TRIBES***


E-text prepared by Jason Isbell, Jeff G., and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team (http://www.pgdp.net)



Transcriber's note:

      Text enclosed by equal signs is in bold face (=bold=).





THE HISTORY OF THE TEN "LOST" TRIBES:

Anglo-Israelism Examined

by

DAVID BARON

Author of
"Visions and Prophecies of Zachariah," etc.

FOURTH EDITION

Morgan & Scott Ltd.
12, Paternoster Buildings, London, E.C. 4

      *      *      *      *      *      *

Two Shillings Net
The History
of the
Ten "Lost" Tribes:

ANGLO-ISRAELISM EXAMINED

by

DAVID BARON

Author of
"The Ancient Scriptures and the Modern Jew"
"The Shepherd of Israel," etc.

Fourth Edition--Revised and Enlarged







Morgan & Scott Ld.
(Office of "The Christian")
12, Paternoster Buildings
London, E.C.




PREFACE


A few words of explanation are needed by way of preface to this little
book. More than twenty years ago, being often appealed to by friends for
my judgment on Anglo-Israelism, or to answer questions which were
addressed to me on this subject, I finally, after making myself
acquainted with the positions and arguments by which the theory is
supported, drew up a statement in the form of "A Letter to an Inquirer."
This "Letter," somewhat amplified, was printed in the form of an
appendix in my book, "The Ancient Scriptures and the Modern Jew," whence
by special request it was subsequently reprinted in pamphlet form under
the title, "Anglo-Israelism, and the True History of the Ten Lost
Tribes"--a separate edition of it having also been published in America.
This pamphlet is now out of print, and, being appealed to by prominent
Christian friends to bring out a new edition, I felt constrained before
doing so to re-examine the whole question anew, and more thoroughly than
before. To this end I have read through, with much inward pain I must
confess, a number of the more recent Anglo-(or "British")-Israel
publications, which for the most part are mere repetitions of one
another. The result is the treatise now in the reader's hands, which
will be found to consist of three Parts.

In Part I. I have dealt with Anglo-Israel assertions and claims, and the
arguments by which they are supported; in Part II., which is
constructive in its character, and in which the greater part of my
original "Letter to an Inquirer" will be found embodied, I have tried
briefly to trace the true history of the supposed Lost Tribes; and in
Part III., which is altogether new, I have further analysed some of the
scriptural "proofs" of a separate fate and destiny of the Ten Tribes
from that of "Judah," and have added notes and explanations on some of
the more plausible points brought up by all Anglo-Israelite writers.

The epistolary form, which is retained in Parts I. and II., is accounted
for by the relation of this new booklet to the original "Letter to an
Inquirer," which is embodied in it.

Let me ask the reader's Christian forbearance for any expressions in
this little work which may be regarded as too severe. I would only say
that if the unbiassed reader had had to wade through the amount of
Anglo-Israel literature, with all its fearful perversions of Scripture
and history, which the writer has had to do in the course of the
preparation of this little work, he would most probably have felt as he
did--the difficulty of putting a restraint upon his spirit so as not to
use much stronger language. Toward the persons of the propagandists of
this theory I have, I trust, no other feelings than those of Christian
charity; but the theory itself I cannot help regarding, after a close
study of its principles, as subversive of the truth, and as one of the
dangerous delusions of these latter days.

After this little book was finished, an honoured friend in Brighton sent
me the article by the late Dr. Horatius Bonar, which appeared in _The
Sunday at Home_ in 1880. I add it, with the permission of the
proprietors of that magazine, as an appendix in the assurance that the
testimony on the subject of so honoured and eminent a servant of God
will be welcomed and carry weight with many.

                                                            David Baron.





CONTENTS


  PART I.

                                                              PAGE

  I. Anglo-Israel Assertions and Claims                          7

  II. The Way Anglo-Israel Writers Interpret
  Scripture                                                     11

  III. Fictitious Histories of the Tribes                       15


  PART II.

  I. Are the Tribes Lost?                                       22

  II. The Condition of Things at the Time of
  Christ                                                        33

  III. The Testimony of the New Testament that
  the "Jews" Are Representative of
  "All Israel"                                                  39

  IV. Early Misconceptions and Confusion on the
  Question of the Ten Tribes                                    44

  V. The Testimony of Prophecy in the Light of
  History                                                       48

  VI. A Solemn Warning                                          51


  PART III.

  NOTES AND EXPLANATIONS.

  I. Anglo-Israel "Proofs" of a Separate Fate
  and Destiny of "Israel" and "Judah"                           54

  II. The Promises to the Fathers of a Multitudinous
  Seed                                                          65

  III. The Perpetuity of the Davidic Throne                     72

  IV. The So-called Historic Proofs of Anglo-Israelism          76

  V. "The Gate of his Enemies"                                  80


  APPENDIX.

  Are We the Ten Tribes? By the late Horatius
  Bonar, D.D.                                                   82




PART I.

ANGLO-ISRAELISM EXAMINED.




ANGLO-ISRAEL ASSERTIONS AND CLAIMS.


DEAR FRIEND,--I shall endeavour to comply with your request, and to give
you in this Letter a few reasons for my rejection of the Anglo-Israelite
theory. I can sincerely say that I am not a man delighting in
controversy, and I only consent to your wish because I believe that you,
like many other simple-minded Christians, are perplexed and imposed upon
by the plausibilities of the supposed "Identifications," and are not
able to detect the fallacies and perversions of Scripture and history
upon which they are based.

The theory is that the English, or British, are the descendants of the
"lost" Israelites, who were carried captives by the Assyrians, under
Sargon, who, it is presumed, are identical with the Saxae or Scythians,
who appear as a conquering host there about the same time. Or, to quote
a succinct summary of Anglo-Israel assertions from a standard work:--

     "The supposed historical connection of the ancestors of the English
     with the Lost Ten Tribes is deduced as follows: The Ten Tribes were
     transferred to Assyria about 720 B.C.; and simultaneously,
     according to Herodotus, the Scythians, including the tribe of the
     Saccae (or Saxae), appeared in the same district. The progenitors
     of the Saxons afterward passed over into Denmark--the 'mark' or
     country of the tribe of Dan--and thence to England. Another branch
     of the tribe of Dan, which remained 'in ships' (Judges v. 17), made
     its appearance in Ireland under the title of 'Tuatha-da-Danan.'
     Tephi, a descendant of the royal house of David, arrived in
     Ireland, according to the native legends, in 580 B.C. From her was
     descended Feargus More, King of Argyll, an ancestor of Queen
     Victoria, who thus fulfilled the prophecy that 'the line of David
     shall rule for ever and ever' (2 Chron. xiii. 5, xxi. 7). The Irish
     branch of the Danites brought with them Jacob's stone, which has
     always been used as the Coronation-stone of the kings of Scotland
     and England, and is now preserved in Westminster Abbey. Somewhat
     inconsistently, the prophecy that the Canaanites should trouble
     Israel (Numbers xxxiii. 55; Josh. xxiii. 13) is applied to the
     Irish. 'The land of Arzareth,' to which the Israelites were
     transplanted (2 Esd. xiii. 45), is identified with Ireland by
     dividing the former name into two parts--the former of which is
     _erez_, or 'land'; the later, _Ar_, or 'Ire.'"[1]

As to the Jews, quite a different history and destiny is marked out for
them. They, as the descendants of Judah, are still under the curse. In
fact, the Anglo-Israelite, by another and more mischievous method, is
doing exactly what the allegorising, or so-called spiritualising, school
of interpreters did. The method was to apply all the _promises_ in the
Bible to the "spiritual" Israel, or the Church, and all the curses to
the literal Israel, or the Jews; but by this new system, while the
curses are still left to the Jew, all the blessings are applied not even
to those "in Christ," but indiscriminately to a nation, which, _as a
nation_, is like the other nations of Christendom in a greater or lesser
degree in a state of apostasy from God, though I thankfully recognise
the fact that there are in proportion more of God's true people in it
than in any other professing Christian land.

I shall endeavour later on to show you the baselessness of the
distinction which Anglo-Israelism makes between the ultimate fates of
Israel and Judah, but let me first say that the supposed historical and
philological "proofs" by which the theory is supported, most of which
have no more basis in fact than fairy tales, are utterly discredited by
competent authorities.

     "Philology of a somewhat primitive kind," writes a prominent and
     learned Jew, "is also brought in to support the theory; the many
     Biblical and quasi-Jewish names borne by Englishmen are held to
     prove their Israelitish origin. An attempt has been made to derive
     the English language itself from Hebrew. Thus, 'bairn' is derived
     from _bar_ ('son'); 'berry' from _peri_ ('fruit'); 'garden' from
     _gedar_; 'kid' from _gedi_; 'scale' from _shekel_; and 'kitten'
     from _quiton_ (_katon_ = 'little'). The termination 'ish' is
     identified with the Hebrew _ish_ ('man'); 'Spanish' means
     'Spain-man'; while 'British' is identified with _Berit-ish_ ('man
     of the covenant'). Perhaps the most curious of these philological
     identifications is that of 'jig' with chag (_hag_ = 'festival').

     "Altogether, by the application of wild guess-work about historical
     origins and philological analogies, and by a slavishly literal
     interpretation (or misapplication) of selected phrases of prophecy,
     a case is made out for the identification of the British race with
     the Lost Ten Tribes of Israel sufficient to satisfy uncritical
     persons desirous of finding their pride of race confirmed by Holy
     Scripture. The whole 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. Modern ethnography does not confirm in any
     way the identification of the Irish with a Semitic people; while
     the English can be traced back to the Scandinavians, of whom there
     is no trace in Mesopotamia at any period of history. The whole
     movement is chiefly interesting as a _reductio ad absurdum_ of too
     literal an interpretation (or misapplication) of the
     prophecies."[2]

To this let me add the verdict of a prominent Christian scholar.
Commenting on Edward Hine's "Identifications of the British Nation with
Lost Israel," Professor Rawlinson wrote that: "The pamphlet is not
calculated to produce the slightest effect on the opinion of those
competent to form one. Such effect as it may have can only be on the
ignorant and unlearned--on those who are unaware of the absolute and
entire diversity in language, physical type, religious opinions, and
manners and customs, between the Israelites and the various races from
whom the English nation can be shown historically to be descended."

The fact of the matter is that the so-called historical proofs, by which
the theory is supported, are derived from heathen myths and fables,[3]
and the philology which traces "British" to "Berith-ish," and "Saxon" to
"Isaac's-son," etc., deserves no other characterisation than
_child-ish_.

It is in a misunderstanding of Scripture, and especially of prophetic
Scripture, to which the origin of Anglo-Israelism can be traced. Coming
across some of the great and precious promises in the Bible in reference
to Israel, for instance, such as that they should be a great and mighty
nation, and rule over those who previously had been their enemies and
oppressors, and overlooking the fact that these prophecies and promises
_refer to a future time_, when Israel as a nation shall be restored and
converted, and under the personal rule of their Messiah become great and
mighty for God on the earth, evidence of their fulfilment has been
sought _in the present_. Now certainly these prophecies of might and
prosperity are not now being fulfilled in the "Jews"--on the other hand,
see how great and influential the British nation is in the
world--_ergo_, the British must be the "lost" Israel of the "Ten
Tribes"! The "history" and philology is, so to say, an after-thought of
Anglo-Israelism, by which an effort is made to support the false
postulate with which it starts. The Scriptural "Identifications" with
which Anglo-Israel literature abound turn out on examination to be
perversions and misapplications of isolated texts taken from the English
versions of the Bible without any regard for true principles of
exegesis.


THE WAY ANGLO-ISRAEL WRITERS INTERPRET SCRIPTURE.

Some of their interpretations can only be characterised as bordering on
blasphemy. Let me quote a few examples:--

=I. The glorious Messianic prophecy of the stone cut without hands which
smote the image of Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel ii.) is applied to the British
people; and the British Empire, which is one of the Gentile
world-kingdoms, is made to be identical with the Kingdom of God.=

"We will see what is to be the future of the British Empire, or, in
other words, the stone that smote the image. It is to become a great
mountain and fill the whole earth. Our Colonial Empire, then, will
continue to grow till it covers the whole world. We have tried to avoid
extending our Empire many and many a time, and yet God has caused it to
grow larger and larger, and I believe will still do so. We are already
by far the greatest Empire there is, or ever has been, and we shall yet
be far greater.

"The British Empire, again, can never be conquered. Daniel says, 'The
God of Heaven shall set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed: it
shall stand for ever.' Consequently, we shall never be conquered; we
must continue till the end of time--so that we are to continue to exist
as the last kingdom or empire this world is to see."[4]

=II. Messiah's Throne of Righteousness and Peace is made out to be
identical with the throne of England, and the English people are "the
saints of the Most High," to whom all the kingdoms of the world shall be
given.=

"If the Saxons be the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel ... then the English
throne is a continuation of David's throne, and the seed on it must be
the seed of David,[5] and the inference is clear--namely, that all the
blessings attaching by holy promise to David's throne must belong to
England.... To this end God is overturning, and will overturn, until the
whole world shall be federated around one throne, and that David's
throne (which, according to the writer, is identical with the throne of
England)--the only throne God ever directly established, and the only
one He has promised perpetuity to.... This kingdom is the fifth kingdom
to be set up in the latter days of those kings, says Daniel. The kingdom
was never to be left to other people.... To her (that is, to England)
was promised the isles of the sea, the coasts of the earth, the waste
and desolate places--the heathen and the uttermost parts of the earth as
a possession. Already, out of the 51,000,000 square miles which compose
the earth, England, including the United States (Manasseh), now owns
about 14,000,000, say, one-fourth. She bears rule over one-third of the
people of the earth; she adds a colony every four years, on an average.
At the present rate it will not be long before the kingdoms of this
world will be given to the saints of the Most High [that is, according
to the writer, the English people]. It is no marvel in the light of and
instruction of prophecy that this throne and people should be so stable
and prosperous."[6]

=III. The smoke which ascends from the "blazing furnaces and steam
engines" of London is identified with the Shechinah Glory, the visible
symbol of God's presence with His people.=

"During their wanderings in the desert His presence was manifested by
the pillar of cloud by day and the pillar of fire by night; and during
the captivity of the Two Tribes of Judah in Babylon He was with them,
until, at the expiration of the seventy years, He stirred up Cyrus to
release them. The same Lord still watches over the Ten Lost Tribes of
Israel in England, and continues to bless them. The same miracles that
were wrought in Egypt were intended to foreshadow the realisation of
God's future dealings with the Israelites; and if a gigantic panoramic
view of England could be taken from an elevation above the centre of the
island at midnight, a temporal pillar of fire would be as remarkable
from the blazing furnaces, the gas, the steam-engines, as the pillar of
cloud and smoke arising from the same sources in the daytime, marking
the chief position and prosperity of Israel."[7]

=IV. Edward Hine, author of the forty-seven "Identifications," is the
promised Deliverer who should come out of Zion.[8]=

The following is taken from an article on Romans xi. 25-27, which
appeared in "Life from the Dead," which was edited by Edward Hine
himself:--

"Are the British people identical with the lost Ten Tribes of Israel?
And is the nation, by the identity, being led to glory? If these things
are so, then where is the Deliverer? He must have already come out of
Zion. He must be doing His great work; He must be amongst us. It is our
impression that, by the glory of the work of the identity, we have come
to the time of Israel's national salvation by the Deliverer out of Zion,
and that Edward Hine and that Deliverer are identical."

I have said above that Anglo-Israelism applies the promises given to
converted Israel indiscriminately to the English nation. It does not
stop even here, as the above extracts show, but goes on to rob Christ
Himself of His glory by applying to the British people prophecies which
belong, not even to Israel, but to Israel's Saviour.

Thus, the address of the Father to the Son in Psalm ii.:

"Ask of Me, and I will give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and
the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession," will be found
again and again in Anglo-Israel literature applied to the British
nation. It also substitutes the British Empire for the Church. A
favourite Scripture on which almost every Anglo-Israel writer fastens is
Matt. xxi. 43: "Therefore I say unto you, The Kingdom of God shall be
taken from you and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof,"
taking it for granted that England is that "nation"--which, as a nation,
is bringing forth the fruits of God's kingdom.

Now I need not explain to you that this is an utterly unspiritual and
baseless assumption, for it is the Church--God's elect and converted
people out of all nations--which is that "nation," which during the
period of Israel's national unbelief bears fruit unto God; as is clear
from 1 Peter ii. 9, where believers in Christ are addressed as "a chosen
generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation ([Greek: ethnos]), that ye
should show forth the praises of Him who hath called you out of darkness
into His marvellous light."


FICTITIOUS HISTORIES OF THE TRIBES.

Let me give you one or two more samples of Anglo-Israel perversion of
Scripture and history:--

     "The tribe of Benjamin has a singular special place in the history
     of Israel and Judah. Neither Old or New Testament can be well
     understood unless one understands the place of this tribe in
     Providence. They were always counted one of the Ten Tribes, and
     reckoned with them in the prophetic visions. They were only loaned
     to Judah about 800 years (read 1 Kings xi.). They were to be a
     light for David in Jerusalem. God, foreseeing that the Jews would
     reject Christ, kept back this one Tribe to be in readiness to
     receive Him; and so they did. At the destruction of Jerusalem they
     escaped, and after centuries of wanderings turn up as the proud and
     haughty Normans. Finally, they unite with the other Tribes under
     William the Conqueror. A proper insight into the work and mission
     of Benjamin will greatly aid one in interpreting the New Testament.
     He was set apart as a missionary Tribe, and at once set to work to
     spread the Gospel of Jesus. Most of the disciples were
     Benjaminites. Then, after 800 years of fellowship with Judah, they
     were cut loose and sent after their brethren of the House of
     Israel. It was needful that the Lion and the Unicorn should unite."

Again:--

     "God said to Abraham, 'In thee shall all the families of the earth
     be blessed'; and more, 'and in thy seed shall all the nations of
     the earth be blessed.' Israel, being scattered and cast off, became
     a blessing to the world. They gave to the surrounding nations the
     only true idea of God, for in their lowest condition and idolatry
     they preserved the name and knowledge of Jehovah, and Christ sent
     His disciples after them through one of their own tribe--namely,
     Benjamin--telling them not to go into the way of the Gentiles, nor
     into the cities of the Samaritans, 'but go rather to the lost sheep
     of the house of Israel.' To these sheep Christ declares He was
     sent. Where were these sheep? They were scattered about in Central
     Asia--in Scriptural language, in Cappadocia, Galatia, Pamphylia,
     Lydia, Bithynia, and round about Illyricum. From these very regions
     came the Saxons; from here they spread abroad North and West, being
     the most Christian of any people on the face of the earth then, as
     now."[9]

It is difficult to characterise statements like these given out by
Anglo-Israel writers in _ex cathedra_ style for the consumption of the
ignorant and credulous. But--

I. This "history" of the tribe of Benjamin (which may be taken also as a
fair sample of their "histories" of Dan, Manasseh, etc.) is entirely the
product of the perverted fancy of the writers, and is without a vestige
of historic basis for its support. The only reference given in the first
extract is 1 Kings xi. Now that chapter gives the account of God's
warning to Solomon, and of the announcement that in the reign of his
immediate successor the kingdom would be rent from the house of David.
"_Howbeit_," we read, "_I will not rend away all the kingdom, but will
give one tribe to thy son (i.e., Rehoboam) for David My servant's sake,
and for Jerusalem's sake, ... that David My servant may have a lamp
alway before Me in Jerusalem, the city which I have chosen to put My
Name there_."[10]

The "one tribe" which during the time of the schism would be left to the
house of David is, of course, not Benjamin, as the writer of the above
extract supposes, but _Judah_, "with which Benjamin was indissolubly
united by the very position of the capital on its frontier." This is
seen from verses 31, 32 of the same chapter, where the Ten Tribes "are
given to Jeroboam," and the remaining two of the twelve are called "one
tribe."

It is, of course, a pure invention also, of the fairy tale type, that
Benjamin as a tribe received Christ while the Jews rejected Him, or that
Benjamin became "the missionary tribe," or that "most of the disciples
were Benjamites." Not one single tribe as a tribe, or even one local
community as a community, received Christ; but the "as many" of His own
"as received Him" were "Jews," which, as we shall see farther on, were
the representatives of the Israel of the whole "Twelve Tribes scattered
abroad," and the Twelve Apostles (though Paul, indeed, was a Benjamite)
were in a way representative of all the _Twelve_ Tribes of Israel.

II. Then note the absurdities and contradictions of Anglo-Israel
assertions. "Israel," you are told--by which is meant the Ten
Tribes--while themselves idolaters and sunk so low as not only to forget
their origin, but, as another exponent of the theory has it, lapsed
"into a state of semi-barbarism like the first pioneer settlers in North
America"; and, being without records, in a brief period lost all memory
of their former name and condition[11]--became, while in such a
condition, "a blessing to the world, and gave to the surrounding nations
the only true idea of God"!

And what shall be said of the terrible perversion of such a plain and
beautiful Scripture as Matt. x. 5, 6? In the introduction to that
chapter (Matt. ix. 36-38) we read how our Lord Jesus, beholding the
multitudes which were pressing around Him, was moved with compassion for
them because they fainted (or rather, according to the now accepted
reading, "were harassed," "plagued"), "and were scattered abroad as
sheep having no shepherd." Then, after saying to His disciples that the
harvest truly is plenteous but the labourers are few, and commanding
them to pray the Lord of the harvest that He may send, or thrust forth,
labourers into His harvest, He calls the twelve individual Jewish
disciples, and commissions and empowers them to go forth on the definite
mission of mercy to their countrymen, warning them not to go beyond the
bounds of the land "into the way of the Gentiles," nor even within the
bounds of Palestine to visit "the cities of the Samaritans," but to
confine themselves exclusively "to the lost sheep of the House of
Israel"--that is, to their own Jewish people, who (as we shall see) are
throughout the New Testament called alternately "Jews" and "Israel."
This is all plain and obvious; and we know, as a matter of fact and
history, that the ministry of John the Baptist, and of our Lord Jesus,
and of the Twelve Apostles, until after His ascension, was confined to
the "Jews" in Palestine. Anglo-Israelism, however, is able by some
fiction to transform the Twelve Disciples into the tribe of Benjamin,
and "the lost sheep of the House of Israel" into a medley of Gentile
nations located "in Central Asia," and other specified regions, who,
though unknown to themselves to be Israelites in origin, and mistaken by
the Apostles in their subsequent missionary journeys for "Gentiles,"
were really the "lost Ten Tribes," alias "the Saxons," and progenitors
of the English! And these are only a few typical samples of the
so-called "historical proofs" and Bible interpretations on which the
whole theory rests. I must now pass on to another part of the subject,
but let me, before doing so, earnestly commend to you whenever you come
across Anglo-Israel literature to keep in mind the good advice of a
well-known Bishop to his clergy--"_Always verify your references_"--and
I would add, "study the context"--and you will find that the Scriptures
quoted in them are either misapplications or perversions of the true
meaning of the text. In fact, there is not a Scripture, however sublime
and glorious its import, and however plain and obvious its meaning,
which does not become distorted and perverted in Anglo-Israel hands.[12]

Here are one or two samples. Anglo-Israelism is based for the most part
on the false supposition of a separate calling and destiny of the Ten
Tribes from that of Judah:--

     "The natural seed of Abraham," we are told, "is divided in the
     Bible, the word Israel standing generally for the Ten Tribes, and
     Judah for Two Tribes. These divisions have separate paths appointed
     them to walk in through the centuries. 'All the House of Israel
     wholly,' 'the whole House of Israel,' 'all the House of Israel,'
     have a special work. The Ten Tribes are especially called in the
     Scriptures the seed of Abraham. Sometimes 'My chosen'; again, 'Mine
     inheritance,' and 'My servant.' God, in referring to them in their
     scattered state, and of His gathering them together, says (Isaiah
     xli. 8): 'But thou, Israel, art My servant, Jacob whom I have
     chosen; the seed of Abraham My friend--thou whom I have taken from
     the ends of the earth, and called thee from the chief men thereof,
     and said unto thee, Thou art My servant; I have chosen thee, and
     not cast thee away.'"[13]

I shall show later on that it is not true to say that the word Israel
stands "generally" for the Ten Tribes, and Judah for the Two Tribes.
"Generally," the name Israel stands for all the descendants of Jacob,
whose name was changed by God Himself to "Israel," though in the
historical books, especially in 1 and 2 Kings, and 2 Chronicles, and in
a few passages in the Prophets, it is used to describe the northern
kingdom of the Ten Tribes in contradistinction to the southern kingdom
of Judah. But its use in the more limited and temporary sense as applied
to the Ten Tribes can always be clearly discerned from the context. But
in order to support the assertion that "these two divisions have
separate paths appointed them to walk through the centuries," it is
affirmed that the designations "All the House of Israel wholly," "the
whole House of Israel," "My chosen," "Mine inheritance," and "My
servant," are especially applied in the Scriptures to the "Ten Tribes"
in contradistinction to Judah. Now this is utterly baseless, as any
intelligent Bible-reader will find if he takes the trouble to look up
all the passages where these expressions are used.[14]

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 1: From the article "Anglo-Israelism" in the _Jewish
Encyclopedia_.]

[Footnote 2: Joseph Jacobs, B.A., in the _Jewish Encyclopedia_.]

[Footnote 3: See Note iv. in Part III.]

[Footnote 4: "Nebuchadnezzar's Dream" in "The British Empire of
Ephraim." A whole collection of similar perversions of Scripture may be
found in an excellent pamphlet by the late Pastor Frank H. White, called
"Anglo-Israelism Examined"--unfortunately now out of print.]

[Footnote 5: A beautiful specimen, this, of Anglo-Israel logic.]

[Footnote 6: "The Lost Ten Tribes," by Rev. Joseph Wild, D.D. A book
containing twenty discourses which abounds in statements and
"interpretations" as wild and unscriptural as this sample quoted from
Discourse XVIII.]

[Footnote 7: From an article in _The Banner of Israel_.]

[Footnote 8: When preparing to re-write this little book I was told by a
friend that I need not take much notice of the works of Edward Hine, as
Anglo-Israelites themselves no longer attach importance to them. On
inquiry, however, I found that this was not the case. His writings are
still largely advertised and circulated, and many of the more modern
Anglo-Israelite writers profess to draw instruction and inspiration from
them. Beside which, even his most extravagant statements are more than
paralleled in some of their most recent publications.]

[Footnote 9: Both these extracts are taken from "The Lost Ten
Tribes"--the book referred to in a previous note--by Joseph Wild.]

[Footnote 10: Kings xi. 13-36.]

[Footnote 11: "Israel in Britain," by Colonel Garnier, page 6.]

[Footnote 12: See samples in Note i. of Part III.]

[Footnote 13: "The Ten Lost Tribes," page 12.]

[Footnote 14: "All the House of Israel wholly" is found in. Ezek. xi.
27, and is used of those of the southern kingdom who were already in
captivity, as contrasted with those who were still with Zedekiah in
Jerusalem and Palestine. The parallel to Ezek. xi. is Jeremiah xxiv.,
where the two parts of the nation--those already in captivity and those
still in the land--are also contrasted under the symbol of the two
baskets of figs, one of which was "very good" and the other "very evil."
When Peter, for instance, said, "_Let all the House of Israel_ know
assuredly that God hath made this same Jesus both Lord and Christ," he
addressed the "Jews" in Palestine, as every one knows. "My chosen," or
"Whom I have chosen," apart from its use as applied to the priests and
Levites, is used sixteen times of Zion and Jerusalem, and _just as many
times of the whole nation_. Deut. vii. 6; xiv. 2; Psalm xxxiii. 12;
Isaiah xli. 8, 9--may be turned up as examples. "My servant" is used
seventeen or eighteen times in the second half of Isaiah, and when not
directly applied to the Messiah, as in xlii. 1; xlix. 3-7; lii. 13; and
liii. 11--is a designation of the whole people; and it must be
remembered that Isaiah prophesied primarily "concerning Judah and
Jerusalem." The term as a designation of the people is also used five
times by Jeremiah in the same inclusive sense, _i.e._, of the whole
nation.]




PART II.

THE TRUE HISTORY OF THE TEN "LOST" TRIBES.


ARE THE TRIBES LOST?

But now discarding the whole heap of Anglo-Israel fiction, let us glance
at the question of the so-called "lost" Ten Tribes in the light of
Scripture history and prophecy. Anglo-Israelism first of all loses the
Ten Tribes, for whom it claims a different destiny from the "Jews," whom
it supposes to be descendants of the Two Tribes only, and then it
identifies this "lost" Israel with the British race. But there is as
little historical ground for the supposition that the Ten Tribes are
lost, in the sense in which Anglo-Israelism uses the term, as there is
Scriptural basis for a separate destiny for "Israel" apart from "Judah."

The most superficial reader of the Old Testament knows the origin and
cause of the unfortunate schism which took place in the history of the
elect nation after the death of Solomon. But this evil was to last only
for a limited time; for at the very commencement of this new and
parenthetical chapter of the nation's history it was announced by God
that He would in this way afflict the seed of David, but _not for ever_
(1 Kings xi. 39).

A separate kingdom, comprising Ten of the Twelve Tribes, was set up
under Jeroboam in B.C. 975, and its whole history, of about 250 years,
is one long, dark tale of usurpation, anarchy, and apostasy, unrelieved
by the occasional gracious visitations of national revival which light
up the annals of the Judean kingdom under the House of David.

After many warnings and premonitory judgments the kingdom of the Ten
Tribes was finally overthrown in the year B.C. 721, when its capital,
Samaria, was destroyed, and the bulk of the people carried captive by
the Assyrians, and made to settle in "Halah and Habor, and by the river
Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes" (2 Kings xvii. 6; 1 Chron. v.
26).

Now I would beg you to notice two or three facts.

I. The kingdom of "Judah" after the schism consisted not only of Judah
and Benjamin, but also of the Levites who remained faithful to the House
of David and the theocratic centre.[15] Even those who were in the
northern cities forsook all in order to come to Jerusalem, as we read in
2 Chron. xi. 14: "And Rehoboam dwelt in Jerusalem, and built cities for
defence in Judah, ... and the priests and Levites that were in all
Israel resorted to him out of all their coasts. For the Levites left
their suburbs and their possessions, and came to Judah and Jerusalem;
for Jeroboam and his sons had cast them off from executing the priest's
office unto the Lord."

II. Apart from Judah, Benjamin, and Levi, there were in the southern
kingdom of Judah after the schism many out of the other Ten Tribes whose
hearts clung to Jehovah, and the only earthly centre of His worship
which He appointed. Immediately after the rebellion, we read that "after
them" (that is, following the example of the Levites) "out of all the
tribes of Israel, such as set their hearts to seek Jehovah, the God of
Israel, came to Jerusalem to sacrifice to Jehovah, God of their fathers.
So they strengthened the kingdom of Judah" (2 Chron. xi. 16).

In every reign of the kingdom of Israel numbers of the religious and
more spiritual of the Ten Tribes must have seceded and joined "Judah."
This we find to have been more especially the case during the times of
national revival in the southern kingdom, and in the reigns of those
kings who feared and sought the Lord.

Thus, for instance, we read of Asa, that "he gathered all Judah and
Benjamin, with the strangers with them out of Ephraim and Manasseh, and
out of Simeon; _for they fell to him out of all Israel in abundance_,
when they saw that Jehovah his God was with him, so they gathered
themselves together at Jerusalem; ... and they entered into a covenant
to seek Jehovah God of their fathers with all their heart, and with all
their soul" (2 Chron. xv. 9-15).

There are also several other mentions of "the children of Israel that
dwelt in the cities of Judah" and were subjects and members of that
kingdom.

III. The final overthrow of the northern kingdom took place, as we have
seen, in the year _B.C._ 721; but when we read that the "King of Assyria
took Samaria and carried Israel away into Assyria," we are not to
understand that he cleared the whole land of all the people, but that he
took the strength of the nation with him. There were, no doubt, many of
the people left in the land; even as was the case after the overthrow of
the southern kingdom by the Babylonians later on (2 Kings xxv. 12). The
historical proof for my assertion is found in the fact that about a
century after the fall of Samaria, we find in the reign of Josiah some
of Manasseh and Ephraim, "and a remnant of all Israel," in the land, who
contributed to the collection made by the Levites for the repair of the
house of the Lord in Jerusalem, and joined in the celebration of the
great Passover in the eighteenth year of that zealous and promising
young king.

These were the component elements of which the southern kingdom of
"Judah" was made up, when it, too, reached the stage, when, on account
of its idolatries and apostasy from the living God, "there was no more
remedy" (or "healing"--2 Chron. xxxvi. 16). It consisted, as we have
seen, of Judah, Benjamin, Levi, and many out of all the other Ten Tribes
of Israel, "in abundance."

Jerusalem was finally taken in B.C. 588, by Nebuchadnezzar--just 133
years after the capture of Samaria by the Assyrians. Meanwhile the
Babylonian Empire succeeded the Assyrian. But although dynasties had
changed, and Babylon, which had sometimes, even under the Assyrian
_regime_, been one of the capitals of the Empire, now took the place of
Nineveh, the region over which Nebuchadnezzar now bore rule, was the
very same over which Shalmaneser and Sargon reigned before him, only
somewhat extended.[16]

The exact location of the exiles of the southern kingdom we are not
told, beyond the Scripture statements that all the three parties of
captives carried off by Nebuchadnezzar (that in the first invasion in
the reign of Jehoiakim, B.C. 606; and in the second, in the reign of
Jehoiachin, B.C. 599; and in the final overthrow of Jerusalem, in the
reign of Zedekiah, B.C. 588), were taken "to Babylon" (2 Kings xxiv. and
xxv.; Daniel i.).

Now Babylon stands not only for the city, but also for the whole land,
_in which the territories of the Assyrian Empire, and the colonies of
exiles from the northern kingdom of "Israel" were included_. Thus, for
instance, we find Ezekiel, who was one of the 10,000 exiles carried off
by Nebuchadnezzar with Jehoiachin, by the river Chebar in the district
of Gozan--one of the very parts where the exiles of the Ten Tribes were
settled by the Assyrians more than a century previously.

With the captivity the divisions and rivalry between "Judah" and
"Israel" were ended, and the members of all the tribes who looked
forward to a national future were conscious not only of one common
destiny, but that that destiny was bound up with the promises to the
House of David, and with Zion or Jerusalem as its centre, in accordance
with the prophecies of Joel, Amos, and Hosea, and of the other inspired
messengers who ministered and testified more especially among them until
the fall of Samaria. This conviction of a common and united future, no
doubt facilitated the merging process, which cannot be said to have
begun with the captivity, for it commenced almost immediately after the
rebellion under Jeroboam, but which was certainly strengthened by it.

Glimpses into the feeling of the members of the two kingdoms for one
another, and their hopes and aspirations for unity, we get in the
writings of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel, who prophesied during the
period of exile. The most striking prophecy in relation to this subject
is Ezek. xxxvii. 15-28:

     "The word of the Lord came again unto me, saying, Moreover, thou
     son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, For Judah, and
     for the children of Israel, his companions (that is, those of
     Israel who before the captivity fell away from the Ten Tribes and
     joined the southern kingdom): then take another stick, and write
     upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and all the house of
     Israel, his companions: and join them one to another into one
     stick; and they shall become one in thine hand." Then follows the
     Divine interpretation of this symbol: "Behold, I will take the
     stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes
     of Israel, his companions, and I will put them with him (or
     literally, I will add them upon, or to him), namely, with the stick
     of Judah, and make them one stick, and they shall be one in My
     hand. And the sticks whereon thou writest shall be in thy hand
     before their eyes. And say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God,
     Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among the nations,
     whither they be gone, and will gather them on every side, and bring
     them into their own land; and I will make them one nation in the
     land upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king to
     them all; and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they
     be divided into two kingdoms any more at all; neither shall they
     defile themselves any more with their idols, nor with their
     detestable things, nor with any of their transgressions: but I will
     save them out of all their dwelling-places wherein they have
     sinned, and will cleanse them; so shall they be My people, and I
     will be their God. And My servant David shall be king over them;
     and they all shall have one shepherd; they shall also walk in My
     judgments, and observe My statutes, and do them. And they shall
     dwell in the land which I have given unto Jacob My servant, wherein
     your fathers dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, they, and their
     children, and their children's children for ever: and David My
     servant shall be their prince for ever" (Ezek. xxxvii. 20-25,
     R.V.).

Now let it be remembered that the foreground and commencement of the
restoration and future of this great prophecy, especially to all the
exiles at that time, was the restoration from Babylon, or "Assyria," as
it was sometimes called.

As a matter of fact, these prophecies, and particularly Ezek. xxxvii.
15-28, set forth not one single act or event, but a _process_ which,
commencing with the prophet's own time, extends into the distant future,
and ends in the final goal of the blessed condition of Israel under
Messiah's reign in the millennial period. Thus, while the full visible
_manifestation_ of that unity, symbolised by the two sticks becoming
_one_ in the prophet's hand, will only be realised after the final
regathering of the whole nation in their own land, and when the true
"David," namely, Messiah, "David's greater Son," shall be both King and
Prince over them for ever--the merging and uniting process commenced, as
a matter of fact, before the Babylonian captivity, was accelerated in
the exile, when in their like sorrows and troubles the hearts of the
people were doubtless drawn to one another in mutual sympathy and love.

The point, however, to be noticed in this and other prophecies is the
clear announcement which they contained that the purpose of God in the
schism--as a punishment on the House of David--_was now at an end_, and
that henceforth there was but one common hope and one destiny for the
whole Israel of the Twelve Tribes--whether they previously belonged to
the northern kingdom of the _Ten_ Tribes, or to the southern kingdom of
the _Two_ Tribes--and that this common hope and destiny was centred in
Him Who is the Lion of the Tribe of Judah, and the rightful Heir and
descendant of David.

In like manner Jeremiah, in his great prophecy of the restoration and
future blessing (chaps. xxx. and xxxi.), links the destinies of "Judah"
and "Israel," or Israel and Judah together; and speaks of one common
experience from that time on for the whole people. "For lo, the days
come, saith the Lord, that I will turn again the captivity of My people
Israel and Judah, saith the Lord: and I will cause them to return to the
land that I gave to their fathers, and they shall possess it. And these
are the words that the Lord spake concerning Israel and Judah" (Jer.
xxx. 3, 4. R.V.).

Daniel also, towards the end of the seventy years' captivity, includes
not only the men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem in his
intercessory prayer, but "_all Israel_ that are near, or far off, from
all the countries whither Thou hast driven them," who, he confesses,
were alike involved in sin and judgment, and equally cast on the mercy
of God on the ground of promises made to the fathers.

Now let us go a step farther. Just seventy years had elapsed since the
first band of captives were carried away to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar in
the year B.C. 606. "That the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah
might be fulfilled, the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus, King of
Persia, that he issued a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and
put it also in writing, saying: Thus saith Cyrus, King of Persia, the
Lord God of heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth; and He
hath charged me to build Him a house at Jerusalem that is in Judah. Who
is there among you of all His people? His God be with him, and let him
go up to Jerusalem, which is in Judah."

This proclamation, which was in reference to all the people "of the Lord
God of heaven," was issued in the year B.C. 536, two years after the
conquest of Babylon by Cyrus, and was, we are told, promulgated
"throughout all his kingdom," which was the same as that over which
Nebuchadnezzar and his successors reigned before him, only again
somewhat extended, even as the kingdom of Babylon was identical with
that of Assyria, as already pointed out. Indeed, Cyrus and Darius I. are
called indifferently by the sacred historians by the title of "King of
Persia" (Ezra iv. 5), "King of Babylon" (Ezra v. 13), and "King of
Assyria" (Ezra vi. 22).

The first response to this proclamation was a caravan of "forty-two
thousand three hundred and sixty, beside their servants and their maids,
of whom there were seven thousand three hundred and thirty-seven, and
two hundred singing men and singing women," who, under the leadership of
Zerubbabel, who was a lineal descendant of the royal house of David,
and of Joshua the high priest, made their way from "Babylon to
Jerusalem."

Now the leading spirits of this returned party of exiles were, no doubt,
"the chief of the fathers of Judah and Benjamin, and the priests and
Levites"; at the same time they included "all those" from all the other
tribes without distinction, "whose spirit God had raised to go up to
build the house of the Lord, which is in Jerusalem" (Ezra i. 5).

They are no longer counted after their tribal origin, but in families,
and after the cities to which they originally belonged, which, for the
most part, are not easy to identify; hence it is difficult to say how
many belonged to "Judah," and how many to "Israel"--but that there were
a good many in this company of those who belonged to the northern
kingdom of the Ten Tribes, is incidentally brought out by the mention of
two hundred and twenty-three men of Ai and Bethel alone. Now, Bethel was
the very centre of the ancient rival idolatrous worship instituted by
Jeroboam, and, though on the boundary of Benjamin, belonged to
"Ephraim."

Between the first organised large party of immigrants under Zerubbabel
and Joshua, and the second under Ezra, a period of fifty-eight years
elapsed; but we are not to suppose that in the interval there were no
additions to the community, which now represented the whole united
nation in Jerusalem. We read, for instance, incidentally, in Zech. vi.
9, 15, of a party of four prominent men who arrived in Jerusalem in B.C.
519 as representatives of the "captivity" (that is, of those who still
remained in those parts where they were exiles), bringing with them a
present of silver and gold for the Temple, the building of which was
resumed about five months before, as a result of the stirring appeals
of Haggai. This shows that there was continual intercourse and
communication between the community in Palestine and the majority of the
people who were still "in Babylon"; and we may be certain that little
parties and individuals, "whose spirit God had raised," continually
found their way to the holy city.

In B.C. 458, Ezra, "the scribe of the law of the God of heaven," in
accordance with the decree of Artaxerxes Longimanus, organised another
large caravan of those whose hearts were made willing to return to the
land of their fathers. Part of this most favourable royal proclamation
was as follows: "I make a decree that all they of the people of Israel,
and of his priests and Levites in my realm, which are minded of their
own free will to go up to Jerusalem, go up with thee"; and in response
to it "this Ezra went up from Babylon, ... and there went up (with him)
of the children of Israel, and of the priests and of the Levites, and
the singers and the porters, and the Nethinim, unto Jerusalem in the
seventh year of Artaxerxes the king" (Ezra vii. 7).

This party consisted of about one thousand eight hundred families; and
apart from the priests, Levites, and Nethinim, was made up of "the
children of Israel," irrespective of tribal distinctions, from all parts
of the realm of "Babylon," or Assyria, now under the sway of the
Medo-Persians.

The narratives contained in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, under whose
administration the position of the restored remnant became consolidated,
cover a period of about 115 years, and bring us down to about B.C. 420.
Jewish history during the second period of the Persian supremacy is
wrapped somewhat in obscurity; but we know that nearly throughout the
whole period of its existence it was more or less friendly to the
Hebrews. There was certainly no revocation of the edicts of Cyrus and of
Artaxerxes permitting those "which were minded of their own free will"
to go and join their brethren in Palestine; and that there were many
other large and small parties of exiles who did so, subsequent to those
mentioned in Ezra and Nehemiah, may be taken for granted.[17]

Anyhow, it is a fact that the remnant in the land grew and grew until,
about a century and a half later, in the times of the Maccabees, and
again about a century and a half later still, in the time of our Lord,
we find "the Jews" in Palestine, a comparatively large nation, numbering
millions; while from the time of the downfall of the Persian Empire we
hear but very little more of the Israelite exiles in ancient Assyria or
Babylon.

By the conquest of Alexander, who to this day is a great favourite among
the scattered nation, the regions of ancient Babylonia and Media were
brought comparatively near, and a highway opened between East and West.
From about this time settlements of "Jews" began to multiply in Asia
Minor, Cyprus, Crete, on the coasts and islands of the Aegean; in
Macedonia and other parts of Southern Europe; in Egypt and the whole
northern coast of Africa; whilst some made their way further and further
eastward as far as India and China. There is not the least possibility
of doubt that many of the settlements of the Diaspora in the time of our
Lord--both north, south, and west, as well as east of Palestine--were
made up of those who had never returned to the land of their fathers
since the time of the Assyrian and Babylonian exiles, and who were not
only descendants of Judah, as Anglo-Israelism ignorantly presupposes,
but of all the _Twelve Tribes scattered abroad_ (James i. 1).

As a matter of fact, long before the destruction of the second Temple
by Titus, we read of currents and counter-currents in the dispersion of
the "Jewish" people. Thus Artaxerxes III., _Ochus_, on his way to
re-conquer Egypt, "having taken Apodasmus in Judea, conveyed the Jewish
population into Hyrcania near the Caspian Sea." When he made himself
master of Egypt we read of his finding Jews there, and, being incensed
against them on account of a stubborn defence against him of places
entrusted to their keeping, "he sent part of them into Hyrcania, in the
neighbourhood of the country which the tribes already inhabited, and
left the rest at Babylon"; while soon after many thousands were taken to
Egypt by Alexander; and Ptolemy Soter, one of his chief generals, who
had become King of Egypt, and had invaded Syria and taken Jerusalem in
B.C. 301, carried off one hundred thousand of them, and forced them to
settle chiefly in Alexandria and Cyrene.


THE CONDITION OF THINGS AT THE TIME OF CHRIST.

To summarise the state of things in connection with the Hebrew race at
the time of Christ, it was briefly this:--

I. For some six centuries before, ever since the partial restoration in
the days of Cyrus and his successors, the descendants of Abraham were no
longer known as divided into tribes, but as one people, although up to
the time of the destruction of the second Temple, tribal and family
genealogies were for the most part preserved, especially among those who
were settled in the land.

II. Part of the nation was in Palestine, but by far the larger number
were scattered far and wide, and formed innumerable communities in many
different lands, north and south, east and west.[18] _But wherever
dispersed and to whatever tribe they may have belonged, they all looked
to Palestine and Jerusalem as their national centre_, and, with the
exception of those (and they were no doubt many) who had ceased to
cherish "the hope of Israel" and were gradually assimilating with their
Gentile neighbours, were all one in heart with their brethren in the
Holy Land. "They felt they were of the same stock, stood on the same
ground, cherished the same memories, grew up under the same
institutions, and anticipated the same future. They had one common
centre of worship in Jerusalem, which they upheld by their offerings;
and they made pilgrimages thither annually in great numbers at the high
festivals." Thus Philo could represent to the Roman Emperor Caligula
that "Jerusalem ought not to be considered only as the metropolis of
Judea, but as the centre of a nation dispersed in infinite places, who
were able to supply him with potent succours for his defence. He
reckoned among the places that were still stored with Jews, the isles of
Cyprus and Candia, Egypt, Macedonia, and Bithynia, to which he added the
empire of the Persians, and _all the cities of the East_, except that of
Babylon, from whence they were then expelled."

There is ample confirmation on this point in the New Testament. Thus,
for instance, we are incidentally told in the second chapter of the Acts
of the Apostles, that among the representatives from the Diaspora who
were found in Jerusalem at that memorable feast of Pentecost--who were
doubtless there also during the previous Passover, when the crucifixion
took place--were "Parthians and Medes and Elamites, and dwellers in
Mesopotamia, in Judea and Cappadocia, in Pontus and Asia, in Phyrgia and
Pamphylia, in Egypt and parts of Libya and Cyrene, and sojourners from
Rome, Cretans and Arabians": all of them either Jews or proselytes
miraculously hearing in their own tongues the mighty works of God.

Here it is to be noted that, at the commencement of the Christian era,
we find in this motley and cosmopolitan Jewish crowd representatives
from Israelitish settlements in the very parts where they were carried
by the Assyrians and Babylonians some seven centuries before, _but who
are all called "Jews," and all alike regarded Jerusalem as their
national metropolis_.[19]

III. The name of "Jew" and "Israelite" became synonymous terms from
about the time of the Captivity. It is one of the absurd fallacies of
Anglo-Israelism to presuppose that the term "Jew" stands for a bodily
descendant of "Judah." _It stands for all those from among the sons of
Jacob who acknowledged themselves, or were considered, subjects of the
theocratic kingdom of Judah_, which they expected to be established by
the promised "Son of David"--the Lion of the tribe of Judah--whose reign
is to extend not only over "_all the tribes of the land_," but also
"from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth."

"That the name 'Jew,'" writes a Continental Bible scholar, "became
general for all Israelites who were anxious to preserve their theocratic
nationality, was the more natural, since the political independence of
the Ten Tribes was destroyed." Yes, and without any hope of a
restoration to a separate national existence. What hopes and promises
they had were, as we have seen, linked with the Kingdom of Judah and the
House of David.

Anglo-Israelism teaches that members of the Ten Tribes are never called
"Jews," and that "Jews" are not "Israelites"; but both assertions are
false. Who were they that came back to the land after the "Babylonian"
exile? Anglo-Israelites say they were only the exiles from the southern
kingdom of Judah, and call them "Jews." I have already shown this to be
a fallacy, but I might add the significant fact that in the Book of Ezra
this remnant is only called eight times by the name "Jews," and no less
than _forty_ times by the name "Israel." In the Book of Nehemiah they
are called "Jews" _eleven_ times, and "Israel" twenty-two times. As to
those who remained behind in the one hundred and twenty-seven provinces
of the Persian Empire, which included all the territories of ancient
Assyria, Anglo-Israelites would say they were of the kingdom of
"Israel"; but in the Book of Esther, where we get a vivid glimpse of
them at a period subsequent to the partial restoration under Zerubbabel
and Joshua, they are called forty-five times by the name "Jews," and not
once by the name "Israel"!

In the New Testament the same people who are called "Jews" one hundred
and seventy-four times are also called "Israel" no fewer than
seventy-five times. Anglo-Israelism asserts that a "Jew" is only a
descendant of Judah, and is not an "Israelite"; but Paul says more than
once: "I am a man which am a _Jew_." Yet he says: "For I also am an
Israelite." "Are they _Israelites_? so am I" (Acts xxi. 39; xxii. 3;
Rom. xi. 1; 2 Cor. xi. 22; Phil. iii. 5).

Our Lord was of the House of David, and of the tribe of Judah after the
flesh--"a Jew"; yet it says that it is of "_Israel_" that He came, who
is "over all, God blessed for ever" (Rom. ix. 4, 5). Devout Anna was a
"Jewess" in Jerusalem, yet she was "of the tribe of Aser." But enough on
this point.

IV. From the time of the return of the first remnant after the
Babylonian exile, sacred historians, prophets, apostles, and the Lord
Himself, regarded the "Jews," whether in the land or in "Dispersion," as
representatives of "all Israel," _and the only people in the line of the
covenants and the promises which God made with the fathers_.

At the dedication of the Temple, which was at last finished "on the
third day of the month Adar, which was in the sixth year in the reign of
Darius the king," they offered "for a sin-offering _for all Israel,
twelve he-goats according to the number of the tribes of Israel_" (Ezra
vi. 17).

Similarly, on the arrival of Ezra with the new caravan of immigrants,
they "offered burnt-offerings unto the God of Israel, _twelve bullocks
for all Israel_, ... and twelve he-goats for sin-offering" (Ezra viii.
35), showing that the returned exiles regarded themselves as the nucleus
and representatives of the whole nation. In the post-Exilic prophets we
have no longer two kingdoms, but one people--one in interests and
destiny, although they had formerly for a time been divided.

To show that the revived nation was made up of members of the Northern
as well as the Southern kingdoms, the prophet Zechariah calls them by
the comprehensive name of "Judah, Israel, and Jerusalem" (Zech. i. 19);
or, "the house of Judah and the house of Joseph" (Zech. x. 6). In the
prophecy occasioned by the question addressed by the deputation from
Bethel, in reference to the continuation of the observance of the fasts,
he says: "And it shall come to pass that as ye were a curse among the
nations, _O house of Judah_ and _house of Israel_, so will I save you,
and ye shall be a blessing; fear not, and let your hands be strong"
(Zech. viii. 13).

Here the formerly two houses are included; together they are for a time
_among the nations_ "a curse," and together they shall be saved, and be
"a blessing."[20]

Malachi, nearly a century later, when the people in the land had become
a prosperous nation, and when, in consequence, the majority was rapidly
falling into a state of religious formality and godlessness, addresses
them as "Israel" or "Jacob," which surely includes all his descendants,
in contrast to Esau and his descendants (Mal. i. 1-3).


THE TESTIMONY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT THAT THE "JEWS" ARE REPRESENTATIVE OF
"ALL ISRAEL."

In the last words of the last of the post-Exilic prophets we have the
expression "all Israel" addressed to the people in the land; and then
the long period of silence sets in, lasting about four centuries, during
parts of which Jewish national history is lost somewhat in obscurity.
_When the threads of that history are taken up again in the New
Testament, what do we find? Is there one hint or reference in the whole
book to an Israel apart from "that nation" of the "Jews," to whom, and
of whom, the Lord and His apostles speak?_ There is, indeed, reference
and mention of the Diaspora, "the dispersed among the Gentiles" (John
vii. 35), forming, as we have seen, the greater part of the nation, and
some of them still settled in the ancient regions of Assyria and
Babylon; but wherever they were, they are all interchangeably called
"Jews," or "Israelites," who regarded Jerusalem, with which they were in
constant communication, as the centre, not only of their religion, but
of their national hopes and destiny.

The "Israelites" who in the time of Christ were dispersed among the
Parthians, Medes, and Elamites (Acts ii.), were as much one with the
sojourners in Egypt, Greece, and Rome, as the "Jews" in Bagdad, Persia,
or on the Caspian Sea to-day, are one with their wandering brethren in
London, Berlin, New York, or Australia, although they then, as now
(apart from the Hebrew, which ever remains the sacred tongue, and
thoroughly understood only by the minority), spoke different languages
and dressed differently, and conformed to different social and family
customs.

But let me give you a few definite passages from the New Testament in
justification of my statement that the Lord Jesus and the apostles,
equally with the post-Exilic prophets centuries before, regarded the
"Jews" as representatives of "all Israel," _and as the only people in
the line of the "covenant, and the promises which God made unto the
fathers_."

(a) In Matthew x. we have the record of the choice, and of the first
commission given to the apostles. "These twelve," we read, "Jesus sent
forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles,
and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not; but go rather _to the
lost sheep of the house of Israel_." Of course, the merest child knows
that this journey of the twelve did not extend beyond the limits of
Palestine, but the "Jews" dwelling in it are regarded as the house of
Israel, although many members of that "house" were also scattered in
other lands.

In this charge of the Lord to the apostles, we see also, by the way, in
what sense Israel is regarded as "lost." Now Anglo-Israelites are very
fond of this word, but they use it in an unbiblical and unspiritual
sense. The Ten Tribes, like the other Two, were, in the time of Christ,
even as they still are, "lost"; but not because they have forgotten
their _national_ or tribal identity, but because they "all like sheep
have gone astray, and have turned every one to his own way." Or, as
Jeremiah pathetically puts it: "My people hath been lost sheep; their
shepherds [their false teachers and leaders] have caused them to go
astray; they have turned them away on the mountains; they have gone from
mountain to hill; they have forgotten [not their national origin, but]
their resting place"--viz., Jehovah, who is the true dwelling-place of
His people in all generations. It was this terrible fact of their
spiritually lost condition which again and again moved our Lord Jesus to
compassion for those multitudes which followed Him, because they were
"distressed" or "plagued," and were scattered abroad as sheep not having
a shepherd.

(b) On the first day of Pentecost, Peter, with the eleven, addressed
the "men of Judaea," and the great multitude from among the dispersed
"Jews," as "Ye men of Israel," and wound up his powerful speech with the
words: "_Let all the house of Israel_, therefore, know assuredly that
God hath made Him both Lord and Christ--this Jesus whom ye crucified"
(Acts ii. 14, 36). In chapter iii. of Acts, as "all the people ran
together unto them in the porch that is called Solomon's, greatly
wondering," at the notable miracle in the name of Jesus Christ of
Nazareth, Peter said: "_Ye men of Israel_, why marvel ye at this Man?...
The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers,
hath glorified His servant Jesus, whom ye delivered up and denied before
the face of Pilate when he had determined to release Him.... Repent ye,
therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out, that so
there may come seasons of refreshing from the presence of the Lord....
_Ye are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant which God made with
your fathers_, saying unto Abraham, 'And in thy seed shall the nations
of the earth be blessed.'"

From Acts xiii. onward we find Paul among the "Jews" in the Dispersion;
and how does he address them? By the same name as Peter addressed their
brethren in Palestine: "_Men of Israel, ... the God of this people
Israel_ chose our fathers, and exhorted the people when they sojourned
in the land of Egypt" (Acts xiii. 16, 17); and when he was at last
brought to Rome "and gathered the chief of the Jews" in that city to
him, he assured them that he had neither done anything "against the
people, or the customs of our fathers," nor did he come to Rome "to
accuse my nation," but "because of the _hope of Israel_ am I bound by
this chain"--namely, "the hope of the promise made of God unto our
fathers; as he had previously explained before Festus and Agrippa--unto
which _our Twelve Tribes_, earnestly serving God night and day, hope to
attain" (Acts xxviii. 17-20; xxvi. 6, 7).

Paul knew of no "lost Ten Tribes," but on his testimony the "Jews" in
Palestine and in the Dispersion were the "Israel" of _all the Twelve
Tribes_, to whom the "hope of the promise made of God unto the fathers"
belonged.

(c) And, as it is in the Gospels, and in the Acts of the Apostles, so
also in the Epistles. It would be easy to multiply passages, but one
more must suffice.

The ix., x., and xi. of Romans form the prophetic, or "dispensational,"
section of that great epistle, and was written for the special
instruction of Gentile believers in the "mystery" of God with Israel.
Now I cannot, of course, stop here to give an analysis of that
wonderful and comprehensive scripture, which is also a vindication of
God's ways with man; _but there is not a hint or suggestion in it of a
"lost Israel," apart from the one nation whose whole history he
summarises from the beginning to the end_, and which is now, alas!
divided into the small minority--the "remnant according to the election
of grace," who believe, and the majority who believe not, until the day
of grace for the whole nation shall come, and "so _all_ Israel shall be
saved, even as it is written, 'There shall come out of Zion the
Deliverer; He shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob.'"

But in the touching introduction to this section (Rom. ix. 1-6), in
which the apostle gives utterance to his "great sorrow and unceasing
pain of heart" because of the unbelief of his own nation, "his brethren
and his kinsmen according to the flesh," for whose sake he had been
wishing, if it were possible, even to be himself "anathema from
Christ"--how does he call these unbelieving "Jews" who had rejected
their Messiah, and were blindly persecuting His servants? Here are His
words: "_Who are Israelites_; whose is the adoption, and the glory, and
the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, _and
the promises; whose are the fathers, and of whom is Christ as concerning
the flesh, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen._"

Now I must try to draw this very long letter to an end. I have not
followed Anglo-Israelism in all its crooked paths of misinterpretation
of Scripture and history; I have only shown you the baselessness of its
foundations, and that the premises upon which the whole theory rests are
misleading and false. I have also given you a summary of the true
history of the tribes, which I trust may prove helpful to you in the
study of God's Word; and the conclusion at which you and every unbiassed
person must arrive on a careful examination of the facts which I have
adduced is, that the whole supposition of "lost tribes," in the sense in
which Anglo-Israelism uses the term, is a fancy which originated in
ignorance; and that "_the Jews_" are the whole, and the only national
Israel, representing not only the "Two Tribes," but "_all the Twelve
Tribes" who were "scattered abroad_."


EARLY MISCONCEPTIONS AND CONFUSION ON THE QUESTION OF THE TEN TRIBES.

I have thought it necessary to enter all the more fully into this point,
because even some otherwise sober-minded teachers and writers, who are
not Anglo-Israelites, have fallen into some confusion in dealing with
this subject; and no wonder, for already Josephus, who vaguely locates a
separate multitude belonging to the Ten Tribes somewhere beyond the
Euphrates ("Antiq." xi. 1, 2)--a Jewish tradition which locates a mighty
kingdom of the Ten Tribes beyond the fabled miraculous river Sambation,
which no one can cross because it throws up stones all the week, and
only rests on the Sabbath; and the Talmud (Jer. Sanhedrin, 29, c.),
which speaks of three localities whither they had been banished, viz.,
the district around the above wonderful Sambation, Daphne, near Antioch;
and the third locality could neither be seen nor named because it was
continually hidden by a cloud--all these show how early people's minds
became muddled on this subject.[21]

Coming to the legends about the Ten Tribes in more modern times, Eldad
Ben Mahli Ha Dani came forward in the ninth century claiming to give
specific details of the contemporary existence of the Ten Tribes and of
their location at that time.

     "Dan, Naphtali, Gad, and Asher were," according to him, "in
     Havilah; Zebulun and Reuben in the mountains of Paran; Ephraim, and
     half of Manasseh, in South Arabia; Simeon, and the other half of
     Manasseh, in the land of Chazars (?)." According to him, therefore,
     "the Ten Tribes were settled in parts of Southern Arabia, or
     perhaps Abyssinia, in conformity with the identification of
     Havilah. The connection of this view with that of the Jewish origin
     of Islam is obvious; and David Reubeni revived the view in stating
     that he was related to the king of the tribes of Reuben situated in
     Khaibar in North Arabia.

     "According to Abraham Farisol, the remaining tribes were in the
     desert, on the way to Mecca, near the Red Sea; but he himself
     identifies the River Ganges with the River Gozan, and assumes that
     the Beni-Israel of India are the descendants of the Lost Ten
     Tribes. The Ganges, thus identified by him with the River
     Sambation, divides the Indians from the Jews. The confusion between
     Ethiopia and Farther India, which existed in the minds of the
     ancients and mediaeval geographers, caused some writers to place the
     Lost Ten Tribes in Abyssinia. Abraham Yagel, in the sixteenth
     century, did so, basing his conclusions on the accounts of David
     Reubeni and Eldad Ha Dani. It is probable that some of the reports
     of the Falashas led to this identification. According to Yagel,
     messengers were sent to these colonists in the time of Pope Clement
     VII., some of whom died, while the rest brought back tidings of the
     greatness of the tribes and their very wide territories. Yagel
     quotes a Christian traveller, Vincent of Milan, who was a prisoner
     in the hands of the Turks for twenty-five years, and who went as
     far as Fez, and thence to India, where he found the River
     Sambation, and a number of Jews dressed in silk and purple. They
     were ruled by seven kings, and upon being asked to pay tribute to
     the Sultan Salim, they declared that they had never paid tribute to
     any sultan or king. It is just possible that this may have some
     reference to the 'Sasanam' or the Jews of Cochin.

     "It is further stated that in 1630 a Jew of Salonica travelled to
     Ethiopia, to the land of Sambation; and that in 1646 one Baruch,
     travelling in Persia, claimed to have met a man named Malkiel, of
     the tribe of Naphtali, and brought back a letter from the king of
     the children of Moses: this letter was seen by Azulai. It was
     afterwards reprinted in Jacob Saphir's book of travels (Eben
     Sappir, 1. 98).

     "So much interest was taken in this account that in 1831 a certain
     Baruch ben Samuel, of Pinsk, was sent to search for the children of
     Moses in Yemen. He travelled fifteen days in the wilderness, and
     declared he met Danites feeding flocks of sheep. So, too, in 1854,
     a certain Amram Ma'arabi set out from Safed in search of the Ten
     Tribes; and he was followed in 1857 by David Ashkenazi, who crossed
     over through Suakin to make enquiries about the Jews of
     Abyssinia."[22]

But all these are legends and fancies. "We in this twentieth century,"
to quote the words of a Christian writer, "to whom there is no longer
any part of the earth unknown, know that in no country whatever,
however far from civilisation it may be, do the Ten Tribes dwell. The
'travellers' tales' have been proved to be false; the Ten Tribes, as
such, do not exist." In this connection I may quote Professor A.
Neubauer, a prominent learned Jew, who sums up his studies in a series
of illuminating articles on the subject which will be found in Vol. I.
of _The Jewish Quarterly Review_, with these words:--

     "Where are the Ten Tribes? We can only answer, Nowhere. Neither in
     Africa, nor in India, China, Persia, Kurdistan, the Caucasus, or
     Bokhara. We have said that a great part of them remained in
     Palestine, partly mixing with the Samaritans, and partly
     amalgamating with those who returned from the captivity of Babylon.
     With them many came also from the cities of the Medes, and many, no
     doubt, adhered to the Jewish religion which was continued in
     Mesopotamia during the period of the Second Temple."

Some Christian writers cling to the view that while some of the "Ten
Tribes" amalgamated with the "Jews," there is nevertheless a distinct
people somewhere, who are descendants of the Israel of the ancient
northern kingdom, which is to be brought to light in the future, and,
together with "Judah," will be restored to Palestine, and enter into the
enjoyment of the promises. Thus the Nestorians, who inhabit the
inaccessible mountains of Kurdistan (which is part of ancient Assyria),
the Afghans, the North American Indians, and even the Japanese have been
variously identified as that people; but this view rests upon what I
believe to be a misconception of the meaning and scope of some of the
prophecies.

It _may_ be true that the Nestorians, and the Afghans, and some other
Eastern tribes are descendants of the original Israelitish exiles in
Assyria, but having more or less mixed themselves up by inter-marriage
with the surrounding nations, and having given up the distinctive
national rites and ordinances, such as circumcision, the observance of
the Sabbath, etc., they have, like many "Jews" in modern times (who
gradually assimilate with Gentile nations), cut themselves off from the
hope of Israel, and are no longer in the line of the purpose which God
has in and through that "peculiar" and separate people.


THE TESTIMONY OF PROPHECY IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY.

In conclusion let me very briefly call your attention to the remarkable
prophecy in Amos ix., which will show you that the view which I have
enunciated in my letter is the only one in keeping with the sure word of
prophecy.

The prophet Amos, though himself a Judean, his native village, Tekoa,
being about twelve miles south of Jerusalem, was commissioned by God to
prophesy more particularly to the northern or Ten-Tribed kingdom; and
for that purpose he went and took up his abode in Bethel, which was the
centre of the idolatrous worship set up by Jeroboam in opposition to the
worship and service of the divinely-appointed sanctuary in Jerusalem.
There his duty was to announce the coming judgment of God on the Israel
of the Ten Tribes, on account of their apostasy. The last paragraph of
his book (chap. ix. 8-15), uttered not more than about seventy years
before the final overthrow of Samaria in B.C. 721, is one of the most
remarkable and comprehensive prophecies in the Old Testament, and this
is the inspired forecast of the history of the Ten-Tribed kingdom which
is given in it: "_Behold, the eyes of the Lord God are upon the sinful
kingdom, and I will destroy it from of the face of the earth; saving
that I will not utterly destroy the house of Jacob, saith the Lord. For
lo, I will command and I will sift (or 'toss') the house of Israel among
all the nations, like as corn is sifted (or 'tossed' about) in a sieve,
yet shall not the least grain fall upon the earth. All the sinners of
thy people shall die by the sword, which say: The evil shall not
overtake or prevent us._"

Here, then, we have the whole subject as to what was to become of the
Ten Tribes in a nutshell.

(a) First, _as a kingdom_, they were to be destroyed from off the face
of the earth, _never to be restored_; for its very existence as a
separate kingdom was only permitted of God for a definite period as a
punishment on the house of David: and when, after a period of about two
hundred and fifty years of unbroken apostasy, it was finally broken up
by the Assyrians, there was an end of it, without any promise of a
future independent political existence.

(b) But when it was destroyed as a kingdom, what became of them as a
people? This prophecy tells us: "Saving that I will not utterly destroy
the house of Jacob, saith the Lord"--that is, they are to return to the
house of Jacob. They are to form part of the one family made up of all
the descendants of Jacob without distinction of tribes. But as one house
of Jacob, or "of Israel" (as the next verse interchangeably calls them),
something terrible and unique is to befall them; and what is it? To be
"lost" some two thousand six hundred years, and then to be identified
with the Anglo-Saxon race? Oh no! this is what was to happen: "For lo, I
will command and I will sift (or 'toss') the house of Israel among all
nations, even as corn is tossed about in a sieve"--or, in the words of
Hosea, another prophet, who spoke primarily to the Ten Tribes, "My God
will cast them away" (not for ever, as the whole book shows, but for a
time), "because they did not hearken unto Him; and _they shall be
wanderers among the nations_."

I draw your attention all the more to this point, because a good deal
has been made by some writers of the expression in Isa. xi., where
Israel is called "outcast," from which they infer that "Israel" is to be
found somewhere in one place, in contradistinction to the "dispersed of
Judah." But this is a fallacy. In Jer. xxx. Judah and Israel are
together called "an outcast," but it by no means implies that they are
therefore to be sought for and found in one particular region of the
world.

It is clear from the prophecies of Amos and Hosea, which, as we have
seen, were primarily addressed to the Ten Tribes, that if they were in
the first instance "cast out" by force from their own land, as the word
in the Hebrew means, it was with a view that they should be "tossed
about" and "wander" among "all nations."

Now note, Anglo-Israelism tells you to identify the Ten Tribes with one
nation; but if you are on the line of Scripture and true history, you
will seek for them "among all nations."

And which people is it that is known all over the earth as "the tribe of
the weary foot and wandering breast"? Anglo-Israelites call them "Jews"
in the limited sense of being descendants of "Judah"; but God's Word
tells us that it is "_the house of Israel_," or "the house of Jacob";
and, as a matter of fact, since "Judah" joined their brethren of the Ten
Tribes on the destruction of Jerusalem by the Chaldeans in B.C. 588, the
two have kept on their weary march together, "wandering among the
nations." Eastward and westward (only a remnant of all the tribe
returning to the land for a time), nowhere finding ease for any length
of time, nor do the soles of their feet have rest--even as Moses, _at
the very beginning of their history, and long before the division among
the tribes_, prophesied would be their _united_ experience in case they
apostatised from Jehovah their God. And thus they will continue ever
more mixed up and intermingled among themselves, with all genealogies
lost, and not one of them either east or west being able any longer
documentarily to prove of what tribe or family he comes--until the day
when He that scattered Israel will gather him, and by His own Divine
power and omniscience separate them again into their tribes and
families.


A SOLEMN WARNING.

My last words on this subject must be those of warning and entreaty. Do
not think, as so many do, that Anglo-Israelism, even if not true, is
only a harmless speculation. I consider it nothing short of one of the
latter-day delusions by which the Evil One seeks to divert the attention
of men from things spiritual and eternal. Here are a few of its
dangers:--

I. It goes, sometimes to the length of blasphemy (as shown in the
extracts I have copied for you at the beginning of this letter), in
misinterpreting and misapplying Scripture. One of its foundation
fallacies is that _it anticipates the Millennium_, and interprets
promises--which will only be fulfilled in that blessed period, after
Israel as a nation is converted--to the British nation at the present
time. But by this process it distorts and confuses the whole prophetic
Scripture.

II. It fosters national pride, and nationalises God's blessings in this
dispensation, which is individual and elective in its character.

Its proud boastful tone, its carnal confidence that Britain, in virtue
of its supposed identity with the "lost" tribes, is to take possession
of all the "gates" of her "enemies" and become practically mistress of
the whole globe, is enough to provoke God's judgment against the nation,
and to make the spiritual believer and every true lover of this
much-favoured land tremble. It diverts man's attention from the one
thing needful, and from the only means by which he can find acceptance
with God. This it does by teaching that "a nation composed of millions
of practical unbelievers in Christ, and ripe for apostasy, in virtue of
a certain fanciful identity between the mixed race composing that nation
and a people carried into captivity two thousand five hundred years ago,
is in the enjoyment of God's special blessing and will enjoy it on the
same grounds for ever, thus laying another foundation for acceptance
with God beside that which He has laid, even Christ Jesus."

After all, in this dispensation it is a question only as to whether men
are "in Christ" or not. If they are Christians, whether Jews or
Gentiles, their destiny is not linked either with Palestine or with
England, but with that inheritance which is incorruptible and undefiled
and which fadeth not away; and if they are not Christians, then, instead
of occupying their thoughts with vain speculations as to a supposed
identity of the British race with the "lost" Ten Tribes, it is their
duty to seek the one and only Saviour whom we must learn to know, not
after the flesh, but in the Spirit, and without whom a man, whether an
Israelite or not, is undone.

III. Then, finally, it not only robs the Jewish nation, the true Israel,
of many promises in relation to their _future_ by applying them to the
British race in the _present_ time, but it diverts attention from them
as _the_ people in whom is bound up the purpose of God in relation to
the nations, and whose "receiving again" to the heart of God, after the
long centuries of unbelief, will be as "life from the dead to the whole
world."

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 15: According to Graetz, "History of the Jews," vol. i., p.
186, the tribe of Simeon, which was merely a subsidiary of that of
Judah, also remained faithful to the House of David; but this is
doubtful.]

[Footnote 16: See 2 Kings xxiii, 29, where the King of Babylon is called
"King of Assyria."]

[Footnote 17: "It is inconceivable," says Dr. Pusey, "that, as the
material prosperity of Palestine returned, even many of the Ten Tribes
should not have returned to their country."]

[Footnote 18: Thus Strabo (quoted by Josephus in "Ant." xiv. 7, 2) could
already say in his day that "these Jews had already gotten into all
cities; and it is hard to find a place in the habitable earth that hath
not admitted this race and is not mastered by it."]

[Footnote 19: "Everywhere we have distinct notices of these wanderers,"
says Dr. Edersheim, "and everywhere they appear as in closest connection
with the Rabbinical hierarchy of Palestine. Thus the Mishnah, in an
extremely curious section, tells how on Sabbaths the Jewesses of Arabia
might wear their long veils, and those of India the kerchiefs round
their head, customary in those countries, without incurring the guilt of
desecrating the holy day by needlessly carrying what, in the eyes of the
law, would be a burden; while in a rubric for the Day of Atonement we
have it noted that the dress which the High Priest wore 'between the
evenings' of the great feast--that is, as afternoon darkened into
evening--was of most costly Indian stuff."]

[Footnote 20: Some have supposed that the 14th verse of Zechariah
xi.--"_And I cut asunder mine other (or 'second') staff, even Bands (or
'Binders'), to destroy the brotherhood between Judah and between
Israel_"--foreshadowed another division between the Ten Tribes and the
Two Tribes subsequent to the partial restoration from Babylon, and after
the coalescence of the people before and in the Exile--as a punishment
for their rejection of their true Shepherd the Messiah, which is
symbolically set forth in that chapter. But this is a mistake. The
(_achavah_), "Brotherhood," which was to be destroyed "between Judah and
between Israel," is not to be understood in the sense "that the unity of
the nation would be broken up again in a manner similar to that in the
days of Rehoboam, and that two hostile nations would be formed out of
one people," although the disruption of national unity which took place
in the days of Jeroboam may be referred to _as an illustration_ of that
which would occur again in a more serious form. "The schism of Jeroboam
had a weakening and disintegrating effect on the nation of the Twelve
Tribes, and the dissolution of the brotherhood here spoken of was to
result in still greater evil and ruin; for Israel, deprived of the Good
Shepherd, was to fall into the power of the 'foolish,' or 'evil,'
shepherd, who is depicted at the close of the prophecy."

The preposition (_bain_), which is twice repeated, has the meaning not
only of "_between_," but also of "_among_," and the formula, House of
Judah and House of Israel, or simply, "Judah and Israel," is, as we have
had again and again to notice, this prophet's inclusive designation of
the whole ideally (and to a large extent already actually) reunited one
people. I think, therefore, that we may rightly render the sentence "to
destroy the brotherhood _among_ Judah and among Israel"--that is to say,
among the entire nation. The consequence of it would be the fulfilment
of the threat in the 9th verse: "Let them which are left eat every one
the flesh of another"--solemn and awful words, which had their first
literal fulfilment in the party feuds and mutualy destructive strife,
and in the terrible "dissolution of every bond of brotherhood and of our
common nature, which made the siege of Jerusalem by the Romans a proverb
for horror, and precipitated its destruction."]

[Footnote 21: It has also been supposed that the references by Agrippa
in his remarkable oration (reported by Josephus, "Wars," ii., xvi.
4)--to those who dwelt "as far as beyond the Euphrates," and to "those
of your nation who dwell in Adiabene," upon whom the Jews might rely for
help in their struggle against Rome, but would not be permitted by the
Parthians to render them any assistance--were to some unknown
settlements belonging to the Ten Tribes. But this is a mistake. These
dwellers in Adiabene might or might not have belonged to the Ten Tribes,
but they formed part of the known Dispersion and of "your nation"--the
Jews.]

[Footnote 22: Jewish Encyclopaedia.]




PART III.

NOTES AND EXPLANATIONS.


Note I.

ANGLO-ISRAEL "PROOFS" OF A SEPARATE FATE AND DESTINY OF "ISRAEL" AND
"JUDAH."

The Anglo-Israel theory is based for the most part on the supposition of
a separate history during the Dispersion, and a separate destiny of the
Ten Tribes from that of Judah. I have already shown that the supposition
is a false one, but it may be well to analyse here a few more of the
Scripture "proofs" by which the contention is supported.

The following is from a truly amazing pamphlet, entitled "Fifty Reasons
why the Anglo-Saxons are Israelites of the Lost Tribes of the House of
Israel," a publication full of misinterpretations, wild fancies, and
absurd fables, which are given out as facts of history.

But the reader may judge for himself of the method of this writer, who
is a "D.D.," in handling Scripture.

"The Jews," we are told with an air of authority--

     "are one people, the Lost Tribes are another.... The Word of God
     clearly intimates that Israel would lose their identity, their
     land, their language, their religion, and their name, that they
     would be lost to themselves, and to other nations lost. 'I will
     scatter them into corners, I will make the remembrance of them to
     cease from among men' (Deut. xxxii. 26). 'The Lord hideth His face
     from the House of Jacob' (Isa. viii, 17). He was not any more to
     speak to them in the Hebrew tongue; but 'by another tongue will I
     speak unto this people' (Isa. xxviii. 11). They shall no more be
     called Israel, He will call them by another name. 'And thou shalt
     be called by a new name which the mouth of the Lord shall name'
     (Isa. lxii. 2). 'The Lord shall call His servants by another name'
     (Isa. lxv. 15). 'The name Israel shall be no more in remembrance'
     (Psa. lxxxiii. 4). 'And ye shall lose, or leave, your name, and the
     Lord shall call His servants by another name.' 'Why sayest thou, O
     Jacob! and speakest, O Israel! my way is hid from the Lord, and my
     judgment is passed over from my God?' (Isa. xl. 27).

     "'For a small moment have I forsaken thee, but with great mercies
     will I gather thee. In a little wrath I hid My face from thee for a
     moment; but with everlasting kindness will I have mercy upon thee'
     (Isa. liv. 8).

     "In Hos. i. 4, 7 the Lord says, 'I will cause to cease the kingdom
     of the House of Israel.... I will no more have mercy upon the House
     of Israel, but I will utterly take them away.... But I will have
     mercy upon the House of Judah.' Israel is to be called Lo-Ammi, for
     'ye are not My people, and I will not be your God' (Hos. i. 7)."

Now let us look for a moment at the reference and quotations here given.
The first is Deut. xxxii. 26: "I will scatter them into corners," etc.
This occurs in the song which Moses was commanded to put into the mouth
of the _whole nation_ at the very commencement of their history, which,
besides being a vindication of God's character in His dealings with the
nation from the beginning hitherto, is also a prophetic forecast of
their whole future history. It is the _whole people_, which according to
Moses was to be scattered into all corners as a special punishment for
their apostasy, until such time as the Lord shall turn their captivity
and have compassion upon them, and gather them from all the nations
(Deut. iv. 25-31; xxviii. 64, 65; xxx. 1-7; xxxi. 16-22). This
reference then has nothing whatever in it about a "lost identity."

These forecasts are fulfilling themselves, not in lost tribes, but _in
the Jews_. The second reference, Isa. viii. 17: "_The Lord hideth His
face from the House of Jacob_," is (as is often the case in Anglo-Israel
quotations) a sentence broken away from the context, and has not the
least shadow of connection with "lost" or found tribes. It is an
exclamation of the prophet Isaiah with reference to the condition of
things then prevailing in _Judah_. Because of the wickedness of the
people and its king, God's face seemed to be hid from the people. But
Israel's prophets always looked beyond the present gloom and darkness,
and exercised faith in God even in the most adverse circumstances, so he
exclaims: "And I"--whatever the nation whom he sought to bring back to
God may do--"will wait upon Jehovah that hideth His face from _Jacob_
(which stands for the whole nation) and will look to Him," _i.e._, "my
hope shall be set on Him alone."

A quotation is made in proof that God would not any more speak to "lost"
Israel in the Hebrew tongue. The reference is Isa. xxviii. 11: "By (or
with) another tongue will I speak to this people."

This is another instance of breaking away an isolated text from its
context, and giving it a meaning which was never intended. In that
chapter we read how the leaders, not of the Ten Tribes, but of Judah,
perverted the Word of God, which He intended should bring "rest" and
"refreshing" to the weary (ver. 12), and turned it into so many isolated
"precepts" and commandments. But because the words of grace and
salvation He was speaking to them through the prophets were scorned and
abused, God threatens that He will speak to them in judgment--"with
strange lips and with another tongue"--in which there may be included
also a reference to their being carried into captivity, "where they
would have to listen to a strange language," which they understood not
(Psalm lxxxi. 5; cxiv. 1).

The next references in proof that the "lost" tribes were "no more to be
called Israel," but by another name, is a typical instance of the
perversion of even the most beautiful spiritual truths of the Bible for
mere outward, I was going to say, _carnal_, ends. The first quotation in
proof of this point is from Isa. lxii. 2: "Thou shalt be called by a new
name which the mouth of the Lord shall name." This short chapter is one
of the most precious and beautiful in the whole Old Testament, and it is
like laying hold of an exquisitely delicate and beautiful work of art
with a rough and dirty hand to treat it as Anglo-Israel "theologians"
do. The chapter begins: "For _Zion's sake_ will I not hold My peace, and
for _Jerusalem's sake_ I will not rest until her righteousness go forth
as brightness and her salvation as a lamp that burneth." The speaker is
either the prophet, or very probably the servant of Jehovah, the
Messiah, who is the speaker in the preceding chapter. The subject is
"Zion" or "Jerusalem," which includes the people. I believe that it
includes the _whole nation_ of which Jerusalem is the God-appointed
metropolis; but if it is to be limited to any part of the people, then
it is certainly _Judah_, of which Zion or Jerusalem is the capital, and
not the Ten Tribes who are here spoken of.

This Zion, for whom the Messiah makes unceasing intercession, is now
called--"forsaken," and her land--"desolate"; but when God's light shall
again break upon her, and her righteousness goes forth as a lamp that
burneth, "Thou shalt be called (Hephzibah, _i.e._, My delight is in
her); and thy land" (Beulah, _i.e._, married). But the new name by which
the mouth of Jehovah shall then call her shall not only answer the
outward transformation which shall then come over the people and the
land, but will describe the _inward_ transformation and the true
character of the people. In fact, we are told in this very chapter what
the new name shall be. They shall call them--Saxons? Britons? No, "they
shall call them the Holy People, _The Redeemed of the Lord_." This is
also the "other-name" in Isa. lxv. 15, by which God shall call His true
servants in contrast to the ungodly in the nation, who shall be "slain,"
and leave their name (_i.e._, their remembrance) as a proverbial "curse"
unto His chosen.

The next reference given in proof that the Ten Tribes were to lose their
name is Psalm lxxxiii. 4: "The name of Israel shall be no more in
remembrance." This is a typical and characteristic specimen of the
manner in which Anglo-Israel "theologians" deal with Scripture. It
reminds one of the grounds adduced by a certain individual for paying no
heed to the Old Testament because it is written, "_Hang_ the law and the
prophets" (Matt. xxii. 40). It is certainly most easy to prove almost
anything from the Bible by breaking away an isolated sentence from its
connection, and attaching to it a meaning which was never intended.

Psalm lxxxiii. is an impassioned cry to God for His interposition and
deliverance of His people from a confederacy of Gentile nations, who are
gathered with the determined object of utterly destroying them as a
people.

    "O God, keep not Thou silence:
    Hold not Thy peace and be not still, O God; for lo, Thine enemies make
      a tumult:
    And they that hate Thee have lifted up the head:
    They take crafty counsel against Thy people, and consult together
      against Thy hidden ones.
    They have said: Come, and let us cut them off from being a nation,
    That the name of Israel be no more in remembrance."

This historical occasion of this Psalm may perhaps have been the great
gathering of the Moabites, Ammonites, and a great multitude of other
against "Judah,"[23] who, in the Psalms belonging to that period, is
invariably called Israel. At the same time there is a prophetic element
in the Psalm, for all the past gatherings of the nations against
Jerusalem foreshadow the final great gathering under Antichrist, when
the battle-cry of the confederated armies shall indeed be, "Come, let us
destroy them from being a nation, that the name of Israel may be no more
in remembrance." But note, part of the furious cry of the Gentiles in
their onslaught against Jerusalem is broken away from its connection and
used by Anglo-Israel writers to prove that the Ten Tribes would lose
their identity and that the very name "Israel" would be "lost."

Passing on to the next two references, Isa. xl. 27 and Isa. liv. 8, I
would ask the intelligent Bible-reader what relevancy or connection
these precious Scriptures have with the subject of the identification of
any "lost" tribes? They are glorious words of consolation and promise
addressed to the Jewish nation, or rather to the godly remnant in exile,
assuring them that God's eye is ever upon them, and though, on account
of their sins, His face has been turned away from them, as it were, "for
a moment," He will yet return to them with "everlasting kindness and
have mercy upon them." It is like sacrilege to misapply such beautiful
Scriptures and great spiritual truths to prove a theory which has no
basis in fact, and with which they have not the remotest connection.

The last reference is Hosea i. 4-7; the words are plain enough, and if
they prove anything in connection with this subject it is the very
opposite of what the Anglo-Israel writers assert. Hosea did speak
primarily to the Israel of the "Ten Tribes" shortly before its final
overthrow by Assyria, and what he announces is that God would cause that
kingdom, _as a kingdom_, "to cease," and that He would no more have
mercy upon them. As a people they would be preserved, but, as it were,
disavowed of God, and therefore called "Lo-Ammi" (_i.e._, "not My
people"). But what is said here by Hosea of the condition of the people
of the "Ten Tribes," after they shall have ceased to exist as a kingdom,
is true also, as we know from many other Scriptures, of those who
belonged to the southern kingdom of Judah. It is now the Lo-Ammi period
for the _whole nation_ of the Twelve Tribes, and they shall continue to
be disowned of God nationally (not as individuals) until they as a
nation acknowledge and own their long-rejected Messiah. Then, in the
final trial, when the spirit of grace and of supplication is poured upon
them, and they shall look upon Him whom they have pierced, and mourn,
God will look down upon them and say, "Ammi"--"It is My people": and
they shall say, "Jehovah is my God" (Zech. xiv. 9).

And it is not only the prophetic Scriptures of the Old Testament which
are abused in this manner, the plainest statements in the Gospels and
Epistles are also twisted and perverted to mean the very opposite of
what was intended. The following is from a booklet, "The Lost Tribes of
Israel," by Reader Harris, K.C., "founder of the Pentecostal League," in
which all the absurdities and misinterpretations found in all the
Anglo-Israel publications are embodied:--

     "NEW TESTAMENT PROPHECIES.

     "Let us now turn to the New Testament. It is perfectly clear that
     Israel, who had been dispersed for more than 700 years, was much in
     our Lord's mind during His three years' ministry upon earth, for
     many were the references to Israel made by Him. As an example, let
     us turn to the commission He gave to the twelve apostles in Matt x.
     5, 6:--

     "'These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not
     into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans
     enter ye not: but go rather to the lost sheep of the House of
     Israel.'

     "These apostles were not to go to the Gentiles, nor to the
     Samaritans--who were the descendants of usurpers of Israel--'but to
     the lost sheep of the House of Israel'; and they obeyed this
     command as far as was then possible. The only tribe that they could
     reach which had any connection with Israel was Benjamin, and
     Benjamin as a tribe was won to allegiance to the Lord Jesus Christ.
     Benjamin had gone into captivity with Judah, and had come back with
     Judah; but in the prophecies of God, Benjamin had been always
     associated with the Ten Tribes of Israel. It is a remarkable fact
     that the majority of our Lord's disciples at the time of His
     earthly ministry were connected with the tribe of Benjamin. It is
     also of interest that, when Jerusalem was afterwards besieged by
     the Romans under Titus, the members of what had become the
     Christian tribe of Benjamin escaped.

     "Christ Himself declared, in Matt. xv. 24, this was His own
     mission: '_He answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost
     sheep of the House of Israel._'

     "Again our Lord says, in Matt. xxi. 43: '_Therefore say I unto you_
     (He was speaking to the Jews), _the kingdom of God shall be taken
     from you, and given to a nation_ (the Jews had long since ceased to
     be a nation) _bringing forth the fruits thereof_.'

     "The Jews themselves evidently so understood His statement, for in
     John vii. 35 we read:--

     "'Then said the Jews among themselves, Whither will He go, that we
     shall not find Him? Will He go unto the dispersed among the
     Gentiles, and teach the Gentiles?'

     "So the Jew quite understood our Lord to refer to Israel.

     "Israel was evidently in the minds of the apostles themselves. On
     the day of the ascension they asked Him:--

     "'Lord, wilt Thou at this time restore again the kingdom to
     Israel?' (Acts i. 6.)

     "A restoration of the kingdom of Israel with the kingdom of Judah
     had been promised. The apostles did not confuse the kingdom of
     Israel with that of Judah, for they said, 'Wilt Thou at this time
     restore the kingdom to Israel?' St. Paul devotes thirty-six verses
     in Romans xi. to prove that God has not cast away His people, but
     that "blindness in part is happened unto Israel until the fulness
     of the nations be come in," so that all Israel shall be saved.

     "Lastly, the final word must be that of our Lord. In Acts i. 7, 8
     Christ said:--

     "'_It is not for you to know the times or the seasons which the
     Father hath put in His own power, but ye shall receive power, after
     that the Holy Spirit is come upon you, and ye shall be witnesses
     unto Me in Jerusalem, in all Judea, in Samaria, and unto the
     uttermost parts of the earth_'--which refers to the 'regions
     beyond'--an expression that was fully understood to mean the
     dispersed among the Gentiles."

With much pain one has to say that this reveals either lamentable
ignorance of the plainest and simplest truths of New Testament Scripture
on the part of an otherwise educated man, or a clever adaptation by
which a lawyer would seek to support a preconceived theory.

I have already dealt with some of these perversions in the first part of
this pamphlet, so need only refer to them again in the briefest possible
manner.

(a) It is indeed "perfectly clear" to any reader of the New Testament
that Israel "was much in our Lord's mind during His three years'
ministry upon earth"; but as clear and evident is it to any candid
reader that the only "Israel" of whom He thought and spoke were the
people among whom He lived and moved, and to whom His blessed ministry
on earth was confined, and who are alternately called in the New
Testament "Jews" and "Israel."

It was to these "lost sheep" _in the land of Palestine_ for whom His own
compassions were moved when He beheld them in multitudes, that the
Twelve were sent out in Matt. x., and He ascribes to them the term
"lost" in a deeper and more solemn and spiritual sense than
Anglo-Israelism has evidently any conception of. (_See_ page 41.)

(b) The statement here repeated about the tribe of Benjamin, and that
the "majority of our Lord's disciples at the time of His earthly ministry
were connected with the tribe of Benjamin," is nothing but a fiction
invented by Anglo-Israelites, as already shown in Part I. (_See_ page
17.)

The only thing which is historically true is that the Apostle Paul was
of the tribe of Benjamin, but he was called after our Lord's earthly
ministry was ended, and he was appointed not to the "lost tribes," but
to preach Christ's Gospel _among the Gentiles_ (Acts xxii. 21; Rom. xi.
13; Gal. i. 16).

(c) The nation which brings forth the fruits of the kingdom of God
during the present dispensation of Israel's national unbelief is not the
British Empire, but _the Church of Christ_--the elected body out of
_all_ nations and kindreds and peoples and tongues, who are called "a
chosen generation (or 'elect race'), a royal priesthood, a _holy nation_
([Greek: ethnos]), a people for God's own possession" (1 Peter ii. 9).

(d) To state that the Jews themselves understood Christ's statement in
Matt. xxi. 43 as referring to some "lost" Israel, because in John vii.
35 they said: "Will He go unto the dispersed ([Greek: ten dosporan])
among the Gentile (or 'Greeks'), and teach the Greeks?" is not true.

The "dispersed" among the Greeks were Hellenistic "_Jews_" of all the
Twelve Tribes scattered abroad, who stood (as already shown in Part II.)
in closest connection with the Temple and hierarchy in Jerusalem, and
were never "lost"; and the Greeks among whom they were dispersed were
"_Gentiles_."

(e) And what can be said of such a perverted application of the
question in Acts i. 6, namely, that when the disciples, immediately
before Christ's ascension, asked: "Lord, wilt Thou at this time restore
the kingdom to Israel?" it was not their own nation, the "Jews," that
they meant, and Jerusalem the centre of God's kingdom on earth--but some
"lost" tribes in distant regions of which they knew nothing--I suppose
on the same principle of Anglo-Israel interpretation when Peter, with
the eleven on the Day of Pentecost, for instance, addressed the people
as "_Ye men of Israel_," and again, "Let all the house of Israel,
therefore, know assuredly that God hath made Him both Lord and
Christ--this Jesus whom ye crucified" (Acts ii. 22-36)--he did not speak
to the assembled multitude of "Jews" before him, but over their heads to
some distant regions where there were some wandering "lost" tribes who
alone were entitled to the name "Israel." But such assertions are
altogether too ridiculous to be treated seriously.

The "Israel" which "was evidently in the minds of the apostles," and to
whom Peter spoke, and of whom Paul wrote in that great prophetic section
in his Epistle to the Romans (chaps. ix.-xi.), were the "Jews," whether
of Palestine or in the "Dispersion," who are the only representatives of
all the Twelve Tribes of "Israel" with whom Scripture or prophecy has
any concern, and not any supposed "lost" tribes to be identified after
many centuries by Anglo-Israel writers as the British and the United
States.

(f) "Lastly, the final word," we are told, "must be that of our
Lord," and then there follows the quotation of the glorious promise and
prophetic forecast from Acts i. 7, 8: "_Ye shall receive power when the
Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be My witnesses both in
Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and unto the uttermost parts of
the earth_"; and we are assured that the last sentence refers "to the
regions beyond--an expression that was fully understood to mean the
dispersed among the Gentiles"--by which, I suppose, we are meant to
understand, the "lost" tribes.

But the sentence--[Greek: kai eos eschaton tes ges]--means, as it has
been properly rendered, "unto the end (or 'uttermost part') of the
earth," and has always been "fully" and properly understood by the
Church of Christ as a Divine warrant and forecast of the preaching of
the Gospel, not to the Dispersed _among_ the Gentiles, but to _the
heathen world_.


Note II.

THE PROMISES OF A MULTITUDINOUS SEED, AND THAT ISRAEL SHALL BECOME A
GREAT AND MIGHTY NATION.

A great point is made by all Anglo-Israel writers of the promises which
God made to the fathers of a multitudinous seed. The argument is, that
since the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were to be a great and
mighty and very numerous nation--yea, "a company of nations"--these
promises cannot apply to the "Jews," who are comparatively few in
number. There must exist, therefore, a people somewhere great and
mighty and numerous who are the seed of Abraham, in whom these promises
are realised.

Now look at the British Empire, how great and mighty it is in the earth,
and what vast numbers it includes, _ergo_, the British, including the
United States of America (which by some wonderful process of divination
Anglo-Israelites are able to distinguish and identify as "Manasseh," in
spite of the fact that their progenitors, who emigrated from England,
were, according to them "Ephraimites," and that those original emigrants
have since been mixed up with a flood of emigrants from all other races
under heaven), are the descendants of Abraham, and particularly of the
"lost" Ten Tribes!

Now the following are the Scriptures on the subject:

     (1) "And I will make of thee (Abraham) a great nation" (Gen. xii.
     2).

     (2) "And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth; so that if
     a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be
     numbered" (Gen. xiii. 16).

     (3) "And He brought him (Abraham) forth abroad, and said, Look now
     toward heaven, and tell the number of the stars, if thou be able to
     tell them: and He said unto him, So shall thy seed be" (Gen. xv.
     5).

     (4) "And God talked with him (Abraham), saying: As for Me, My
     covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be the father of a multitude
     of nations; neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but
     thy name shall be Abraham; for the father of a multitude of nations
     have I made thee. And I will make thee exceedingly fruitful, and I
     will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee" (Gen.
     xvii. 4-6).

     (5) "Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all
     the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him" (Gen. xviii. 18).

     (6) "In blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will
     multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven, and as the sand which is
     upon the seashore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his
     enemies" (a Hebrew idiom for "shall be victorious over his foes")
     (Gen. xxii. 17).

     (7) "And God said unto him (Jacob), I am God Almighty, be fruitful
     and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee,
     and kings shall come out of thy loins" (Gen. xxxv. 11).

To these passages have to be added Isaac's blessing to Jacob: "God
Almighty bless thee and make thee fruitful, and multiply thee, that thou
mayest be a company--literally, 'a congregation' of peoples" (Gen.
xxviii. 3); and Jacob's forecast of Ephraim in his blessing of Joseph's
sons, that his seed shall become "a multitude (or literally, 'a
fulness,') of the nations."

Now in reference to all these particular promises and forecasts, I would
beg your attention to the following observations:--

I. There are expressions in them which must not be pressed to the
extreme of literalness according to our Western ideas. We speak of
"nations," and think of them as embracing populations of whole
countries, and of "kings" as being sovereigns of States, but in the
earlier books of the Bible we are introduced to many "nations" and
"peoples" as comprised in one little country of Canaan, and of many
"kings" who were no more than chiefs, or rulers of "cities," which in
our modern times we would only class as "villages." As a matter of fact,
the term, _goim_, generally standing for "_nations_," and usually for
the _Gentile_ nations, is actually used for the _tribes_ or families of
the Jewish people. Here is the Scripture: "And He said unto me, Son of
Man, I send thee to the children of Israel, to nations, (_goim_--the word
is in the plural) that are rebellious, which have rebelled against Me"
(Ezek. ii. 3).

The "Jews," or "Israel," as they are properly called are being spoken
of as "nations," because they comprised different families or tribes.

Already Moses could say of the Israel of his time: "_Jehovah your God
hath multiplied you, and behold, ye are this day as the stars of heaven
for multitude_" (Deut. i. 10; x. 22); and Solomon, in his prayer for
wisdom, says: "_Thy servant is in the midst of Thy people which Thou
hast chosen, a great people that cannot be counted for multitude_" (1
Kings iii. 8).

The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews knew nothing of a supposed
identification of the millions in Britain and America with the "lost"
Ten Tribes, but speaking of the descendants of Abraham and Sarah, he
could say that because Abraham believed God, and Sarah herself, in spite
of natural impossibilities, judged Him faithful who had promised:
"_Wherefore also there sprang of one, and him as good as dead, so many
as the stars of heaven for multitude, and as the sand which is by the
seashore innumerable_" (Hebrews xi. 12); so that even if we view only
the past it is not true to assert that the promises of God that the seed
of Abraham should be a multitude which cannot be numbered, and
constitute "a company of nations," has not been fulfilled in the "Jews"
or "Israel," which has never been "lost."

II. The promises of a multitudinous seed and rapid increase of the seed
of Abraham, though in the first instance given to the fathers
unconditionally, and therefore will assuredly be fulfilled, were
nevertheless made conditional on Israel's obedience. It is with this, as
with all the other great promises, given to the Jewish nation. They were
conditional as far as any particular generation of Jews are concerned,
who may either enjoy them if in obedience, or forfeit them through
disobedience; but they are unconditional to the nation because God
abides faithful, and in the end all His plans and purposes in and
through them will be fulfilled. For this very reason He has preserved
them as a people in spite of all their sin and disobedience.

Now at the very commencement of Israel's history--long before there was
any likelihood of a schism among the tribes--Moses, speaking in the name
of God of the whole nation, says: "_If ye walk in My statutes and keep
My commandments to do them, ... I will have respect unto you and make
you fruitful and multiply you, and will establish My covenant with you_"
(Lev. xxvi. 3-9).

On the other hand, he solemnly forewarns them that if they shall
"corrupt themselves" and fall away from the living God, "I call heaven
and earth to witness against you this day that ye shall soon utterly
perish from off the land whereunto ye go over Jordan to possess it, ...
and Jehovah shall scatter you among the peoples, _and ye shall be left
few in number among the nations whither Jehovah shall lead you_" (Deut.
iv. 25-27).

This is repeated with solemn emphasis in Deut. xxviii. 62: "_And ye
shall be left few in number, whereas ye were as the stars of heaven for
multitude_." In the light of the Word of God, therefore, and apart from
all the absurdities involved in the Anglo-Israel theory, the very fact
that the British and American races are so numerous and powerful among
the nations precludes the possibility of their being Israel, for when
out of Palestine and in dispersion Israel was to become "few in number,"
and oppressed and downtrodden among the nations.

III. The underlying fallacy in the Anglo-Israel argument from the
promises of a multitudinous seed which God made to the fathers (and
this, indeed, is one of the chief errors underlying the whole theory),
is that it overlooks the fact that those promises, according to the
testimony of the prophets, will be fulfilled in the _future_, when (as
stated above) the Jewish nation, restored and converted, shall become
under the personal rule of their Messiah, great and mighty for God on
this earth. Then, when Israel shall be spiritually restored to God, and
in and through the grace of their Messiah they shall be a nation all
righteous and planted by God in their own land, "the little one shall
become a thousand, and the small one a strong nation" (Isa. lx. 21, 22);
and so rapidly and marvellously shall they increase that even the whole
promised land, which is fifty times as large as the portion of it "from
Dan to Beersheba," which alone they possessed in the past, shall become
too small for them, so that they shall say to the surrounding nations:
"_The place is too strait for me, give place ('make room') that I may
dwell_" (Isa. xlix. 19, 20).

Now all this has been, and will be, fulfilled in the "Jews," who, as I
have shown, are the people of the whole "_Twelve Tribes scattered
abroad_." In the dispersion among the nations they became reduced to
"few in number," but when they are restored and blessed God says: "I
will multiply them, and they shall not be few; I will also glorify them,
and they shall not be small" (Jer. xxx. 19).

Of the capacity for rapid increase of the Jewish people there is
sufficient proof already. The following is from a recent number of _The
Scattered Nation_:--

     "The marvellous increase of the Jewish people since their so-called
     'emancipation' in the xixth century, is indeed a striking sign of
     the times. The statement of a recent writer in the _Jewish
     Chronicle_ that at the commencement of the xvith century there
     could scarcely have been more than a million Jews left in the
     entire world after the untold sufferings, dispersions and massacres
     which they had to endure in the dark and middle ages--is probably
     true. The historian Basnage, in his 'History of the Jews from
     Jesus Christ to the Present Time,' calculated that in his time (end
     of the xviith and beginning of the xviiith century) there were
     3,000,000 Jews in the world. Since then, however, the growth of
     Jewry has been phenomenal. At the commencement of the xixth century
     there were said to be five millions. Half a century later the
     numbers reached six or seven millions; and at the end of another
     half a century--in 1896--the greatest living authority on Jewish
     statistics gave their number as eleven millions. And now, after the
     lapse of another seventeen or eighteen years, we are informed that
     there are no less than 13,000,000 Jews in the world. And the
     surprising feature of this latest calculation is the officially
     authenticated fact that, in the country where they are most
     persecuted, and which during the past three decades has driven
     forth millions to seek an asylum in other countries, there are more
     Jews to-day than ever before; and this in spite of pogroms, and
     baptisms, and overcrowding, and starvation, and the pursuance of a
     merciless policy of repression which led Pobiedonostsef to
     prognosticate that, in the end, a third of Russia's Jews would
     emigrate, a third would die, and a third would join the dominant
     faith. The old story of Israel in Egypt renews itself to-day in
     Russia: 'The more they afflicted them, the more they multiplied.'"

And if this be so now even in dispersion, we can imagine that in the
millennial period, under the fostering care and blessing of God, the
favoured nation will increase and multiply so that they will be as the
stars of heaven, and as the sand which is upon the seashore,
innumerable.


Note III.

THE PERPETUITY OF THE DAVIDIC THRONE.

One great Anglo-Israel argument that the British must be the "lost"
Israel is based on the promises which God made to David that his seed
and his throne shall be established for ever. Sometimes, indeed (as seen
in one of the quotations given in Part I., _see_ page 12), and in
keeping with Anglo-Israel logic, the argument is used the other way: "If
the Saxons be the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel, then the English throne is
a continuation of David's throne, and the seed on it must be the seed of
David, and the inference is clear, namely, that all the blessings
attaching by the holy promise to David's throne must belong to
England";[24] and since, according to the dictum of the theory, this
"must be so," evidence must somehow be found, both "historical" and from
Scripture. So on the historical side a genealogical table has been
produced in which the descent of the royal house of England (which may
God protect!) is directly traced to David and Judah--a table truly
strange and wonderful, and which only shows how easy it is to prove
anything if wild guesses and perverted fancies be treated as facts. On
these genealogical tables and "histories," however, with regard to which
we would only apply to the Anglo-Israel "world" the old Latin
proverb--_Mundus vult decipi et decipiatur_--it would be sheer waste of
time to enter here. It is the product of a false supposition, supported
by a logic which is also false, both in its premises and conclusions.
People whose capacity for credulity is large enough to believe the wild
romances spun out by Anglo-Israel writers about Jeremiah's journey to
Ireland with a daughter of Zedekiah, who brought with them as part of
their personal luggage the coronation stone which is now in Westminster
Abbey, are very welcome to believe it; and one would not trouble much
about them if they would only let the Bible alone and not pervert
Scripture.

But it is the supposed _Scriptural_ "proofs" which impose on some
simple-minded Christians, with whom alone we are concerned here. The
following passages almost all Anglo-Israel writers fasten upon:--

"_The Lord hath sworn unto David in truth, He will not turn from it; of
the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne_" (Psa. cxxxii. II).

"_I have sworn unto David My servant, Thy seed will I establish for
ever, and build up thy throne to all generations_" (Psa. lxxxix. 3, 4).

"_Thus saith Jehovah: If ye can break My covenant of the day, and my
covenant of the night, in their season, then may also My covenant be
broken with David My servant that he should not have a son to reign upon
his throne.... Thus saith the Lord: If My covenant of day and night
stand not, if I have not appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth;
then will I also cast away the seed of Jacob, and of David My servant,
so that I will not take of his seed to be rulers over the seed of
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob: for I will cause their captivity to return,
and will have mercy on them_" (Jer. xxxiii. 20, 21, 25, 26, R.V.).

The argument drawn from these Scriptures is: If the British be not
Israel, and the English throne be not a continuation of the throne of
David, where is the fulfilment of these promises? In answer to this
crude logic I would observe:--

I. That it seems to be quite a characteristic of Anglo-Israelism to
ignore our Lord Jesus Christ as the centre of all promise and prophecy,
just as it ignores the existence of the Church and the future kingdom of
God, for all which it substitutes the British people and the British
Empire. But _Christ_ is the true Son of David, and the only legitimate
heir to the Davidic throne. "The sure mercies of David," which are sure
(or "faithful," as the word may be better rendered), because God has
sworn to fulfil, or "establish" them, are all merged and centred _in
Him_. Hence, when His birth was announced to the Virgin Mary, the Angel
Gabriel said: "Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb and bring forth a
son, and shalt call His name Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be
called the Son of the Most High, and _the Lord God shall give unto Him
the throne of His father David, and He shall reign over the House of
Jacob for ever; and of His kingdom there shall be no end_" (Luke i.
31-33).

If Israel had received Him His throne would have been established, and
His visible reign on earth commenced then. But He was rejected, and so
the promise in reference to setting up again of the Davidic kingdom,
which had ceased to exist since the days of Zedekiah, was still deferred
until the purpose of God with reference to the Church should be
accomplished.

But the promises which God made to David have not failed, for Jesus, the
true Son of David, lives, and though He is for the present sitting on
the throne of God in heaven, _He is coming again_ to set up the throne
of His father David, and then "He shall reign over the House of Jacob
for ever, and of His kingdom there shall be no end."

II. It was announced in advance that during the "many days" of Israel's
apostasy, and consequent banishment from the land, they "_shall abide
without a king and without a prince_," _i.e._, without the true Davidic
king of God's appointment, and without a prince of their own choice, as
Jewish commentators have themselves explained, until "the latter days,"
when restored and converted they shall find in their Messiah the true
David, both their King and Prince.[25]

III. The only place on earth where a _throne of David_ can have any
legitimate place, either in the sight of God or of man, is on _Mount
Zion in Jerusalem_, and it is an absurdity to speak of the continuity of
a Davidic throne in England. Thank God that the right of the British
Sovereign to his illustrious throne rests on a firmer basis than the
fictitious genealogies made out by Anglo-Israelites.

IV. The same Scriptures, which speak of the perpetuity of the Davidic
seed and _throne_, speak also of the unceasing continuance of _the
priesthood_. "_Thus saith Jehovah, David shall never want a man to sit
upon the throne of the House of Israel; neither shall the priests the
Levites want a man before Me to offer burnt-offerings and to burn
oblations, and to do sacrifice continually.... Thus saith the Lord: If
ye can break My covenant of the day, and My covenant of the night, so
that there should not be day and night in their season; then may also My
covenant be broken with David My servant, that he should not have a son
to reign upon his throne; and with the Levites the priests, My
ministers_" (Jer. xxxiii. 17, 20, 21).

Now it would be quite as logical to argue that the ministers of the
Church of England must be the lineal descendants of the Levites, else
God's promise of the continuance of the priesthood has failed, as to
argue from these same Scriptures that there must be somewhere now on
earth a throne of David, or else these prophecies have proved false.

The truth is that neither have God's promises in reference to the throne
nor to the priesthood failed--for Christ is, in His blessed Person, the
Prophet, Priest, and King. He is all this now at the right hand of God,
for not only are all the essentials of the Aaronic priesthood fulfilled
in Him, but He is "a priest _for ever_ after the order of Melchizedek";
and when He is manifested again on earth to take up His throne and
reign, "_He shall be a priest upon His throne_, and the counsel of peace
shall be between them both."[26]


Note IV.

THE SO-CALLED HISTORIC PROOFS OF ANGLO-ISRAELISM.

I have stated on page 10 that the so-called Historic Proofs of
Anglo-Israelism, by which the theory is supported, are derived from
pagan myths and fables. Let the following suffice as a sample:--

     "To accomplish this" (_i.e._, that the seed of Abraham should
     inherit the isles of the west) "some were sent to take possession
     of the islands long before."

     The wrath of man is made to praise Him (Gen. xxxvii. 2; l. 15-21),
     which led to the flight of Danaus, the son of Bela, from _Egyptus_
     his brother. Dan is the son of Bilhah and brother of Joseph, who
     was over all the Egyptians. This was the first secession from
     Israel. This is probably alluded to in Ezekiel xx. 5-9. Another
     secession took place (1 Chron. vii. 21-24). A third secession was
     after the Exodus. When in the Wilderness Num. xiv. 1-4 states that
     they said, "Let us make a captain." Nehemiah ix. 17 tells us they
     did so (compare Psa. cvi. 26, 27; Ezek. xx. 21-23).

     _Hecatoeus of Abdera_ (6th century B.C.), quoted by _Diodorus
     Siculus_ (B.C. 50), i. 27, 46, 55, says:--

     "The most distinguished of the expelled foreigners (from Egypt)
     followed Danaus and Cadmus into Greece; but the greater number were
     led by Moses into Judaea."

     In Aeschylus' _Supplicants_ (B.C. 6th century) Danaus and his
     daughters are represented as a "seed divine," exiles from Egypt,
     fleeing from their brother Egyptus. Since they feared an unholy
     alliance, they appear to have passed through Syria and perhaps
     Sidon into Greece.[27]

I will say nothing here about the Scripture references in the first
paragraph, but if any intelligent Bible student will look them up he
will see that only a perverted fancy can see in them any justification
for the theory here propounded. But, as will be noted, the heathen fable
about Aegyptus and Danaus is here brought into the history of Israel,
Danaus being identified as Dan, the son of Bilhah; and Aegyptus, I
suppose, with Joseph. Now here is the pagan fable, and let the reader
judge what connection it has with the history of the sons of Jacob.

Aegyptus, who had fifty sons, and Danaus, who had fifty daughters, were
twin brothers. Their father, Belus, the son of Poseidon, identified by
the Romans with Neptunus, the god of the Mediterranean Sea, had assigned
Libya to Danaus; but, fearing Aegyptus, his brother, he fled with his
fifty daughters to Argos in Peloponnessus, where he was elected king by
the Argives in place of Gelanor, the reigning monarch. Thither, however,
he was followed by the fifty sons of Aegyptus, who demanded his daughters
for their wives. Danaus complied with their request, but gave to each of
his daughters a dagger with which to kill their husbands in the bridal
night. All the sons of Aegyptus were thus murdered, with but one
exception. The life of Lynceus was spared by his wife, Hypermnestra,
who, according to the legend, afterwards avenged the death of his
forty-nine brothers by killing his father-in-law Danaus.

The fifty daughters of Danaus, known as "the Danaides," were punished in
Hades for their crime by being compelled everlastingly to pour water
into a sieve. Note also that the fable propagated by Manetho that the
Jews were _expelled_ from Egypt as lepers, and the legend of Hecataeus,
quoted by Diodorus Siculus that, "the most distinguished of these
expelled followed Danaus and Cadmus into Greece, but the greater number
were led by Moses into Judea," is also accepted as history. Some of
these same pagan writers believed that the object of worship in the Holy
of Holies was the head of an ass, and other absurdities of the same
nature. I wonder if Anglo-Israel "theologians" accept this also as
"history."

I may here add that the identification by Anglo-Israel writers of Tea,
or Tephi, the heroine of some Irish ballads, with a princess of the
royal house of Judah, whom Jeremiah brought to Ireland in one of the
ships of Dan, and who married Esincaid, King of Ulster, and so became
the ancestress of the royal houses of Ireland and Scotland, and
subsequently of England--has just as much "history" for its basis as the
identification of Danaus with Dan, or of Aegyptus with Joseph.

The value of Irish legends and ballads (upon which the romances of
Anglo-Israel writers are largely based), as sources of "history," may be
judged from the following introductory statement taken from a standard
compendium of the history of Ireland:

"The history of Ireland, like that of almost all ancient countries,
'tracks its parent lake' back into the enchanted realms of legend and
romance and fable. It has been said, not untruly, of Ireland that she
'can boast of ancient legends rivalling in beauty and dignity the tales
of Attica and Argolis; she has an early history whose web of blended
myth and reality is as richly coloured as the record of the rulers of
Alba Longa and the story of the Seven Kings.' We cannot now make any
effort to get at history in the beautiful myths and stories. We should
puzzle our brains in vain to find out whether the Lady Cesair, who came
to Ireland before the Deluge with fifty women and three men, has any
warrant from genuine tradition, or is a child of fable altogether. We
cannot get any hint of the actual truth about Conn of the Hundred
Fights, and Fin MacCoul and Oisin. But the impression which does seem to
be conveyed clearly enough from all these romances and fables and
ballads is that the island was occupied in dim far-off ages by
successive invaders who came from the south.

"The Phoenicians are said to have represented one wave of invasion and
the Greeks another....

"What may be called the authentic history of Ireland begins with the
life and career of St. Patrick (5th century)."


Note V.

"THE GATE OF HIS ENEMIES."

One brief note more must be added on a point which all Anglo-Israel
writers advance as proof positive in support of their theory. It is the
promise that God made to Abraham, "Thy seed shall possess the gate of
his enemies." The term "gate" (or "gates" as often mis-quoted) is taken
to signify "strait," "port," or strategic maritime position and these
writers grow quite eloquent in pointing out the many maritime points of
vantage which are in occupation of the British as a fulfilment of this
ancient promise to the chosen people.

Thus the writer of "Fifty Reasons" (W. H. Poole, D.D.), with which I
have already dealt, asks (page 61) "What nation or people are now the
gate-holders of the nations? We hold Gibraltar, Malta, Cyprus, Acre,
Suez Canal, Aden, Perim," and many other important maritime points which
he enumerates, and concludes triumphantly "_For 500 years Britain has
been the gate-holder in the lands of those who hate her_"--a very
doubtful compliment this, by the way, to British rule over her acquired
possessions.

But like many other Anglo-Israel "proofs" it has no basis in philology
or in fact. The word--Sha'ar ("gate") is used hundreds of times in the
Hebrew Bible, but _never once_ either literally or figuratively of a
maritime "strait" or "port." The "gate" as being not only the entrance
to, but as giving control or possession of the oriental (walled) city,
often stands for the city itself. It was, moreover, the most public
place of the city, where causes were tried and justice administered
(Deut. xxi. 19; xxii. 15; Prov. xxii. 22; Amos v. 10-15); and where
elders and judges, kings and princes "sat" officially for counsel or
often to exercise authority and rule (Dan. ii. 49; Jer. xvii. 19;
xxxviii. 7).

The promise that Abraham's seed should possess the gate of his enemies
is idiomatic figurative language, equivalent to saying that they shall
be victorious over their enemies, and take possession of their cities.
This was fulfilled when at the conquest of Canaan the Israelites took
possession of the land and thus assumed the position of lordship over
the doomed nations who are spoken of as their "enemies."

We may notice, by way of contrast, that in Jer. i. 14-16 God threatens
that as a punishment on Israel for their sin He would call all the
families of the kingdoms of the north, and "they shall set every one his
throne at the entrance of the gates of Jerusalem," which is equivalent
to saying that the Gentiles would possess "the gate" of Israel--which as
a matter of fact, they are now permitted to do by treading down
Jerusalem and scattering the people until the times of the Gentiles are
fulfilled.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 23: See 2 Chron. xx. 1-13.]

[Footnote 24: "The Lost Ten Tribes," by Joseph Wild. The Eighteenth
Discourse.]

[Footnote 25: See "The Interregnum and After"--the first chapter of my
book, "The Ancient Scriptures and the Modern Jew."]

[Footnote 26: One fundamental of the Anglo-Israel theory is that the
destinies of Israel and Judah are distinct and separate. Most
inconsistent, therefore, is their appropriation of David, the King of
Judah, with the promises applying to his royal house _for ever_; their
endeavour should rather be to claim, if they can find in Scripture
promises made to descendants of Jeroboam's line, or some other King of
Israel--with David they can have nothing to do.]

[Footnote 27: "Palestine into Britain," by Rev. L. G. A. Roberts,
Secretary of the "Imperial British Israel Association."]




APPENDIX.

ARE WE THE TEN TRIBES?


By the Late HORATIUS BONAR, D.D.

(Reprinted by permission from _The Sunday at Home_, October, 1880.)

That the inhabitants of Great Britain are Israelites is a modern theory
which has been widely spread. Its defenders have invented a large number
of resemblances or "identifications," on which, in the absence of
authentic history or national tradition, they rest their proof.

The languages of our country--Saxon, English, Welsh, and Celtic--have no
affinity with the Hebrew; but that is made of no account. The history of
the many tribes of which our nation is composed--whether Teutonic, or
Saxon, or Caledonian, or Latin, or Scandinavian--is totally distinct
from that of any of the tribes of Israel; but authentic history is in
this case wholly set aside.

The manners and customs of our nation, both religious and social, have
not the slightest resemblance to those of Israel; but this is quite
ignored. The physiognomy of our countrymen--whether they are English, or
Welsh, or Scotch, or Celtic, or Norwegian, or Norman--is the very
opposite of Eastern, the Israelitish face being a marked contrast to the
British; but that is reckoned of no consequence.

The names of men, women, and places in our land are not Hebrew or
Semitic at all, but are traceable to another class of language
altogether; yet _this_ weighs nothing. The occupation of our land by
certain tribes, who we now call the Aboriginal Caledonians, or Britons
(long before the Ten Tribes were carried captive to Assyria, and who,
therefore, could not be Israelites), is passed by. The grand story of an
Israelitish emigration from Assyria into Great Britain, whether by sea
or land, we are not told, and there is neither history nor tradition nor
local monuments to confirm it. And yet, when was there _ever_ an
emigration in which the emigrants did not carry their language, their
religion, their manners, their dress, and their national traditions with
them? This the identifiers of Israel with England have not considered.
The Two Tribes in their dispersion over wide Europe carried their
worship, their language, and their manners, into every European city,
and synagogues exist to this day which were set up centuries before
Christ, and every European Jew can tell for certain that he is a
descendant of Abraham, and lives apart from the Gentiles around; yet, if
the Anglo-Israelite theory be true, the Ten Tribes poured in upon Great
Britain and settled themselves there, drove back the Aborigines, but
left their religion, their books, their priesthood, their language,
their names behind them, like cast-off clothes, in order to prevent
themselves from being identified, as if ashamed of their ancestry. It
must have been with Israelites that Julius Caesar fought; their queen,
Boadicea, not a Hebrew name, and their general, Caractacus, not a Hebrew
name either: these Israelites must have set up the Druid religion in the
island, and to them we must owe Stonehenge and similar relics of
antiquity.

There is no evidence in the Bible, or in history, or tradition, for any
such Israelitish emigration. Such a flood could not have passed over
Europe, either north or south, without leaving some trace or being
mentioned in history. If some two or three millions of Israelites did
pour into this remote and barbarous island of ours, it must have been
before the Romans came; and such a flood of Easterns must have made it a
populous island, which certainly it was not.

These cultivated Easterns--for the Israelites, even in their apostasy,
were a highly educated and cultivated nation--flowed in upon an island
of barbarians, yet produced no impression, taught them no arts, gave
them no language, and brought no civilisation to the barbarous Britons
and Caledonians; whereas the Romans, who followed, carried language,
arts, manners, names with them, and left behind them (though theirs was
but a brief military occupation) traces of their Latin footsteps, which
remain to us after nineteen centuries. Traverse our island, and you will
find in every county names and traditions and ruins that tell you that
Rome was once here; but no name or traditions to say that Israel was
here. Note: In Cornwall there may be some traces of Phoenician commerce;
but we know whence these Eastern strangers came and the object of their
coming, viz., to procure tin from the mines.

Are such things credible or possible? Prophecy, moreover, intimates that
Israel is to remain scattered and under the curse till the Redeemer
comes out of Zion, and will turn away ungodliness from Jacob. The whole
Twelve Tribes are under the curse till the great day of national
deliverance comes for Judah and for Israel.

Let Rom. xi. be studied in connection with this.

The "identifications" gravely announced in some of the many pamphlets of
Anglo-Israelitish literature are somewhat peculiar, and do not carry any
extraordinary amount of weight with them to counterbalance the above
arguments. Here are a few of them:--

1. "Isles and islands," spoken of by the prophets. These must be the
British Isles, and, therefore, their inhabitants are the Ten Tribes.

2. "Israel loveth to oppress," the prophet says; "England loveth to
oppress"--therefore, England is Israel.

3. "I believe," says one of the Anglo-Israelitish authors, "that Sunday
Schools have been raised up purposely for this identity!"

4. "Israel is to occupy the ends of the earth." Britain does so;
therefore, Britain is Israel.

5. "Israel is to possess the gates of his enemies." We possess
Gibraltar, Malta, the Cape, etc.; therefore, we are Israel, for these
are "the gates" of our enemies.

6. "The smoke and fire coming up from the cities and furnaces of our
land are like the pillar cloud of Israel."

7. The people in the South of Ireland trouble us, just as the Canaanites
troubled Israel; therefore, we are Israel, for the South of Ireland is
peopled by the descendants of the Canaanites.

8. Jacob's stone is still in our possession. It is that on which Jacob
slept, that which was the chief corner-stone of the Temple--saved by
Jeremiah, and taken by him to Ireland, and then placed in Westminster
Abbey under the Coronation chair; therefore, the English are Israelites.

9. "Jacob's glory is like the firstling of a bullock" (Deut. xxxiii.
17). The identifiers write: "The ox being oftentimes applied to Israel
may partly be said to emblemise the world-famed power of John Bull."

No evidence (worthy of its name), either historical, ethnological,
linguistic, or traditional, is produced; we get nothing but conjectures
and fanciful allusions as the proofs of this singular theory.

Some of its defenders boast that since this theory was started the
incomes of our Jewish Mission Societies have fallen off by L15,000.
Whether this is true or not we cannot say; but the boast, whatever be
its foundation, shows the spirit of the writers and the tendency of the
new doctrine.

Noah's prophecy stands out clear and sharp with its threefold ethnology;
Shem, Ham and Japheth are the roots of the nations, and God has kept
them distinct: let us beware of confounding them. History tells us that
our pedigree is to be traced to Japheth. The modern discoveries in
ethnology confirm this beyond a doubt; Eastern monuments, whether of
Assyria or Egypt, tell the same story.

The above theory rests on a misreading of prophetic truth: such a
misreading robs it of all its Divine spirituality. Outward national
prosperity and greatness, not righteousness nor truth, are made the
characteristics of the Israel of prophecy. England--full of crime,
infidelity, immorality, and ungodliness--is said to be now enjoying the
favour of God, which is destined for Israel in the latter day! The
knowledge of the glory of the Lord is to be the privilege of these
tribes, and by that knowledge they are to be exalted. But this theory
give us another standard of the nation's greatness--a standard which no
part of Scripture recognises, least of all the sure word of prophecy,
the light in the dark place. This theory darkens the whole prophetic
Word, perverting events and inverting times and seasons. It denies
Israel's present guilt, and lowers our ideas of Israel's coming glory.
It puts a Gentile King and Queen in the place of the nation's own
Messiah, under whose sceptre alone it is to enjoy peace, blessedness and
holy greatness. It rejects the apostle's symbol of the olive tree, in
Rom. xi.; Not merely confounding the Jewish and the Gentile
dispensation, denying that the once good olive tree has for a season
become evil, and its branches cut off to make room for the grafts of the
wild olive tree.

This is emphatically and pre-eminently the time of the wild olive tree,
whereas this theory not only confuses the wild olive with the good, but
denies that it is the grafted branches of the wild olive tree that are
now bearing fruit and receiving blessing.

When the dispensation of the wild olive, or Gentile, shall end, then,
but not till then, shall the blessing and the glory return to the good
olive--that is, to "all Israel."

Let us take the Word of God simply as we find it. Let us beware of
fanciful identifications, which, even were they true, are not worth the
stress laid upon them. Suppose I could prove, not by conjecture, but by
registered genealogies, that I belong to the tribe of Ephraim or
Issachar, what does it profit me? Will it make me a holier man to know
that I belong to those northern tribes against which the Lord, when
here, pronounced His darkest woes, as primarily and pre-eminently His
rejectors. "Woe unto thee, Chorazin! Woe unto thee, Bethsaida! It shall
be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the Day of Judgment than for
thee."

Capernaum, the representative of the Ten Tribes, had been condemned for
refusing the Lord of Glory before Jerusalem was cast away.

To esteem external national prosperity as God's special mark of favour,
is to carnalise all the prophets, and to degrade, not only the glory of
the latter day, but present privileges in Christ; for what a poor thing
these privileges and the glory must be if this sinful nation of ours,
that seems ripe for judgment and rejection, be the exhibition of these,
the fulfilment of Jehovah's promises to the beloved people.




Other Works by DAVID BARON.


  The Servant of Jehovah: The                  New Cheaper Edition.
  Sufferings of the Messiah and the            Price 3s. 6d. net.
  Glory that should Follow

  Types, Psalms and Prophecies:                3rd Revised Edition.
  A Selected Series of Old Testament Studies   Price 6s. net.

  The Visions and Prophecies of                2nd Cheaper Edition.
  Zechariah: "The Prophet of Hope              566 pages, demy 8vo.
  and of Glory"                                Price 7s. 6d. net.

  The Ancient Scriptures and                   Sixth Edition.
  the Modern Jew                               Crown 8vo.
                                               Price 4s. 6d. net.
  The Shepherd of Israel and His
  Scattered Flock: A solution of the           New Edition.
  Enigma of Jewish History                     Price 2s. 6d. net.

  Israel's Inalienable Possessions:            New and Revised Edition.
  The Gifts and the Calling of God which are   Paper Covers, 9d. net. Cloth
  without Repentance                           1s. 4d. net.

  A Divine Forecast of Jewish                  New and Enlarged
  History--A Proof of the Supernatural         Edition. Paper Covers,
  Element in Scripture                         9d. net.

  The Jewish Problem--Its Solution;            New Edition. Crown 8 vo.
  or, Israel's Present and Future              Price 1s. net.


  Christ and Israel: Lectures and Addresses    Price 4s. net.
  on the Jews. By Adolph Saphir,
  D.D. Collected and Edited by David
  Baron


Morgan and Scott Ltd., 12, Paternoster Buildings, E.C.; or from The
Hebrew Christian Testimony to Israel, "En-Hakkore," Northwood,
Middlesex.

All these books can be had also in America from the China Inland
Mission, 237, West School Lane, Germantown, Philadelphia, Pa.



***