Sam the Fraudster Just Outed Himself

 

Searching the web

30 results

Well, well, well... look who's finally tripping over his own typewriter ribbon. Our boy Samuel Kitchen has once again graciously outed himself as quite the creative fraudster.

For some time now, he's been peddling these charming AI-generated "documents"—carefully disguised as precious relics from the 1950s or 60s, supposedly hammered out on Herbert W. Armstrong's (HWA) very own typewriter. You know the drill: artfully crossed-out typos, those adorable key-shift glitches, a splash of dramatic red ink here and there, all the classic pre-digital flair to fool the faithful into thinking they've unearthed long-lost apostolic wisdom.

Today, he blessed us with yet another masterpiece—one of those "letters" that looks exactly like the usual pre-computer-era church drivel. Except, of course, even back in the day, God's chosen apostle wouldn't have dared send out something riddled with so many sloppy mistakes. Most official correspondence by the 1960s was proudly produced on those sleek IBM Selectric typewriters (which debuted in glorious 1961, thank you very much). Heaven forbid HWA himself would tolerate such amateur-hour errors in his divine missives.

Anyway, as Bwana Bob loves to say,  just scroll to the very last paragraph. There it is—the glorious slip-up where our boy Samuel casually mentions "purchasing" the Ambassador Auditorium.

Ah, yes, because nothing screams "authentic 1950s HWA letter" like casually plotting to buy a building that wouldn't even exist until the early 1970s (dedicated in 1974, for the historically challenged). Brilliant move, Samuel. Truly inspired. Nothing says "time-traveling forgery" quite like referencing a future real-estate transaction in a supposed vintage document. Oh, and by the way, the crooked type print, like you placed the paper on the copier glass crooked, though somehow kept the very last paragraph perfectly straight, is a nice touch.

Keep 'em coming, champ—we're all dying to see what anachronistic gem you drop next, particularly for a building that you will NEVER buy!

   

Debunking the PCG: America and Great Britain in Biblical Prophecy

 

America and Great Britain in Biblical Prophecy

Posted on August 9, 2006 by Claude Mariottini

On Tuesday, August 08, 2006, The Trumpet.com republished an article by Ryan Malone and Stephen Hill titled “The End of the Free World,” an article in which the writers describe the role the United States and Great Britain will play in the events of the last days. They wrote:

One of the most astounding secrets of the Bible—that the United States and Britain are two of the most prominent nations mentioned in prophecy—may initially appear startling, or even preposterous, to some of our readers.

The reason “the United States and Britain are two of the most prominent nations mentioned in prophecy” is because Britain, the nations of the British Commonwealth, and the United States of America are the remnant of Ephraim and Manasseh, two of the lost ten tribes of Israel.

Malone and Hill wrote:

Before we can understand the prophecies pertaining to the United States and Britain, an understanding of the identity of these countries in the Bible is essential. The abundant material blessings eventually to be bestowed on the U.S. and the British Commonwealth of nations were initially conveyed to the biblical patriarch Abraham because of his obedience (Gen. 22:16-18). He then passed them on to his son Isaac, who later did the same with his son Jacob. In due time, Jacob conferred this birthright promise to his son Joseph’s sons—Manasseh and Ephraim.

This is the reason, according to the two writers, that Old Testament prophets like Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Isaiah and Hosea provided specific detail about what is to happen to the United States and Britain.

The view advocated in this article is called “British-Israelism.” British-Israelism is the view that teaches that Great Britain and the United States are the remnant of the ten lost tribes of Israel. Thus, those who have adopted this view believe that the United States and Great Britain are God’s Chosen People.

The advocates of British-Israelism believe that biblical prophecies about the future of Israel and Judah are in reality prophecies about the destiny of America and Great Britain.

The concept of the ten lost tribes of Israel came into existence after the exile of the Northern Kingdom of Israel by Assyria. In 722 B.C., after the death of Shalmanassar V, King of Assyria, Sargon II finished the conquest of Israel. The capital of the Northern Kingdom, Samaria was conquered and thousands of people were deported to other parts of the Assyrian Empire.

The advocates of British-Israelism believe that the people of Israel who went into exile eventually migrated from their places of exile into the British Isles. These refugees eventually dispersed to America and Canada, thus establishing an Israelite presence in the Anglo-Saxon world.

Among the evidence given by the advocates of this view is that the word “Saxons” is a corruption of the expression “Isaac’s sons.” The advocates of this view also say that the word “British” is formed by the Hebrew word brit which means “covenant” and the word ish which means “man.” Thus, the word “British” means “covenant man.”

According to British-Israelism, America and Great Britain are heirs of God’s promises to Israel and because of that, many biblical prophecies have been fulfilled in the lives of these two nations. America and Great Britain have been blessed with prosperity and material wealth and have become two great superpowers.

But because of disobedience to God’s law, America and Great Britain have begun experiencing God’s judgment:

Also prophesied for America and Britain was the gain of strategic sea gates (Gen. 22:17) only to be lost as these nations reaped curses for disobedience. This too has already largely occurred. The 20th century saw Britain’s and America’s loss of sea gates such as the Suez Canal, Malta, Singapore, Hong Kong, the Falkland Islands, the Cape of Good Hope and the Panama Canal. Gibraltar will undoubtedly be added to the list soon, as Britain is being bullied by the European Union to relinquish control of this strategic territory, under threat of horrendous fines.

The views proposed by British-Israelism find no support in the Bible even though its proponents use many biblical passages to prove their point. A careful study of the Old Testament will show that the lost tribes of the Northern Kingdom were never lost.

When Sargon II deported the population of the Northern Kingdom, he deported only a portion of the population. According to the Sargon Inscription, when Sargon captured Samaria he took captive 27,290 people, but many more were left behind.

During the reforms of Josiah in 622 B.C., Josiah made an attempt to extend his religious reforms to the remnant of the Northern Tribes. According to 2 Chronicles 34:8-9, Josiah contacted Israelite people who lived in Ephraim and Manasseh:

In the eighteenth year of Josiah’s reign, to purify the land and the temple, he sent Shaphan son of Azaliah and Maaseiah the ruler of the city, with Joah son of Joahaz, the recorder, to repair the temple of the LORD his God. They went to Hilkiah the high priest and gave him the money that had been brought into the temple of God, which the Levites who were the doorkeepers had collected from the people of Manasseh, Ephraim and the entire remnant of Israel and from all the people of Judah and Benjamin and the inhabitants of Jerusalem.

The reference in Chronicles to the people of Manasseh, Ephraim, and the entire remnant of Israel may reflect the Chronicler’s view that all Israel was still a viable option. However, this reference clearly indicates that during the time of the Chronicler, the remnant of the tribes of Israel were not lost.

As for America and Great Britain, they are not found in the oracles of Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Isaiah and Hosea. Only through the process of eisegesis, reading one’s view into the biblical text, is America and Great Britain found in the Old Testament.

British-Israelism is not supported by the teachings of the Bible. The interpretation of biblical prophecies showing that America and Great Britain are the lost tribes of Israel is false.

Christians who are interested in prophecy and the events related to the last days must be careful not to be deceived by false teachings. Believers should always be aware of the words of Christ, that in the last days “there will be false prophets, and they will give signs and wonders in the hope of turning even the saints from the true way” (Mark 13:22).

If you want to read about the fallacy of British-Israelism online, read British-Israelism: A Mirage by R. P. Nettelhorst.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Does A New Covenant Christian Need To Worry About The Unsupported Conjecture Of British Israelism ?

The single most self-anointed prophet God has graced the internet once again with his divine presence. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, he’s back—triumphantly flaunting yet another magnum opus that heroically attempts to “prove” British Israelism is the One True Key to All Scripture.

There is no need for actual Christians to lose even thirty seconds of sleep over this theological masterpiece. As they plod along in their boring, everyday New Covenant walk—y’know, the one where Jesus is actually the center—they can safely ignore the whole carnival of absurdities and outright heresies being sprayed in Crackpot Bob's book and on his websites that is nothing more than theological graffiti.

Because let’s be crystal clear: the New Covenant doesn’t just politely disagree with British Israelism—it utterly dynamites the entire rickety scaffolding of that myth and scatters the debris into the sea of irrelevance. Poof. Gone. No residual spiritual DNA required.

And yet… in the alternate universe known as Armstrongism, British Israelism isn’t just a quirky side doctrine—it’s basically the load-bearing beam holding up the whole circus tent. Strip away the sacred Anglo-Saxon-Israel fantasy and—surprise!—the entire doctrinal edifice collapses faster than a house of cards in a windstorm. Suddenly, the whole “Restored Truth” project is left standing there… impotent, awkward, and desperately clutching its identity chart like it’s the last lifeboat on the Titanic.

Truly, one cannot overstate the cosmic importance of insisting that the British throne is secretly David’s and that modern Americans are—against all historical, genetic, linguistic, and archaeological evidence—literal descendants of ancient Ephraim and Manasseh. Remove that one utterly indispensable pillar and poof: Armstrongism is reduced to just another guy in a suit yelling about the Sabbath and pork. How tragic. How fragile. How gloriously overrated.

Carry on, faithful remnant. The rest of us will just keep following that obscure Jewish carpenter who apparently forgot to mention He was really building His kingdom through the British Empire. Silly oversight on His part.

British Israelism, also known as Anglo-Israelism, is a 19th-century doctrine asserting that the Anglo-Saxon peoples, particularly those of the British Isles and their descendants (including Americans), are the direct genetic, racial, and linguistic heirs of the Ten Lost Tribes of ancient Israel that were exiled by the Assyrians in 722 B.C. Proponents claim this fulfills biblical prophecies about Israel's restoration, with the British monarchy tracing back to King David and the United States or Britain representing tribes like Ephraim or Manasseh. However, this teaching lacks sound biblical, historical, or scientific foundation, as detailed below.

Biblical and Theological Flaws

British Israelism relies on selective, out-of-context interpretations of Scripture, often engaging in eisegesis (reading preconceived ideas into the text) rather than exegesis (deriving meaning from the text). Key issues include:

• The "Lost Tribes" Were Not Entirely Lost: The Bible does not describe the ten northern tribes as vanishing without trace or migrating en masse to distant lands like Britain. Second Kings 17:18 notes their deportation to Assyria, but subsequent passages show remnants integrating with the southern kingdom of Judah. For instance, Second Chronicles 15:9 records people from Ephraim, Manasseh, and Simeon (northern tribes) settling in Judah before the Assyrian invasion. Second Chronicles 35:18 describes Israelites celebrating the Passover with Judah about 90 years after the deportation. In the New Testament, the prophetess Anna is identified as from the tribe of Asher (Luke 2:36), one of the supposedly lost tribes. Additionally, post-exilic texts like Ezra 1:3 and 2:70 refer to "all Israel" returning from Babylon, including members from northern tribes such as Ephraim and Manasseh (1 Chronicles 9:2–3), indicating no complete loss.
• Misapplication of Prophecies: Advocates often literalize prophecies about Israel's restoration (e.g., Jeremiah 31, Ezekiel 37) to apply exclusively to modern Anglo-Saxons, ignoring the New Testament's spiritual fulfillment in the Church. Galatians 3:28–29 and Romans 9:6–8 emphasize that true Israel consists of believers in Christ, not ethnic descendants: "Not all who are descended from Israel are Israel." First Peter 2:9–10 applies Old Testament descriptors of Israel (e.g., "chosen people") to the multi-ethnic Christian community. Claims that Jeremiah transplanted King David's line to Britain via Zedekiah's daughters lack any biblical mention; instead, the Davidic line continues through Jehoiachin (Jeremiah 52:31–34, Matthew 1:12–16).
• Inconsistent Tribal Counting: The Old Testament lists the twelve tribes variably (e.g., Genesis 29 vs. Deuteronomy 33), sometimes omitting Levi or splitting Joseph into Ephraim and Manasseh. After the kingdom split, the northern kingdom likely had only 8–9 tribes, as Levites were dispersed and many faithful northerners migrated south (2 Chronicles 11:13–17), undermining the "ten lost tribes" premise.
• Emphasis on Fleshly Descent Contradicts the Gospel: The doctrine promotes ethnic superiority, which Paul condemns in Philippians 3:3–8, counting his Israelite heritage as "dung" compared to knowing Christ. It revives Old Covenant distinctions abolished in the New Covenant (Ephesians 2:14–16).

Mainstream biblical scholars view British Israelism as a fringe ideology driven by nationalism rather than sound exegesis, with no support from the text's historical-grammatical context.

Historical Flaws

Historical records provide no evidence for a mass migration of Israelites from Assyria to Britain, and the theory originated as 19th-century speculation without ancient roots.

• No Archaeological or Documentary Proof: Assyrian records confirm deporting about 27,000 Israelites (roughly 20–25% of the northern kingdom's population of 70,000–100,000), but many remained in the land, fled to Judah or Egypt, or became part of the Samaritan population. No inscriptions, artifacts, or chronicles describe a trek through the Caucasus (as some claim) to Europe. Empires like Assyria, Babylon, and Persia tightly controlled populations, making large-scale escapes improbable.
• Unlikely Migration Logistics: Traveling from the Middle East to Britain in ancient times would involve crossing hostile territories, mountains, and seas, with no historical trace of such a journey by a displaced people. If freed, exiles would more likely return to their homeland than venture to unknown isles.
• Ethnological and Cultural Mismatches: British history traces to Celtic, Roman, Anglo-Saxon, Viking, and Norman influences, not Semitic origins. Claims of linguistic ties (e.g., "British" from "berith ish" meaning "covenant man") are folk etymology without scholarly basis; English is Indo-European, while Hebrew is Afro-Asiatic Semitic.

The theory emerged in the 1800s amid British imperialism, appealing to notions of divine favoritism, but it has been dismissed by historians as pseudohistory.

Scientific Disproof

Modern science, particularly genetics, linguistics, and archaeology, conclusively refutes British Israelism's core claims of direct descent.

• Genetic Evidence: DNA studies show no significant ancestral link between Anglo-Saxons and ancient Israelites. Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), passed unchanged through maternal lines, and Y-chromosome DNA (tracing paternal lines) reveal distinct pools: Middle Eastern populations (e.g., Jews, Arabs) cluster together, separate from white Europeans. For example, haplogroups common in Europeans (like R1b, found in ~65% of British men) originated in prehistoric Europe and Western Asia but diverged long before biblical times, with no specific Israelite signature matching British populations. Ancient DNA from Israelite sites (e.g., Iron Age Levant) aligns with modern Levantine groups, not Celts or Anglo-Saxons. Over millennia, genetic mixing makes tracing specific ancient groups without cultural continuity (like Ashkenazi Jews) impossible, but even then, no "lost tribe" markers appear in British genomes. Claims of Mideast links in British DNA (e.g., from Phoenician traders) are minimal and predate the Assyrian exile, not evidence of tribal descent.
• Linguistic and Archaeological Refutation: As noted, languages don't match: Hebrew's Semitic roots differ fundamentally from Indo-European ones. Archaeology yields no artifacts linking Israelite culture to ancient Britain; instead, British prehistory shows local and continental European influences.

In summary, British Israelism is unsupported conjecture, debunked by integrated biblical analysis, absent historical records, and clear scientific data showing no ethnic continuity.

Video: Deconstructing British Israelism

 

The Myth of British-Israelism

 

The Myth of British-Israelism

Posted on January 29, 2009 by Claude Mariottini

On August 9, 2006, I wrote a post, “America and Great Britain in Biblical Prophecy,” in which I explained the reasons the movement popularly known as British-Israelism finds no support in the Bible or in history, even though their proponents quote widely from the Bible and history to prove their point.

In response to my post, a proponent of British-Israelism who refuses to give his or her name and hides his or her identity under the label of “anonymous,” has criticized my post for not presenting a “scrap of evidence against Anglo-Saxon identity with the Ten Tribes.”

A careful reading of my original post will show that I cited several texts from the Old Testament to show that many Israelites from the Northern Kingdom were not deported to Assyria. In fact, after the Assyrians conquered Samaria, the territory of the Northern Kingdom was incorporated into the Assyrian empire and became the Assyrian province of Samerina.

The advocates of British-Israelism believe that the Anglo Saxon people, those living in Great Britain and the United States, are the descendants of the ten lost tribes of the Northern Kingdom that were taken into exile by the Assyrians. Thus, the Anglo Saxon people are the direct descendants of the children of Abraham and as such, they become the inheritors of the promises God made to Israel.

The basic argument for British-Israelism has been developed by many authors in England and in the United States. A forceful presentation of this view was presented by Herbert W. Armstrong in his book The United States and Britain in Prophecy. Armstrong was the founder of the Church of God. These are some of the basic beliefs of British-Israelism:

1. The people living in Great Britain and the United States are the descendants of the lost tribes.
2. The British throne is a continuation of the throne of David.
3. The British Royal family are lineal descendants of David, King of Judah.
4. The stone of Scone is the one which Jacob anointed with oil.
5. The British Empire people are the covenant people.
6. The British people are chosen of God to dominate the world.

There are several issues that mitigate against the argument put forth by the proponents of British-Israelism, the view that Great Britain and the United States are the remnant of the lost tribes of Israel. I do not have the time nor the inclination to address every misinterpretation in Armstrong’s book. Suffice it to say that the interpretations are based on eisegesis, literalism, and texts interpreted out of context. In this post, I will address three issues raised by the adherents of British-Israelism.

The Tribes of Israel

Since my anonymous critic asked me to answer some of his questions, I asked him to make a list and name the ten tribes that were lost. Here is the list he provided:

The Southern Kingdom: Judah, Simeon, and Benjamin plus a few faithful Levites.

The Northern Kingdom: Reuben, Levi, Gad, Dan, Ephraim, Manasseh, Isaachar (sic), Napthali (sic), Zebulun, and Asher.

The list of the twelve tribes of Israel appears about twenty times in the Old Testament and once in the New Testament. However, the names of the tribes that compose the twelve tribes of Israel vary from list to list.

The list of the tribes appears for the first time in Genesis 29:31-30:24 in the order in which the children were born. Since Benjamin was born in the land of Canaan, Dinah appears as the twelfth child of Jacob. This is the only time in the Old Testament in which the tribes are listed in the order of their birth. In the twenty lists where the names of the tribes appear, there are eighteen different orders in which the tribes are mentioned.

In some lists, Levi is counted as one of the twelve tribes, in some others Levi does not appear. When Levi is omitted, the tribe of Joseph appears as two tribes: Ephraim and Manasseh.

In Revelation 7:4-8 John provides a list “of every tribe of the sons of Israel”: Judah, Reuben, Gad, Asher, Naphtali, Manasseh, Simeon, Levi, Issachar, Zebulun, Joseph, Benjamin. In this list, the tribes of Dan and Ephraim are missing. The tribe of Joseph represents the tribe of Ephraim.

In the blessing of Moses in Deuteronomy 36:6-29, the following tribes appear: Reuben, Judah, Levi, Benjamin, Ephraim and Manasseh, Zebulun, Gad, Dan, Naphtali. This list contains only 10 tribes; the tribes of Simeon and Asher are missing.

In 1 Kings 11:31-32, only eleven tribes appear. In Judges 5:14-18 there are 11 tribes: Ephraim, Benjamin, Machir, Zebulun, Issachar, Reuben, Gilead, Dan, Asher, Zebulun, and Naphtali. Manasseh is missing. Simeon, Judah, and Levi are also missing. It is possible that the Southern tribes (Simeon and Judah) were not yet part of the confederation of the tribes. In Ezekiel 48 the following tribes are listed: Dan, Asher, Naphtali, Manasseh, Ephraim, Reuben, Judah, Benjamin, Simeon, Issachar, Zebulun, and Gad. When the Levites are included, there are thirteen tribes.

All these variations in the listing of the tribes indicate that the number twelve was an artificial arrangement that was also found in other groups outside of Israel. There were the twelve tribes of Nahor (Genesis 22:20-24), the twelve tribes of Ishmael (Genesis 17:20; 25:13-16), and the twelve tribes of Esau (Genesis 36:9-14; 40-43).

The idea of ten tribes presupposes that the Southern Kingdom was composed of only two tribes. However, my reader acknowledges that the Southern Kingdom had three tribes.

In 1 Kings 12:20 we read: “And when all Israel heard that Jeroboam had returned, they sent and called him to the assembly and made him king over all Israel. There was none that followed the house of David, but the tribe of Judah only.” This verse says that there were only eleven tribes (the ten tribes plus Judah), since only Judah followed the house of David. However, in 1 Kings 12:21 we read: “When Rehoboam came to Jerusalem, he assembled all the house of Judah, and the tribe of Benjamin, a hundred and eighty thousand chosen warriors, to fight against the house of Israel, to restore the kingdom to Rehoboam the son of Solomon.” Since the tribe of Benjamin followed the tribe of Judah, then the Northern Kingdom had only nine tribes.

2 Chronicles 11:14, says: “For the Levites left their suburbs and their possession, and came to Judah and Jerusalem: for Jeroboam and his sons had cast them off from executing the priest’s office unto the Lord.” Since the Levites left the Northern Kingdom to come to Judah, now the Northern Kingdom had only eight tribes.

In addition, 2 Chronicles 11:16 reads: “And after them out of all the tribes of Israel such as set their hearts to seek the Lord God of Israel came to Jerusalem, to sacrifice unto the Lord God of their fathers.” This means that many citizens of the North who were faithful Yahwist came to Judah rather than live in the North. In 2 Chronicles 15:8-9 we read about the existence of the tribes of Ephraim, Manasseh, and Simeon. And Simeon is counted as a tribe from Israel.

The Population of the Northern Kingdom

The second factor is the number of people from the Northern Kingdom who were deported to Assyria. My anonymous critic says that the population of the Northern Kingdom was “5 million people” and “probably a lot more.” But this embellished number is contradicted by the archaeological evidence.

Adam Zertal, in his article “The Province of Samaria (Assyrian Samerina) in the Late Iron Age (Iron Age III),” published in Judah and the Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period, edited by Oded Lipschitz and Joseph Blenkinsopp (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2003), p. 385, wrote concerning the people from the North who came to worship in Jerusalem (Jeremiah 41:5):

The fact that organized communities of Israelites still saw Jerusalem as their holy place may be interpreted as evidence of the existence of the Yahwistic cult as the main faith in the North, some 150 years after the conquest of Samaria. The archaeological data seem to support this idea, that in spite of the population changes, most of the people remained Israelite in faith. Even if the number of exiled people from Samaria by the Assyrians (approximately 27,000) is reliable, it still did not exceed 20-25% of the Israelite population.

Zertal estimated the population of the Northern Kingdom at the time of the Assyrian conquest to be no more than 100,000, probably 70,000 people. Thus, the population of the Northern Kingdom was smaller than anonymous said it was. But the fact is that many of the inhabitants of the Northern Kingdom remained behind. Some of them fled to the Southern Kingdom, as the archaeological evidence demonstrates. Some of them went to Egypt where they organized a large Jewish community, and some of them eventually became the Samaritan people.

There were never ten lost tribes so far as the Bible is concerned, only a dispersion of many Israelites throughout the whole ancient Near East. In fact the 27,000 people carried by the Assyrians into captivity represented only a small fraction of the total population at the time of the fall of Samaria in 722 B.C.

Under Ezra and Nehemiah about 50,000 people returned from Babylon. This is how the Chronicler described the settlement of the people who returned from exile: “Now the first inhabitants that dwelt in their possessions in their cities were, the Israelites, the priests, Levites, and the Nethinims. And in Jerusalem dwelt of the children of Judah, and of the children of Benjamin, and of the children of Ephraim, and Manasseh” (1 Chronicles 9:2-3).

According to the Chronicler, among those tribes that returned from Babylon were people from Ephraim and Manasseh, and they lived in Jerusalem. In addition, the Chronicler makes a distinction between the Israelites and the Judeans who lived in Jerusalem. Thus, the Biblical record indicates that a remnant from all of the tribes returned. The reference to “all Israel” appears in Ezra 1:3; 2:70; 3:11; 6:17, 21; 7:6, 13, 28; 8:25, 35; 10:5 and in Nehemiah 7:73; 8:1, 17; 9:2; 10:33; 11:20; 12:47; 13:3, 18, 26. Thus, according to Ezra and Nehemiah, “all Israel” was not lost.

The Mission of Jeremiah

After the fall of Jerusalem, Jeremiah was taken by force to Egypt. According to the proponents of British-Israelism, Jeremiah, in carrying out his mission as assigned by God, left Egypt and took two princesses of Judah, the daughters of King Zedekiah, to Spain where the younger princess got married. Then, Jeremiah took Zedekiah’s older daughter to Ireland. In Ireland, the older daughter of Zedekiah married the ruler of Ireland. Thus, through Zedekiah’s daughter, the line of David on the throne of Judah was maintained and continues to this day through the British royal family.

This view is contradicted by the Biblical evidence. The line of David was continued through Jehoiachin and not through Zedekiah. Although Jehoiachin was a captive in Babylon, he was still recognized as the legitimate successor to the throne of David (cf. Jeremiah 52:31-34). According to the Weidner Tablets (ANET, 308), Jehoiachin lived in the Babylonian court and the Babylonian king made provisions “for Jehoiachin, the king of the land of Judah and for the five sons of the king of the land of Judah.”

According to the prophet Haggai, the post-exilic community considered making Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel and Jehoiachin’s grandson, a king in Judah, before he was probably forced to return to Persia (Haggai 2:23). In addition, the genealogy of Christ in Matthew 1:12-16 traces the royal line through Jehoiachin and not through Zedekiah’s daughter.

In his article on “British-Israelism and Pyramidology,” Interpretation 11 (1957), p. 318, Carl Howie wrote:

It is unfortunate that well-meaning people have become dupes of a chauvinistic egotism which substitutes an earthly throne for that which Christ alone can occupy and substitutes an earthly empire for the Kingdom of God. The thought that God’s Kingdom is coextensive with an earthly empire and that the throne of England is the seat of this rule, is abhorrent to all who are acquainted with the profundity of the kingdom and Messiah concepts. That the Kingdom of God is spiritual and not physical is axiomatic and that the church, as it is true to Christ by faith, is the Israel of faith is equally sure (cf. I Peter 2:9-10). To make God the servant and supporter of racism such as the Anglo-Israel movement does directly contradicts both the spirit and letter of the Bible. On the basis of overwhelming evidence we conclude that the British-Israel hypothesis has no basis in fact since no legitimate evidence has been found for its support.

In his article on “Anglo-Israelism,” published in the Jewish Encyclopedia, Joseph Jacobs wrote:

Altogether, by the application of wild guesswork about historical origins and philological analogies, and by a slavishly literal interpretation of selected phrases of prophecy, a case was 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. English is a branch of the Aryan stock of languages, and has no connection with Hebrew. The whole movement is chiefly interesting as a reductio ad absurdum of too literal an interpretation of the prophecies.

Although my anonymous reader many never agree with my conclusion, the fact is that British Israelism is based on a biased interpretation of the text, eisegesis, wishful thinking, and a lack of reliable historical evidence. The view that Great Britain and the United States of America are the lost tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh is just a myth.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary