This article by Nick Greer was restored from the cults.org archives.
An Objective Analysis of British-Israelism, including a History of the Theory within the Revival Centres International and Revival Fellowships. A Rebuttal of Each Major Premise of the British-Israelite Theory from Historical Sources and Scripture.
1. Introduction
The Revival Centres, along with several other groups, have a teaching known as ‘British-Israelism’. British-Israelism, or Anglo-Israelism, is a theory that identifies the Anglo-Saxon race with the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel. It is said that promises given to Israel in Scripture will be fulfilled in Britain, America, and other Anglo-Saxon countries.[1]
1.1 Who were the lost ten tribes of Israel?
One of the major events in Jewish history was the ‘Exile’. While most Christians know a lot about Israelite captivity in Egypt, the history of Israel’s captivity by the Babylon-Assyrian empire is more hazy. This is the period of Hebrew history when the tribes of Israel and Judah were taken captive from Palestine and exiled to Mesopotamia. There were two main captivities. First came the captivity of Israel (the ten Northern tribes) in about 730 B.C.E., then Judah (the two Southern tribes) in about 600 B.C.E..
The Israelites were exiled by the Assyrian rulers Pul (Tiglath-Pileser III) and Shalmaneser V (2Kings 15:29; 16:6). Assyrian inscriptions boast that Shalmaneser deported 27,290 Israelites.[2] They repopulated Israel with people from Babylon and the surrounding areas – the people who became known as the Samaritans (2Kings 17:24). Jeremiah noted the event: “the Lord removed Israel out of his sight, as he had foretold through all his servants the prophets. So Israel was exiled from their own land to Assyria until this day” (2Kings 17:23). The captivity was in accordance to the Lord’s promise that he would scatter Israel if they abandoned him (Deuteronomy 28:15, 36, 37, 61).
Judah’s later exile was related. The two southern tribes of Judah were taken captive by Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar. The Babylonian captivity is made famous by Psalm 137, “By the rivers of Babylon – there we sat down and there we wept when we remembered Zion”. The whole book of Lamentations was written to describe the plight of exiled Judah. It seems that, over time, Israelites of the Assyrian captivity began “merging with the Judean exile” [3] (Jeremiah 50:17).
Because the Israelite Assyrian captives were never expressly said to return to Israel, they became known as the ‘Ten Lost Tribes’. Many peoples have, at times, claimed to be descended from these Lost Tribes. Among them: the Nestorians, tribes discussed in the Book of Mormon, the Afghans, the Falashas of Ethiopia, the American Indians, and even the Japanese![4] The Encyclopedia Judaica notes that, “Various theories, one more far fetched that the other, have been adduced, on the flimsiest of evidence, to identify different peoples with the ten lost tribes”.[5] British-Israelism puts the Lost Tribes in Britain.
1.2 The British-Israel chronology
It is difficult to get a clear chronology out of British-Israel textbooks. There are three clear events that many of their writers agree on, though.
1.2.1 Early Israelite migrations
First, many writers suggest that even before the Captivity of Israel, by about 1500 B.C.E., there was interaction between the Tribe of Dan and Ireland. The Tribe of Dan was a seafaring tribe (Judges 5:17), and it is suggested that they traded with and moved to Greece. Later, it is suggested that they moved to Ireland. They are equated with the Tuatha D‚ Danann described in the Irish Book of Invasions (written ninth century C.E.). Some Revival Centre books skip over this part of British-Israelism.
1.2.2 The transfer of the Throne of David to Ireland
Second, British-Israelists suggest that about 580 B.C.E., the Throne of David was transferred from Israel to Ireland. The daughters of King Zedekiah, escaping the Babylonian captivity of Judah, were taken to Egypt by Jeremiah and his scribe Baruch (Jeremiah 43:4-7). It is suggested that they made their way for Spain, and from there to Ireland. It is said that one of the daughters, Tamar Tephi, married the Irish King Eochaidh (who also was allegedly Judean). Allegedly, Tamar Tephi took with her from Palestine ‘Jacob’s Pillar’, identified today with the coronation stone in Westminster Abbey. The current British monarchs, who are said to be the successors of Tamar Tephi and Eochaidh, are therefore considered the Kings and Queens of Israel.
1.2.3 Lost tribes move to Britain
Third, it is suggested that, during about the sixth century C.E., the ten tribes of the Assyrian captivity migrated across Europe. Allegedly, they were known as the Scythians during Christ’s time. They became known as the Sacae, and finally as Saxons (Anglo-Saxons). Invading Britain in the sixth centuries from Germany, it is said that they made Britain the new Israel.
2. The Revival Centre’s position
Hundreds of years before the first Revival Centre, the first ‘British-Israel’ manifesto was issued. British-Israelism was first hinted at by the British Member of Parliament, John Sadler, in his Rights of the Kingdom (1649). But the movement began in the eighteenth century after the self-styled ‘Nephew of the Almighty’, Richard Brothers, published his book A Revealed Knowledge of the Prophecies and Times (1794).[6] Brothers was, as one source puts it, “a Canadian madman”. He became troubled by visions, and said that the British parliament was the ‘beast’ of Revelation. Brothers believed he was a descendant of King David, and that only he had the right to be king of England. Unfortunately for him, King George III disagreed.
Brothers was confined in a mental asylum from 1795-1806. Despite this, and the failure of his prophecy that Jerusalem would be restored to the Hebrews in 1798, his movement flourished.[7] By the end of the nineteenth century, there were said to number two million adherents of British-Israelism, most of them Church of England members.[8]
In 1850, a man called George Storrs who had begun a small Adventist sect recomended British-Israelism along with the ‘soul sleep’ theory. Almost every quasi-Christian cult in existance has ties with his group, including the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Church of God (7th Day), Worldwide Church of God, and Christadelphians.
In 1928, a man called Tom Foster visited the pyramids of Egypt and seems to have been ‘hooked’. When, in 1930, he became ‘born again’ he retained his ideas about it with a new Christian slant – seemingly taking on these new teachings about Pyramids and Lost Tribes.
Getting in to more modern times, the Revival Centre position on British-Israel can be traced back to the one-time Assembly of God (‘AoG’) preacher, Leo Harris. In December 1941, Leo Harris met Tom Foster in Ballarat. In 1944-5, he came to Adelaide and started up a ‘National Revival Crusade Centre’ (in 1963 they became known as the ‘Christian Revival Crusade’), and taught British-Israel. From Adelaide, Leo Harris planted assemblies in other Australian cities. From there the story is well known. After personal disagreements, the Melbourne car salesman Lloyd Longfield left the fellowship.[9] With Noel Hollins of Geelong, their “two Victorian Assemblies in 1958 aligned themselves as the Melbourne and Geelong Revival Centres”.[10]
We know from old Revival Crusade books that they taught British-Israel and Pyramidology until about 1977. But after Leo Harris’ death in that year, British-Israel theology gradually disappeared from their ‘belief’ list. The Revival Centres International, however, continued to teach British-Israel, and the doctrine was ardently preached by Lloyd Longfield in National Conventions. In 1995, when the Revival Centres split, both the Revival Centres International (Melbourne) and the Revival Fellowship (Adelaide) continued to teach British-Israel.[11] Doctrinally, the Revival Centres International (RCI) and The Revival Fellowship (RF) say: “We believe the Bible identifies the Anglo-Saxon people with the Old Testament nation of Israel”.[12]
British-Israel teaching may include one or two slide presentations per year, and incidental comments during some talks. Articles are common in the magazines Voice of Revival (RCI) and the Revival Times (RF). British-Israel pamphlets and books are usually available at meetings. The pamphlet ‘Israel’s Lost Tribes in Britain/The Great Seal of the U.S.A.’ is common at many assemblies.[13] The book Jacob verses Esau[14] is also sold. Additionally, as I will note later, British-Israelism influences other Revivalist doctrines. For example, the ‘King James‘ Version of the Scriptures is considered the only ‘blessed’ version. British-Israelism influences Revivalist end-time beliefs. It also influences a British-Israelist’s perception of people who are not Anglo-Saxons, particularly the Jews. British-Israel is, therefore, a significant teaching of the Revival Centres, and it is important to discover the truth of the doctrine from historical sources and Scripture. This article examines the Revival Centre teaching claim by claim.
3. British-Israelism analysed
3.1 A comparison of the Anglo-Saxons and the Israelites
It is possible to prove that the Anglo-Saxons and the Lost Israelites were distinct peoples by comparing them. As you will appreciate, it is hard to imagine two peoples more different …
3.1.1 Are the Anglo-Saxons the same race as the Israelites?
In referring to the racial background of the English and Israelites, The Jewish Encyclopedia notes that “Modern ethnography does not confirm in any way the identification of the Irish with a Semitic [Hebrew] people; while the English can be traced back to the Scandinavians, of whom there is no trace in Mesopotamia at any period of history”.[15] Anthropologist Dr.Calvin Kephart, in his Races of Mankind: their Origin and Migration, confirms that while the Anglo-Saxon people are ‘Aryans’, the Hebrews are of the ‘Turanian’ racial ancestry.[16] They are completely different races. In a footnote, he even went so far as to say:
Since the original Hebrews were Kassites, of typically Turkic build, i.e., with tawny complexion, of medial height and stocky build, with prominent nose, and brachycephalous, all efforts to identify Aryan Nordic people of Europe as descendants of the Lost Tribes of Israel are doomed to failure. A more futile task is inconceivable.[17]
In other words, genetically, the Anglo-Saxons are simply a different race to the olive-skinned Israelites.
3.1.2 Did the Anglo-Saxons speak the same language as the Israelites?
Again, The Jewish Encyclopedia says that “English [the modern Anglo-Saxon language] is a branch of the Aryan stock of languages, and has no connection with Hebrew”.[18] Confirming this, one linguist has written that:
English is no isolated, independent tongue, but one of the members of a vast family [the Indo-European] … There are several other families of speech found over the earth, but so far no evidence of relationship has been shown to exist between any of them and the Indo-European. One of the most important of these is the Semitic [ie. Hebrew language family] … no trace of the slightest real connection can be discovered [between English and Hebrew].[19]
Even in writing: the Hebrews wrote from right to left, but the Anglo-Saxons wrote from left to right. The Anglo-Saxons, then, surely did not communicate in any form of Hebrew.
3.1.3 Did the Celts and Anglo-Saxons worship the Lord like the Israelites?
British-Israelists attempt to say that the early Celts and Anglo-Saxons actually practiced the Jewish religion. Today, Tomorrow and the Great Beyond makes the bold statement: “According to the considered opinion of many secular historians, the Druids who worshipped and sacrificed in these Islands many centuries B.C., were ancient Hebrews”![20]
However, the National Geographic magazine ran an article on the Celts in May 1977. It said that the Celtic Druids had “local deities and cults; hundreds of names of gods and goddesses are known to us … [they made] colossal wickerwork figures, the limbs of which are filled with living men: these images are then set alight and the victims perish in a sea of flame”.[21] The rituals ascribed to the Druids are more like those of the pagan God Molech than anything else (2Kings 17:17). To say that this ritual is Hebrew is proposterous!
As for the Anglo-Saxons, at death, “a great [Anglo-Saxon] warrior could expect to be welcomed at Valhalla to feast and swap yarns with his ancestors”.[22] “The common God of the English people was Woden, the war-god … whom every tribe held to be the first ancestor of its kings”.[23]
3.1.4 Did the Anglo-Saxons have Israelite sounding names?
The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (eleventh century C.E.) begins like this:
In the year that was 494 years past the birth of Christ, Cerdic and his son Cynric came up to Cerdicesora with five ships; this Cerdic was the son of Elesa, son of Esla, son of Gewis, son of Wig, son of Freawine, son of Freothogar, son of Brand, son of Baeldaeg, son of Woden.[24]
These names sound Old German, rather than Hebrew. It was common for the Israelites to be named after their ancestors, so why is there not one Hebrew name recorded in The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle?
3.1.5 Did the Anglo-Saxons remember that they were Israelites?
Tacitus reports that the only kind of history known to [the Anglo-Saxon’s] 1st century Germanic ancestors was ancient songs about gods and heroes.[25]
3.1.6 Were the Anglo-Saxons grouped into ten tribes like the Israelites?
The Anglo-Saxons were made up of four confederacies: the Northumbrians, Mercians, East Anglians, and the Kents. Moreover, a copy of the make-up of their confederacy has survived, called the Tribal Hidage. It is a listing of their rulers and nobles of the seventh century period. It does not mention ten tribes, or the family rule that Israel knew.[26] In contrast to this, the Israelites tribes were close knit. Even their order of marching and encampments in the wilderness were according to tribe (Numbers 2:1-31; 10:5, 6, 13-28).
3.1.7 Did the Anglo-Saxons fight like the Israelites?
“The [Saxon] name became a synonym for piracy and barbarism”.[27] The Hebrew Scriptures indicate, however, that the Israelites would only engage in wars of the Lord (Numbers 21:14). Raping and pillaging were forbidden the Israelite soldier (Deuteronomy 21:10-13).
3.1.8 Were the Anglo-Saxons buried like the Israelites?
Noting Saxon cemeteries archaeologist M. Welch says that, “many of the dead were cremated”.[28] However, the only cremation recorded in Scripture is Saul’s, after his unusual death (1Samuel 31:8-13). Israelites buried their dead, in a ceremony that surely would have not have been quickly forsaken.
3.1.9 Did the Anglo-Saxons come from the Middle East?
Historian Marjorie Quennell writes, “The central Asian Plains always have been the breeding places of masses of men, who at times, moved perhaps by drought, break their bounds and surge outwards … The Anglo-Saxons came to England as a result of disturbance in Central Asia”.[29] Historians, then, believe that the Anglo-Saxons originated from the central Asian Plains – not the Middle East.
3.1.10 Did the Anglo-Saxons eat the same things as the Israelites?
Diggings at Saxon sites have revealed the Saxon’s diet: “Animal bone was very well preserved at Feddersen Wierde … Cattle formed 48.3 per cent of domestic animals … 11.1 per cent pigs … [and at the West Stow dig] 19.7 per cent pigs … [at Bishopstone] pig 17 per cent”.[30] Anglo-Saxon historian J. Clutton-Brock has commented that, “it is possible that during Anglo-Saxon times pigs greatly outnumbered all other domestic animals and were the basic component of the agricultural economy, although their skeletal remains are usually found in lower numbers than those of sheep and cattle”.[31] If the Anglo-Saxons were truly Israelites, why were they eating pigs? The pig was a forbidden food to the Israelites (Leviticus 11:4-8; Deuteronomy 14:7, 8).
In conclusion, the Anglo-Saxons and Israelites did not look the same, talk the same, or eat the same things. It seems obvious that they were completely different peoples. But if this seems so obvious, how do British-Israelists defend their position? It is primarily done by referring to early Irish and British historical records. How accurate are the records?
3.2 The written sources as evidence
While Scripture and some archaeological proofs are also used, the early written records are used as the best ‘proof’ for British-Israelism. When the Worldwide Church of God recently abandoned its doctrine of British-Israelism, it issued a Study Paper that said, “When reading Anglo-Israelite literature, one notices that it generally depends on folklore, legends, quasi-historical genealogies and dubious etymologies”.[32]
In past centuries, the early Irish legends were fondly treasured. However, it is now appreciated that they have serious defects:
[recently] the Irish legendary origins have been subjected to serious criticism. The fondly cherished theory which attributes Milesian descent to the bulk of the native population has at length been assailed … The Tuatha D‚ do not appear in any of the earliest quasi-historical documents, nor in Nennius, and they scarcely correspond to any particular race.[33]
It is useful to remember that these legends were all written after the sixth century C.E.. That is over a thousand years after the events that they purport to record. It also means that the legends were written in a strongly monastic society. Archaeologist Peter Harbison noted of the early Irish legends:
[The Irish] monastic movement was extraordinarily vigorous throughout the sixth century, and the new foundations which it created became the great centres of culture in the following centuries … It was these foundations which furthered the use of writing and produced many great illuminated manuscripts which survive today … Their scribes helped to write down and thereby preserve many of the old Celtic tales – including pagan lore – which would otherwise have been lost.[34]
The Irish tales, then, were written down primarily by Church scribes. Irish Historian Sean O’Faolain explains, “We do not read the literature as it was originally created. The Christian scribes and the patriotic ficto-historians have freely altered the original records and the traditional lore to suit their own ends … Myth and history, dreams and facts, are forever inextricably commingled”.[35] So, the Celtic legends were altered by the Church. It is easy to imagine an Irish monk adding Christian allusions to the pagan tales they transcribed.
The early English legends, primarily those of Nennius and Gildas, are likewise unreliable. True, there are some English legends that suggest Britain had ties with Israel. For example, one legend says that ‘Britto’, the original Britain, was descended from Noah, and came to Britain after the flood.[36] Actually, the British derive their name from Britannicus (42-56 C.E.), the son of Roman Emperor Claudius.[37]
Like Irish history, English history was written in the Christian era. It also was modified by the monk scribes to fit into the Church’s scheme of things:
since Christian ecclesiastical-national history applied the theology of history to national happenings, the events of past and present were adapted to the biblical and exegetical scheme, and the only ‘origins’ that mattered were the origins of Israel.[38]
That is why we have some references to Israel in English histories – what has been handed down to us is a history “adapted to the biblical and exegetical scheme”. Because of this, James Campbell, in his book The Anglo-Saxons, describes the early British legends as “largely romance”.[39] It is irresponsible, therefore, to take these legends as literal truth, which is what British-Israelites do. The quoting of these spurious sources is, perhaps, the greatest ‘slight of hand’ by the British-Israel authors.
Let’s say, for a moment, hypothetically, that the folklore (which largely consist of stories about giants and wizards) was reliable. Is British-Israelism proven? No. Even with these legends, “No first-hand account exists that traces the lost 10 tribes into north-western Europe. No eyewitness to European tribal migrations ever claimed an Israelite origin for any of them. No medieval of ancient genealogies ever linked the royal families of the British-Isles with the Israelites”.[40] In fact, to be able to prove British-Israelism, these spurious legends must even be misquoted!
British-Israelites often attempt to identify the ‘Tuatha D‚ Danann’, a tribe mentioned in the Irish legends, with the Tribe of Dan. One booklet on British-Israel, for instance, says:
All early histories of Ireland mention a people coming there from Greece called the Tuatha De Danaan … The word tuath simply means “tribe” – “Tuath … Irish History … A ‘TRIBE’ or ‘people’ in Ireland” (New English Dictionary on Historical Principles, vol.10, pt.1, p.441) … the Tuatha de Danaan was none other than the Israelite tribe of Dan! [41]
The same booklet also somewhat whimsically states, “Once we understand the racial connection between the Tuatha de Danaan of Ireland and the ancient tribe of Dan, it is easy to see why the song, ‘O, Danny Boy’ is so popular in Ireland”![42] (Sometimes, the use of the ‘dan’, or similar prefix or suffix, in English place-names is used to support this position – despite the fact that the prefix had Old English meanings as English Place Names and their Origins explains: ‘denn’ meant a woodland pasture or swine pasture, ‘denu’ meant a valley, and ‘dun’ meant a hill).[43]
Can we translate ‘Tuatha D‚ Danaan’ as the Israelite ‘Tribe of Dan’? If that is the translation, it would be compelling evidence for British-Israelism. The New Encyclopedia Britannica, however, translates the name more correctly as “Tuatha D‚ Danann (Gaelic: ‘People of the Goddess Danu’)”. [44] One mythologist describes this Celtic Goddess: “Danu is the leader and progenitress of the Irish pantheon, the Tuatha de Danann … She equates closely with the Welsh goddess Don and may have been perceived originally as a fertility and vegetation spirit”.[45]
The evidence, therefore, shows that the Tuatha D‚ Danann were not the Tribe of Dan at all. The Tuatha D‚ were a mythical tribe mentioned in Irish folklore that worshipped a pagan goddess. Here, not only have British-Israelite authors quoted a spurious source in defending their position, they have had to misquote a spurious source!
3.3 Archaeological evidences
British-Israelists appeal next to archaeology. The brochure ‘America and Britain in Prophecy’ asks this: “Is there any archaeological evidence of the Israelites migrating northward through the Caucasas and around the northern side of the Black Sea?”.[46] It is an important question. If millions of Israelites had trekked through Europe, a reasonable historian would surely expect to find some physical evidence.
British-Israel authors claim that they have records of tombstones from the Crimean region. The inscriptions are remarkable. Today, Tomorrow and the Great Beyond, sold in Revival Centre bookshops, translates one of the gravestones:
This is the gravestone of Buki, son of Isaac the priest. May his rest be in Eden at the time of the deliverance of Israel. In the year 702 of the years after our exile.[47]
This gravestone seems to be compelling evidence that the ten tribes were progressing through the Crimea to Europe in about the first century C.E.. However, The Jewish Encyclopedia discloses the deception behind the Crimean tombstones. It notes that:
In order to avoid the disabilities imposed upon Rabbinate Jews, the Karaites of Russia attempted to prove that they were guiltless of the execution of Jesus because they were descended from the Lost Ten Tribes and had been settled in the Crimea since the time of Shalmaneser (seventh century B.C.). In particular Abraham FIRKOVICH edited a number of forgeries of inscriptions on tombstones and manuscripts to prove the early date of their settlement in the Crimea.[48]
Within a year of Firkovich’s death, controversy raged over the authenticity of the tombstones. Since then, scholars have “demonstrated conclusively that the Firkovich material abounded in forgeries”.[49] The Crimean tombstones, therefore, seem to be a fraud. This is a blow to British-Israelite theory, as the tombstones were the best archaeological evidence for the migration of the Lost Tribes into Europe.
Sometimes, in an effort to show some archaeological evidence, authors refer to Scythian artefacts. They say that the lost Israelites became known as Scythians, then ‘Sacae’. Then the ancient geographer Ptolemy says that the Sacae were ‘Saxons’. This, they say, proves that the Saxons were the Scythians. A problem with this argument is that ‘Saxon’ was a general word in Roman times, describing a number of tribes. One writer has noted that:
The name used by Ptolemy [‘Saxon’] was originally derived from the Old English ‘seax’ and the Old High German ‘sahs’, meaning ‘short sword’ … it was a general name used by Roman writers. It was used to describe a number of tribes.[50]
The evidence is lacking that the Scythians were the Anglo-Saxons.
Other Revivalists point to the English coronation stone. A peculiar aspect of the British-Israel belief is that the English coronation stone is the same stone that Jacob rested his head on in the wilderness (Genesis 28:11). This stone is associated with the ‘pillar’ besides which kings were sometimes crowned (2Kings 11:12-14). “As were the Irish kings, so also were the Scottish and English kings crowned while sitting on this stone, as indeed was Her Royal Highness Queen Elizabeth II on the occasion of her coronation in A.D.1953. This same practice was followed during the coronation of the Davidic kings”.[51] (In answer to Revivalist claims that Elizabeth is “a direct descendant of the first Irish kings” understand that Queen Elizabeth II is not even a direct descendant of the first British kings. She is descended, for example, from a grand-daughter of King James I rather than his son, Charles I.)[52]
Queen Elizabeth’s coronation stone cannot prove that the Throne of David is in England. First, the stone is not from Israel. In his article on British-Israelism, David Williams noted that “Professor A.C. Ramsey of the Geology Department of London University inspected the [coronation] stone and identified it as red sandstone, probably of Scottish origin. The nearest red sandstone to Bethel, where Jacob found his stone is in Petra, nearly one hundred miles to the south; the stone around Bethel where Jacob slept is white limestone”.[53] Second, the stone is not in England any more. In 1996, British Prime Minister John Major destroyed the British-Israelist argument by saying, “The stone of destiny holds a special place in the hearts of the Scots. I believe that on this, the 700th anniversary of its removal from Scotland, it’s appropriate to return it to it’s historic homeland”![54] The coronation stone, therefore, cannot prove that the Throne of David is in England. It is another example of a poor archaeological ‘proof’ for British-Israelism.
In fact, there is no sound archaeological evidence for saying that millions of Israelites trekked across Europe.
3.4 British-Israelism examined by Scripture
The Jewish Encyclopedia clearly sets out the Scriptural ‘proofs’ for British-Israelism:
At the start, distinction is made between the ultimate fates of Israel and Judah [modern-day Jews] … It is pointed out that while in the prophecies Israel will change its name (Hosea 1:9), be numberless (Hosea 2:1), dwell in islands (Isa. 24:15) with colonies and be the chief of nations (Micah 5:8), Judah will be a byword (Jer. 15:4). The “isles” (Isa. 41:1; 42:4), to which Israel was banished, were to be north (Jer. 3:12) and west (Isa. 24:15) of Palestine, and to be in a cold climate, since it is said: “Heat nor sun will smite them” (Isa. 49:10). It was further promised that the isles would become too small for Israel (Isa. 49:19) and that Israel would be a nation and a company of nations (Gen. 35:11). It would, therefore, have colonies (Isa. 49:20; 54:8), so that it might surround the nations (Deut. 32:7-9) and be above all of them (Deut. 7:6; 14:2; 28:1) … The [British] lion and the unicorn are referred to in Num. 24:8, 9; while the American eagle is identified in the prophecy of Ezek. 17:3.[55]
I will deal with all of the major arguments listed above. Many of the arguments can be explained away by using a good translation of the Scriptures, and by appreciating that certain promises given to Israel have their fulfilment in the body of Christ.
3.4.1 The blessings of Abraham
A great failure of the British-Israel argument is that it does not see past the Old Covenant promises. It is true that God made many great promises to Abraham. Genesis 12 and 17 are often quoted. Genesis 12:2; 17:5, 7 says,
I will make of you [Abraham] a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing … I have made you the ancestor of a multitude of nations … I will establish my covenant between me and you, and to your offspring after you.
Revivalist Frank Nankivell writes that, “there is ONLY ONE commonwealth of nations in this world today, originating from ONE historically GREAT nation, i.e. GREAT Britain”.[56] So, the name ‘Great’ Britain is taken to prove that the blessings of Abraham in Genesis were fulfilled in that country.
The promises, however, have been fulfilled in Israel (in Palestine). With reference to the ‘great name’, the Hebrew word ‘gadol’ is used for greatness, eminence, and excellence. Two generations after this promise to Abraham, the Lord fulfilled his promise by naming the Hebrews after himself – ‘Israel’ – a ‘prince with God’ (Genesis 32:28).[57] Similarly, the Lord’s promise that Abraham would be the ancestor of a company, or multitude, of nations was fulfilled – but again, not in Britain. As many are aware, Abraham fathered the tribes of Israel and Judah – but also the Midianites (Genesis 25:2,4), the Ishmaelites (Genesis 17:20). Other tribes descended from his sons (Genesis 25:1-3), together with the Edomites from his grandson Esau (Genesis 36).[58] Truly, a great multitude of nations.
However, we look beyond the fleshy fulfilment of the promise. The things of the Old Covenant (‘Old Testament’) are a shadow of the New Covenant blessings (Hebrews 10:1). In the Old Covenant, fleshy Israel was God’s holy nation (Exodus 19:6). In the New Covenant, the body of Christ is the “chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people” (1 Peter 2:9; Romans 9:6). Galatians 3:13-14, 16, 29 explains that the blessings of Abraham discussed in Genesis 12 and 17 are primarily for this new spiritual Israel, not fleshy Israel:
Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law [Old Covenant] … in order that in Christ Jesus the blessings of Abraham might come to the Gentiles … Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring; it does not say, ‘And to offsprings,’ as of many; but it says, ‘And to your offspring,’ that is, to one person, who is Christ … if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to the promise.
Romans 4:13,16-17 says, “For the promise that he would inherit the world did not come to Abraham or to his descendants through the law but through the righteousness of faith … he is made the father of all of us, as it is written, ‘I have made you the father of many nations'”. In this context, perhaps, we see the promise of a new appointed place for the Israelites (2Samuel 7:10) is to be fulfilled in the new heavens and earth promised to followers of Christ (Revelation 21:2-4).
The blessings of Abraham are not on Great Britain because her name is ‘Great’. Nor because she is the leader of a company of nations. The blessings of Abraham are found in the body of Christ, where we have taken hold of those promises for ourselves (Acts 4:12; Romans 4:17). Many British-Israelists fail to understand that, even if their theory was correct, “there is no distinction between Jew and Greek” in the New Covenant (Romans 10:12). It is no longer a matter of race, but grace.
3.4.2 Promises to Jacob
Genesis 28:14 is a promise of the Lord to Jacob that, “your offspring shall be like the dust of the earth, and you shall spread abroad to the west and to the east and to the north and to the south”. The Revival Centres take this to mean “the West, i.e. the United States of America … to the East, i.e. India … to the North, i.e. Canada; and to the South, i.e. South Africa, Australia and New Zealand”.[59] This interpretation has problems, however. For one, Canada is hardly to the North of Palestine.
It seems most likely that the Lord’s promise to Jacob was not meant to extend to far off lands in all directions. Chapter 13 of Genesis records the first time the promise was made. The Lord promised that “look … northward and southward and eastward and westward … all the land that you see I will give to you” (Genesis 13:14, 15, emphasis added). This promise was fulfilled. God gave the promise at Bethel, the site that played a large role in Israel’s conquest of Canaan. From there, Israel conquered surrounding Jericho, Ai and Bethel (Joshua 8:9, 17, 22).[60] Israelite tribes of the diaspora were spread further (1Peter 1:1, 2; Acts 2:9-11). And the Israelite nations did become as populous as the “dust of the earth” (1Kings 4:20; Deuteronomy 1:10; 10:22; 28:62; Nehemiah 9:23). So, the promises to Jacob seem to have been fulfilled in Palestine rather than Britain.
3.4.3 The everlasting throne
In the pamphlet ‘Queen Elizabeth II is heir to great Bible Promises’,[61] the writer quotes 2Samuel 7:13-16 from the King James Version, “I will establish the throne of his (David’s) kingdom for ever … And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established forever”. The writer believes that the Scripture says that the Throne of David will never be unoccupied. People who believe Zedekiah was the last king of Israel until the Lord’s return (Luke 1:32) are criticised: “They are undeterred however by the fact that this would leave a gap of centuries between the last king, Zedekiah, and Jesus Christ”. The writer says that these people, “Having discarded God’s promises to his chosen people, they, through faithlessness, fail to believe accept (sic) that God’s intentions are unbreakable, preferring instead to see Israel as the Church”.
Actually, the promise of a perpetual ruler was always conditional (1Kings 8:25; 2Chronicles 6:16; Jeremiah 33:20, 21). The writer of the pamphlet should take note of Hosea 3:4, “the Israelites shall remain many days without king or prince”. Ezekiel 21:26-27 says, “Remove the turban, take off the crown [the kingly symbols]; things shall not remain as they are … A ruin, a ruin, a ruin – I will make it! (Such has never occurred) Until he comes whose right it is; to him I will give it” (that is, the Lord Jesus – John 1:49). The Scriptures seem clear, then, that there would be a period during which Israel would be “without king or prince” (John 19:15). After the death of Zedekiah, the turban and crown were removed. The vacant Throne awaits the parousia or ‘second-coming’, when the Lord Jesus will take the throne (Matthew 19:28). He will sit upon the everlasting throne (Hebrews 1:8), and rule the everlasting kingdom (Luke 1:33). There is no indication that this privilege belongs to Queen Elizabeth II.
3.4.4 Symbols from scripture
Interestingly, some British-Israel books even say that the British ‘Union Jack’ means ‘Union of Jacob’! The word ‘Jack’, however, comes from name of the flag on the jackstaff of a navy warship. In slang, all flags became known as ‘Jacks’. One writer has said, “The flag called a jack is strictly one displayed from a jackstaff on the end of a bowsprit, but is now loosely used as in Union Jack“.[62] The name Union Jack, means therefore ‘a flag of the Union of England, Scotland, and Ireland’, rather than a ‘Union of Jacob’.
Revival Centre sources also appeal to the American eagle as being a symbol of Israel. For instance, the Revival Times says, “the scripture concerning God bearing Israel forth on eagle’s wings (Exodus 19:4) caused the symbol of the eagle to be chosen as the foundation of the Great Seal”.[63] However, if having an eagle in a national crest makes a country Israelite, then even Babylon is identified with Israel (Ezekiel 17:3, 12). The pamphlet ‘The Great Seal of the U.S.A.’, common at Revival Centre assemblies, notes another interesting fact:
Manasseh was the thirteenth tribe. Whether by coincidence or by design, on their Seal they placed also 13 stars (on the original flag), 13 constellations, 13 stripes, 13 arrows, 13 olive berries, 13 olive leaves and 13 letters to their motto: “Epluribus unum”
The incidence of thirteen is true, but has no theological significance. There were thirteen colonies at the time of the American War of Independence. So the thirteens were not meant to symbolise America with the Israelite Tribe of Manasseh, but to represent each of the colonies. It should also be asked how the Tribe of Ephraim (Britain) could have become Manasseh simply by crossing the Atlantic in the Mayflower.
3.4.5 Arguments based on mistranslation
Perhaps the strongest Scriptural argument for British-Israelism is the reference to Israel being in “isles”, according to the King James Version. However, this is a mistranslation, which modern textual criticism has remedied. The Jewish Encyclopedia notes that:
The whole [British-Israelite] theory rests upon an identification of the word ‘isles’ in the English version of the Bible unjustified by modern philology, which identifies the original word with ‘coasts’ or ‘distant lands’ without any implication of their being surrounded by the sea.[64]
For example, the King James Version would translate Isaiah 49:1, 3 as “LISTEN, O Isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far … Thou art my servant, O Israel, in whom I will be glorified”. However, a more accurate translation renders Isaiah 49:1, 3 as “Listen to me, O coastlands, pay attention, you peoples from far away! … And he said to me, ‘You are my servant, Israel, in whom I will be glorified.'” (NRSV).[65] The original text did not have Israel dwelling in an island. The faulty translation should, therefore, not be used as a defence to the British-Israelite theory.
Further, according to the King James Version, Israel is identified with a lion and a unicorn. This would seem to be a reason for associating Israel with the famous British ‘Lion and Unicorn’. Numbers 24:8, 9 is rendered in that version, “God brought him forth out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn … he lay down as a lion”.
Again, however, there are problems in translation. Unicorns were unknown to Jewish mythology, being a Greek invention. The New Encyclopedia Britannica notes that the “word [re’em] was translated ‘unicorn’ or ‘rhinoceros’ in many versions of the Bible, but many modern translations prefer ‘wild ox’ (aurochs), which is the correct meaning of the Hebrew re’em”.[66] For that reason, more accurate translations render Numbers 24:8, 9 as “God who brings him out of Egypt, is like the horns of a wild ox for him … he lay down like a lion” (NRSV). (Note also, how in the more accurate translation, the identification of the unicorn to Israel becomes an identification of a wild ox’s horns with Jehovah’s strength.) Israel in Scripture is not identified with a ‘lion and unicorn’, and therefore the British standard does not identify it with Israel.
4. So what did happen to the Ten Tribes?
Some time about 530B.C.E., Persian King Cyrus II issued a decree permitting the Babylonian captives to return to Jerusalem (Ezra 1:1-4). According to a footnote in the sixth edition of Isaac Leeser’s translation, The Twenty-Four Books of the Holy Scriptures, about 200,000 Hebrews, including women and children, returned to Jerusalem (Ezra 4:1). In 468B.C.E., more captives returned to Palestine with Ezra (Ezra 7:1-8:32). Even more may have returned with Nehemiah (Nehemiah 2:5, 6, 11; 13:6, 7).
British-Israelites would suggest that only the tribe of Judah returned to Palestine after being released. According to them, Israel migrated westwards instead. However, from a list Ezra prepared of those returning, we see that many Israelites did return to Palestine with the Jews (in accordance with Jeremiah 50:17-19). They were descendants of, for example:
- Arah from the tribe of Asher (Ezra 2:5 with 1Chronicles 7:39, 40);
- Bethlehem from the tribe of Zebulun (Ezra 2:21 with Joshua 19:15-16);
- Ramah from the tribe of Nephtala (Ezra 2:26 with Joshua 19:32-39); and
- Nebo from the tribe of Reuben (Ezra 2:29 with 1Chronicles 5:1-8).
Before the captivities of the tribes, Israel and Judah were once united. Saul, in about 1117 B.C.E., first ruled over a ‘united’ kingdom of Israel and Judah (1Samuel 8:4-9). It was about 998B.C.E. when the kingdom was split in two after the death of Solomon. Judah supported King Rehoboam, and Israel supported Jeroboam (1Kings 11:29-37).
After the captivity, it seems that the Judah and Israel were again united. Perhaps this was because their captors made no distinctions between them (Jeremiah 50:33). Ezekiel’s vision of the two sticks made one (37:15-28) tells of the re-unification of Israel and Judah. Palestine once again became known as “all Israel” (Ezra 2:70; 8:35; 10:5; Nehemiah 12:47). For this reason, at Pentecost, Peter could address the Hebrews as “Men of Judea”, and as “Fellow Israelites” (Acts 2:14, 29). The apostle Paul could be a “Jew” (Acts 21:29), an “Israelite” (2Corinthians 11:22), and a “Hebrew” (Philippians 3:5) at the same time.[67] There was no longer a distinction.
It seems, however, that many Hebrews did remain in Assyria and Babylon (Isaiah 10:22). In the fifth century B.C.E. they were still found throughout the 127 jurisdictional districts of the Persian empire (Esther 1:1; 3:8). They were still there in Jesus’ time. James referred to them as the “twelve tribes of the dispersion” (James 1:1). They were still there centuries after James. Archaeologists have, for instance, discovered bowls from Babylon with Hebrew inscriptions:
Little doubt can, I think, exist as to [the inscribed bowls] origin … there is no reason to question their having belonged to the descendants of those Jews who were carried captive … As early as the third century Hebrew travellers visited Babylon, and some of them have left records of the state of their countrymen. The Babylonian Talmud, compiled in the beginning of the sixth century, contains many valuable notices of the condition of the Jewish colonies in Babylonia and enumerates more than two hundred Babylonian towns … inhabited by Jewish families. In manuscripts of the eighth and ninth centuries we have further mention of these colonies … In the twelfth century, Benjamin of Tudela found no less than twenty thousand Jews dwelling within twenty miles of Babylon … we may safely conclude, that these earthen bowls belonged to the Jews of Babylonia. Indeed, in one of the inscriptions (No.2) the writer appears to call those for whom the charm was intended the ‘people of the captivity,’ a title which was preserved amongst the Jews of Mesopotamia until the thirteenth or fourteenth century.[68]
If the captives were still there in the ninth century C.E., then they cannot have been in Britain! Some historians suggest that the Lost Tribes can still be found in Mesopotamia today.[69] In 1835, Asahel Grant, an American missionary, began working among the Nestorians of Mesopotamia. He noted that these tribes had a tradition that they were descended from the Lost Tribes. According to Asahel Grant – the Nestorians spoke a form of Aramaic; they offered similar sacrifices to the Israelites; they celebrated a Sabbath; and they had Jewish names and physical features.[70] It is conceivable that these were the descendants of the Lost Tribes. On the other hand, perhaps the Lord simply carried out his promise to destroy the faithless tribes remaining in Assyria (Deuteronomy 28:15, 36, 48, 61).
5. Conclusion
5.1 Implications of British-Israelism
The doctrine of British-Israelism, besides being unscriptural, has other far-reaching implications.
5.1.1 King James only
Because the King James Version (‘KJV’) is believed to have been authorised by “a direct descendant of King David”, it is believed that “the blessings of the Author” are in this version of the Scriptures only.[71] The KJV is, with the occasional use of an Amplified Bible, the only ‘approved’ Scripture in Revival Centre meetings. While with good reason the KJV has been called one of the “noblest monuments of English prose”, it has serious defects. Unfortunately, often without bad motives, the Revival Centres have built doctrines on mistranslations contained in the KJV. One of these, as we have seen, is British-Israelism.
A good translation relies on three things: (1) good original-language manuscripts; (2) accurate rendering of that text; and (3) a good readability of the text.
5.1.1.1 The manuscripts of the King James Version
The Greek text on which the KJV is based is the Greek New Testament published by Catholic Robert Estienne (or ‘Stephanus’) in 1550. Stephanus’ New Testament was based on a small collection of ‘Byzantine’ manuscripts, none predating the year 1200 C.E.. Actually, his version of Revelation was based primarily on a Latin, rather than Greek, text! However, since that time, much better manuscripts have become available.
One recent discovery, known as the Vatican Manuscript 1209, was found in storage at the Vatican, and displayed in 1889-1890. It dates to the fourth century C.E.. Another is the Sinaitic Manuscript, first discovered in a monastery at Mount Sinai in 1844. It also dates to the fourth century C.E.. Another recent discovery is the Alexandrine Manuscript, which dates to the first half of the fifth century C.E.. These three are known collectively as the Alexandrian manuscripts. It is safer to use the oldest manuscripts, as copying errors can alter the text over time. Over time, for example, Catholic scribes incorporated a teaching on the trinity doctrine into the text of 1John 5:7. That text is unknown to any Greek manuscripts pre-dating the year 1400 C.E..
The poor quality of the texts on which the KJV is based is one of its most serious deficiencies. That is why scholars, including mathematician Dr. Ivan Panin, used the more accurate Westcott and Hort Greek text.[72]
5.1.1.2 Accurate rendering of the text
We have already read in this article various mistranslations that have given rise to the British-Israel error. If the KJV did not incorrectly translate Israel’s dwelling place as “islands”, and make Israel’s crest a “unicorn”, British-Israelists would have little Scriptural support for their theory. There are other clear errors in the translation of the original languages in the KJV. For example, Deuteronomy 8:9 in the KJV says that the hills of Palestine contained “brass”. Brass is an artificial composite and cannot be found in nature. While the Church of England translators did the best they could for their time, great improvements have been made in the accurate rendering of the original languages. No longer can doctrines such as British-Israelism be fashioned out of inaccurate translation.
5.1.1.3 Readability of the text
The KJV was originally written so that people could have the Scriptures in their own common language. William Tyndale, a famous early English translator, responded to one of his religious opponents “If God spare my life, ere many years I will cause a boy who drives the plough to know more of the Scriptures than you do”. His early translation was easy enough for a plough-boy to understand at the time. However, a “boy who drives the plough” today would have trouble with his translation.
The original Greek manuscripts of the Scriptures were written by the prophets in Koine Greek, or ‘common Greek’. It was the every-day language used by fishers, tax-collectors and carpenters. The original writers could have written in Attic Greek, which was the refined language of the day. But they chose something everyone could understand. In contrast, many renderings in the KJV are difficult to understand, or sound parsimonious. Some obsolete words could be improved: “beguile” should be “judge against you” (Colossians 2:18); “betimes” should be “early”, (Proverbs 13:24); “bruit” should be “a rumour” (Jeremiah 10:22); “conversation” should be “conduct” (Philippians 2:27); “husbandman” should be “farmer, rancher” (James 5:7); “meet” should be “fitting, proper” (Matthew 3:8); “rain” should be “teach” (Hosea 10:12); “sprinkle” should be to “astonish, startle” (Isaiah 52:15); and “tarry” should be “wait” (Luke 24:49).
Leading theological scholar Dr. Bruce Metzger has said:
The Bible carries its full message, not to those who regard it simply as a noble literary heritage of the past or who wish to use it to enhance political purposes and advance otherwise desirable goals, but to all persons and communities who read it so that they may discern and understand what God is saying to them. That message must not be disguised in phrases that are no longer clear, or hidden under words that have changed or lost their meaning; it must be presented in language that is direct and plain and meaningful to people today.[73]
There is nothing wrong with reading a King James Version. However, it is wrong to use the KJV as a basis for doctrine where correct readings are important.
5.1.2 False prophecy
Moreover, British-Israelism influences Revivalist end-time beliefs. Jock Duncan of the Christchurch (New Zealand) Revival Fellowship put it this way:
From the very beginning of the Revival Fellowship, our understanding of Bible Prophecy has been greatly influenced by identifying the descendants of Abraham with the Anglo-Saxon Celtic people of the modern world. To us, this is the foundation of Bible prophecy … These are fundamental beliefs of the Revival Fellowship and are very different to most of Pentecost, who do not show any interest in the realisation of these promises to King David.[74]
British-Israel proponents have a tendency to set dates. The Revival Centres also examine the Pyramid of Cheops to do this.[75] Firstly, they seem to mix Jehovah’s Witness views of Daniel 4 with British-Israelism in prophesying that 1917 marks the end of the “time of the gentiles”.[76] This 1917 ‘generation’ will see the coming of the Son of Man.[77] Applying all this, many Revivalists saw the 1991 Gulf War as the beginning of the Battle of Harmagedon (Revelation 16:16). The Revival Centre pamphlet ‘What time is it?’ says, “At one minute past midnight (17th Sept 2001) His Majesty the Lord Jesus Christ will rule out of Zion. Are you ready?” This kind of date-setting is contra to the Lord’s words in Acts 1:7: “it is not for you to know the times or periods that the Father has set by his own authority”.
5.1.3 Racism
Another unfortunate outcome of British-Israelism is that it can stimulate racism, often against Jews. The Jewish Encyclopedia says, “The Anglo-Israelite theory has of recent years been connected with the persecution of the Jews, in which the Anglo-Israelites see further confirmation of their position by carrying out of the threats prophesied against Judah”.[78] For example, the Revival Centre book Jacob versus Esau says “Esau’s seed has been identified as the dominant section of modern Jewry. This Godless and materialistic group is now organising its worldwide resources for what will be Esau’s last bid to destroy his brother, bring down the Davidic throne, usurp the birthright and so, he thinks, remove all obstacles to his domination of the whole earth”.[79] Today, Tomorrow and the Great Beyond even says that the ‘Jewish nose’ is a curse given to them for disobedience to God.[80]
This bigotry is unknown to the Lord. Peter said of the Lord, “I truly understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him” (Acts 10:34-35). For this reason, the Lord will save those “from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages” (Revelation 7:9). The unscriptural racism shown by some British-Israelite authors is unacceptable.
5.2 A final observation on British-Israelism
From what we have considered so far, it seems that there is no historical or Scriptural reason for equating the British peoples with the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel. As The Encyclopedia Britannica says, “The theory [of British-Israelism] … rests on premises which are deemed by scholars – both theological and anthropological – to be utterly unsound”.[81] The most minimal investigation usually proves British-Israelists wrong. It is a dangerous doctrine leading on to ‘King James only’ philosophies, distorted end-time thinking, and racism. It has no place in a Christian assembly.
Perhaps those advocating British-Israelism must heed the Scripture, “not to occupy themselves with myths and endless genealogies that promote speculations rather than the divine training that is known by faith” (1Timothy 1:4).
[1] see The Jewish Encyclopedia. 1901. Vol.1, page 600.
[2] Pritchard, J. Ancient Near Eastern Texts. 1950 edn. Page 284-5. Or, more correctly, his successor, Sargon II deported them. This number, of course, suggest that many Israelites would have remained in Palestine (Jeremiah 10:1, 17-18, 22). The Northern Tribes probably had a population of over a million, if we consider that at the Exodus they had 600,000 men (Exodus 12:37). Many from Israel fled to Judah in the wake of Jeroboam’s oppression and survived the exile (2Chronicles 11:13-16; 15:8-9; 34:9; 35:17-18). The New Oxford Annotated Bible. 1991. Page 414 says, “After the fall of Samaria many refugees from the Northern Kingdom migrated south and settled in Judah, including Jerusalem. The increase in population of Jerusalem accounts for the expansion of Jerusalem westward at that time”. This is incompatible with the British-Israel concept of all the Israelites being exiled, and is good enough proof against any mass ‘Lost Tribes’. Although I have not argued along those lines in this article, it is addressed in the Worldwide Church of God Study Paper titled ‘United States and Britain in Prophecy’. November, 1995. Pages 8-16.
[3] Encyclopedia Judaica.. 1971. Vol.6, page 1036. This was perhaps facilitated when Media, where many of the Northern Tribes were planted (2Samuel 7:10; Jeremiah 29:4-7), was allied with Babylon in about 634B.C.E..
[4] See The New Encyclopedia Britannica. 15th edn. 1994. Vol.11, page 628.
[5] Encyclopedia Judaica. 1971. Vol.15, page 1006.
[6] Encyclopedia Judaica. 1971. Vol.4, page 1381.
[7] Encyclopedia Judaica. 1971. Vol.4, page 1410.
[8] The Jewish Encyclopedia. 1901. Vol.1, page 600.
[9] Ward, R. and Humphreys, R. Religious Bodies in Australia: A Comprehensive Guide. 3rd edn. 1995. Pages 189-90, 246-8. Lloyd Longfield disagreed with other Melbourne pastors, first in 1952 with Tom Foster over deliverance ministry (getting Foster removed from leadership), then with Hal Oxley in 1958. Leo Harris became concerned with Longfield’s inability to work in a team and removed him from leadership.
[10] Newcastle Revival Centre pamphlet, ‘What is a Revival Centre?’.
[11] Ward, R. and Humphreys, R. Religious Bodies in Australia: A Comprehensive Guide. 3rd edn. 1995. Pages 189-90, 246-8.
[12] The Revival Fellowship. ‘Revival Times’. No.1, Win-Sum.’96, page 1.
[13] Note that much of that pamphlet seems to be a copy (plagiarism?) of Fox, J. Today, Tomorrow and the Great Beyond. 1948 edn. Pages 104-105.
[14] Frank Nankivell (Melbourne Revival Centre). 1989.
[15] The Jewish Encyclopedia. 1901. Vol.1, page 601.
[17] Kephart, C. Races of Mankind: their Origin and Migration. 1961. Page 150 (footnote).
[18] The Jewish Encyclopedia. 1901. Vol.1, page 601.
[19] Lounsbury, T. History of the English Language. 1906. Pages 1, 12-13.
[21] Severy, M. ‘The Celts’. National Geographic. May 1977. Page 601. According to The New Encyclopedia Britannica, the Gaulish Celts had a “triple god in whose honour they practiced human sacrifice. His aspects comprise thunder, war, and a mysterious bull, which may represent fertility” (15th edn. 1994. Vol.3, page 18).
[22] Welch, M. Anglo-Saxon England. 1992. Page 56.
[23] Green, J. History of the English People. 1885. Vol.1, page 16.
[24] The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. (ed. Savage, A). 1982. Page 19.
[25] Kightly, C. Folk Heroes of Britain. 1982. Page 97.
[26] Welch, M. Anglo-Saxon England. 1992. Pages 88-89.
[27] Whittock, M. The Origins of England 410-600. 1986. Page 6.
[28] Welch, M. Anglo-Saxon England. 1992. Page 56.
[29] Quennell, M. and C. Everyday Life in Anglo-Saxon, Viking, and Norman Times. 1926. Page 5.
[30] Welch, M. Anglo-Saxon England. 1992. Pages 39-40.
[31] ‘The Animal Resources’. The Archaeology of Anglo-Saxon England (ed. Wilson, D.). 1976. Page 378.
[32] Worldwide Church of God Study Paper, ‘United States and Britain in Prophecy’. Page 3.
[33] The Encyclopedia Britannica. 11th edn. 1910. Vol.XIV, page 758.
[34] Harbison, P. The Archaeology of Ireland. 1976. Page 64.
[35] O’Faolain, S. The Irish A Character Study. 1949. Pages 6-7. O’Faolain at page 4 describes the ‘Book of Invasion’, which the British-Israelist relies upon, as having “a highly imaginative quality of Celtic invention”.
[36] Nennius. British History, §10. Translation by Morris, J. 1980; also Hanning, R. The Vision of History in Early Britain. 1966. Page 105.
[37] Therefore, the term ‘Brit-ish’ is not derived from the Hebrew for ‘covenant man’ (‘Berith Is’), as some British-Israelists suggest.
[38] Hanning, R. The Vision of History in Early Britain. 1966. Page 103.
[40] Worldwide Church of God Study Paper, ‘United States and Britain in Prophecy’. Page 3.
[41] ‘America and Britain in Prophecy’. Global Church of God. 1996. Page 25. ie. Not a Revival Centre article, but similar statements are found in Revival Centre literature.
[43] Copley, G. 1968. Page 158.
[44] 15th edn. 1994. Vol. 12, page 23. For interest, it also describes the Tuatha D‚ Danann as part of “fictitious history”, who “in Celtic mythology … were said to have been skilled in magic … they were banished from heaven because of their knowledge, they descended on Ireland in a cloud of mist”. Obviously, these mythical pagans are unable to offer assistance in finding the Lost Tribes.
[45] Jordan, M. The Encyclopedia of Gods. 1992. Page 71.
[46] Global Church of God. 1996. Page 42.
[47] John S. Fox. 3rd edn. 1948. Page 96.
[49] Encyclopedia Judaica. 1971. Vol.6, page 1306.
[50] Whittock, M. The Origins of England 410-600. 1986. Page 6.
[51] Nankivell, J. Jacob versus Esau. 1989. Page 49.
[52] See, for instance, Louda, J. and Maclacan, M. Lines of Succession. 1981. Table 1.
[53] From the Internet: http://maths.newcastle.edu.au/~dave/dave.html
[54] From the Philadelphia Church of God’s magazine, ‘The Philadelphia Trumpet’. August 1996. Cover page.
[55] The Jewish Encyclopedia. 1901. Vol.1, page 600 (I have changed the Scripture references from Roman numerals to Arabic, for convenience).
[56] Jacob versus Esau. 1989. Page 57.
[57] This interpretation was provided by Paul Longfield, Australian director of Christian Friends of Israel, P.O. Box 219, Caloundra, Queensland, 4551.
[58] Worldwide Church of God Study Paper, ‘United States and Britain in Prophecy’. Page 6.
[59] Nankivell, J. Jacob versus Esau. 1989. Page 57.
[60] Worldwide Church of God Study Paper, ‘United States and Britain in Prophecy’. November, 1995. Page 6.
[61] Printed by Newcastle Revival Centre, circa 1990.
[62] The British Encyclopedia Illustrated. 1933. Vol.6, page 238.
[63] ‘From the White House of the USA’. Revival Times. No.1. Win.-Sum.’96. Page 10.
[64] The Jewish Encyclopedia. 1901. Vol.1, page 601.
[65] Almost all modern versions agree with this rendering.
[66] 15th edn. 1994. Vol.12, page 129
[67] Thanks to David William’s article on the internet: http://maths.newcastle.edu.au /~dave/dave.html
[68] Layard, A. Discoveries in the ruins of Ninevah and Babylon. 1853. Pages 523-524.
[69] Encyclopedia Judaica. 1971. Vol.6, page 1036: “The striking of roots in Mesopotamian society by a large part of the descendants of the Israelite exiles resulted in their eventual absorption into the foreign milieu”.
[70] The Jewish Encyclopedia. 1901. Vol.12, page 250. Note the pictures on page 249 for the Japanese-Israelite theory.
[71] ‘King James I & The Bible’. Newcastle Revival Centre pamphlet. Circa 1990.
[72] Even the Revival Centre booklet by Col. Durrant, J. Bible Numerics – Numbers Don’t Lie – The Bible is True. Page 9 says, “the New Testament books are in the order given by Westcott and Hort, whose version is regarded the most reliable”.
[73] Preface to the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible.
[74] Ps. Duncan, J. ‘The Revival Fellowship – Why We Are Different’. Revival Times. No.2. Sum-Win.’96. Pages 5-6.
[75] Perhaps borrowing from early Jehovah’s Witness belief, pyramidology found its way into the Church of God (7th day)’s Spring 1927 Bible Advocate, and from there to Herbert Armstrong’s Worldwide Church of God (‘WCG’). Leo Harris accepted the WCG view, and it became part of Revival Centre theology. For a critique, see Martin Gardner’s Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science. Worldwide Church of God Study Paper, ‘How Anglo-Israelism Entered the Churches of God’. November, 1995. Pages 9-10.
[76] Revival Centre Publications. Bible Prophecy for Today. Page 11. This interpretation was first suggested by Andrew Dugger, editor of The Bible Advocate, who probably borrowed it from the Jehovah’s Witnesses. The original Hebrew probably really refers to a punishment of seven-fold intensity, rather than a duration of seven times (as the word ‘times’ is not in the Hebrew text).
[77] Fox, J. Today, Tomorrow and the Great Beyond‘. 1948 edn. Pages 183-190.
[79] Nankivell, J. 1989. Page 87.
[81] The Encyclopedia Britannica. 11th edn. 1910. Vol.II, page 31.
Copyright © 1997, Nick G. All rights reserved. This document is hereby made freely available for the use of any and all worldwide. Permission is granted to anyone to make or distribute verbatim copies of this document, in any medium, provided that, except with written permission, the text remains unaltered, and this copyright notice and permission notice are preserved. Except with written permission, no charge whatsoever for redistribution may be made. The document is available from the Adelaide Revival Centre Info Site: http://www.cults.org
Unless Otherwise Indicated, the Scripture quotations contained herein are from the New Revised Standard Version Bible, copyright 1989, by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
