrine such as BI because it is known to be effective in member retention and the persuasion of new converts, then we know it had its many predecessors:

For we are not, like so many, peddlers of God’s word, but as men of sincerity, as commissioned by God, in the sight of God we speak in Christ (2 Corinthians 2:17).

Nothing is new under the sun.

The worst mistake anyone can make is to deny God the glory He is due.   It is His will that all things be reconciled through His Son Jesus Christ, and any endeavor that does not work to that end will be burned:

For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.  Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw— each one’s work will become manifest, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done.  If the work that anyone has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward.  If anyone’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire (1 Corinthians 3:11-15).

The day is coming which the Church of God in its generations will be free of certain doctrinal baggage that has infiltrated it and has passed on.  There is no time better than the present, so it is better we dump our own now and get on to the work we were commissioned to do in the first place, and BI has no place in it.

The reader is referred to the supplementary pages here for further exposure of the falsehood of BI teaching.  These pages include the introduction of historian Richard Gott’s book Britain’s Empire: Resistance, Repression and Revolt  with initial comments by this author.

[1] The reader is referred to The Environment of Early Christianity,  S. Angus, M.A. PhD.  New York Charles Scribner’s and Sons, 1920

[2] The reader may refer to the following link prepared by Dave Medici for an exhaustive review of Herbert Armstrong’s plagiarism of Allen’s work: https://hwarmstrong.com/allen-armstrong/Dave_Medici.html

[3] Berkeley Mickelsen, Interpreting the Bible. (Grand Rapids : Wm.B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1963), 294.

[4] (Jewish Study Bible, p. 96 marginal notes)

[5] Roger R. Chambers.

[6] Not Used

[7] Hamilton, Victor P., The Book of Genesis: Chapters 18-50.  p. 647

[8] America and Britain–Their Biblical Origin and Prophetic Destiny, Philip Neal page 14

[9] (American Philosophical Association Delphi Report, 1990).

[10] Book Four, Paragraph 64, The Histories

[11] At the time of this writing, the link to this page is https://stevenmcollins.com/the-israelite-origin-of-the-scythians/.  This author has noted various modifications already.

[12] The Histories,   Article 63.

[13] https://stevenmcollins.com/the-israelite-origin-of-the-scythians/.

[14] Book Four, 61-63, The Histories

[15] Book Four, 64, The Histories

[16] https://stevenmcollins.com/the-israelite-origin-of-the-scythians/.

[17] 2 Maccabees 4:47, 3 Maccabees 7:6, 4 Maccabees 10:7

[18] America and Britain–Their Biblical Origin and Prophetic Destiny, Philip Neal

[19] America and Britain–Their Biblical Origin and Prophetic Destiny, Philip Neal

[20] These expressions are a paroemia, which was a proverb in common use.  It is not to be taken literally.

[21] It could be more understood how it was especially common among the peoples at that time to regard a part of the whole as the whole–termed  “representative universalism.” Suggested further reading is A. J. Mattill Jr., “Representative Universalism and the Conquest of Canaan,” Concordia Theological Monthly  35:1 (1967):8-17.

[22] The reader is not to assume captivity is the same as slavery.  Israel was enslaved by the Egyptians.  The captives under the Babylonians, for example, at some point had many freedoms to practice their faith, own property and do business.  The Jews for a time also prospered in the Roman Empire.  A subject that will be discussed in future papers by this author.