"Answer to an Anti-Identity Polemic"

Criticisms of British-Israel do not apply to Brit-Am but on some points need answering.
In 1945 Foy E Wallace Jr. wrote an exhaustive article criticizing British Israel as he perceived it. Some of the points made are still valid today and some concern Biblical Sources quoted by Brit-Am. In the article below we reply to those criticisms that may be pertinent to Brit-Am.

Answer to an Anti-Identity Polemic


Answer to an Anti-Identity Polemic

Site Contents by Subject Home
Site Map
Contents in Alphabetical Order
This Site


Did the idea of the Lost Israelites being in the west begin with Richard Brothers and British Israel?
Is British Israel a subversive anti-American Movement?
Are Brit-Am type beliefs the domain of nutcase fringe elements?
Does a Manasseh-identification of the USA deny the historical superiority of North America?
Cannot different "proofs" such as becoming "great" adduced by Brit-Am and company be applied to numerous other candidates?
Are not the British a misture of peoples including "Germanic" Angles and Saxons?
Is not the Royal house of Britain a German family who only recently came from Germany?
How could such a family possibly be descended from King David?
If the exact percentage of Israelite origin is not know what point do the claims of Israelite ancestry have?
What kind of identification is it if it only applies to a portion of the people?
How can they be the Lost Tribes if there are Jews amongst them?
How can the Lost Tribes be considered "Lost" when we know that there were people from "Ephraim and Manasseh" who returned with Ezra and Nehemiah?
Did not Ezekiel 1:5 address the "House of Israel" where it is obvious that he was speaking to the Jews in Babylon?
Cyrus the Persian Emperor issued a decree (Ezra 1:1-3) telling all those who belonged to the Chosen People to return to their land. Would this not have included the Ten Tribes as well as "Judah"?
Ezra offered up sacrifices for "all Israel" (Ezra 6 :16-17). Does this not mean that members of all the Israelite Tribes were present?
Does not Jeremiah (34:9) use the terms "Hebrew" and "Jew" interchangeably?
Does Ezekiel 37 not refer to the Ten Tribes and Judah re-uniting in ancient times?
Were not the promises of greatness and a ruling monarch to be understood in a spiritual allegorical sense?
What kind of racial resemblance is there?
Are not the similarity of names (Dan, Denmark, etc) explainable as pure coincidence and given to more acceptable explanation?
What about other Chrisitian peoples who have shown themselves more attached to Scripture than the Anglo-Saxons?
Are they also Israelites because of this? Even when they became rabid anti-Semites?
Did not King Hezekiah of Judah address himself (2 Chronicles ch. 30) to "Ephraim and Manasseh", "Assher and Manasseh and Zebulun", "a multitude of people, even many of Ephraim, and Manasseh, and Issachar, and Zebulun"? If the Ten Tribes were all in exile who was King Ezekiel speaking to?
Does not the "appointed place" (2-Samuel 7:10-14) that it is claimed refers to Britain and/or America actually mean the Land of Israel?
Should not "gates of his enemies"(Genesis 22) actually be read in the singular and does it not mean "power" rather than "passages of traffic"?
Does the Hebrew translated as "isles" really mean islands? and if it does, why not New Guinea, Japan, or any other body surrounded by water?
Does Scripture REALLY associate the "islands" with the Lost Tribes?
Why is it claimed that the Lost Ten Tribes are associated with Tarshish which is a non-Israelite nation?
Is not this whole idea racialist and Nazi-like?
Does it not serve the interest of advocates of British domination over the USA and the rest of the world?

For answers to the above and other questions, see the article below:

Randy wrote:

Subject: Anglo-Israelism Refuted

   Hello, how are you? Hope you are doing well. I am e-mailing you an article which claims to totally refute the theory of British/Anglo-
Israelism. Though you do not call your beliefs by that name, they are very similiar. I possess a strong belief in your message concerning the ten tribes of Israel being present in white, english-speaking nations. Yet this article confuses me. It is lengthy, but I pray that you read it and give me your thoughts about it. It has been bugging me for a long time!! Thanks so much for your help and God bless you and your work. Sincerely, Randy

Randy Shalom,

The article deals with the Israelite "Identity" question by referring to the ideas of organizations that have nothing to do with Brit-Am and that in some cases Brit-Am considers to be our enemies and agents of Darkness.
The article is not attacking Brit-Am but rather other groups and "Identity" doctrines some of which overlap with those of Brit-Am.
In so far as some of the arguments do apply to Brit-Am beliefs we will answer them.

You said you "possess a strong belief" in our "message concerning the ten tribes of Israel being present in white, english-speaking nations".
From a factual point of view this may be one way of describing who, on the whole, we identify as the Lost Tribes of Israel or at least the portion pertaining to the Tribes of Joseph.
We do however have people who are not white amongst our supporters and being "white" is not a criterion we use for determining who is an Israelite.
See our article,
"The  Black  Woman"

Here is the article by Foy E Wallace Jr who henceforth in this article will be referred to as "FEW" while further on the Brit-Am Reply will be represented by "BAR":

Does History Support The Claim That The Anglo-Saxon Races Are The Ten Tribes Of Israel?
Does The Bible Teach That They Are God's Modern Covenant People?

God's Prophetic Word, P386-450, Chapter XI
by Foy E Wallace Jr. 1945AD

"FEW": Introduction

The fantasy of an Anglican Israel in a tribal
descendancy from the lost tribes of Israel existing today in the English speaking peoples of Europe and America is a phase of modern millennialism which had its emergence in England in the latter part of the eighteenth century, making its appearance in North America after the turn of the century, first in Canada, later in the New England states, and more recently in the regions of the Pacific coast from British Columbia to California. In the 1930-1940 decade Southern California was subjected to an accentuated radio propaganda campaign under the leadership of the Doctor John Matthews, an ex-Presbyterian clergyman, whose challenges were accepted by the elders of the Central Church of Christ, in Los Angeles, resulting in the discussion to which reference has been made. The speeches were not stenographically recorded, hence, there are no transcriptions of the discussion, but a full and complete summary of the material arguments is here presented.


An obscure person named Richard Brothers who lived in England between 1757 to 1824 is credited with the origination of this farfetched fantasy. He was true to the form of religious fanatics and his movement was strikingly parallel with Joseph Smith and the Mormons. Richards was as eccentric as Smith was ignorant. There is a distinct similarity in the origination of these episodes, a resemblance in the characters of the men, and in the cues to their religious fictions, particularly in the purported saga of the ten tribes of Israel upon which the respective movements were founded. The religious lunacy of these men was about identical in degree, the difference being in the circumstances of Richard Brothers' commitment to an asylum and Joseph Smith to a jail. The dignity which the movement lost by this circumstance in connection with its originator was later regained by one
Piazzi Smyth, a Scot astronomer, who evolved the British Israel theory by complicated mathematical calculations in some remote connection with the Great Pyramids upon which he based the claim that the throne of England is the throne of David, and the kings and queens of England Queen Victoria in 1800 and George VI in 1944" are of the royal lineage of David, and the British people, therefore, the real Israel today, which they claim descends not through Judah or the Jews but from the ten tribes. The true Israel, they claim, does not include Jews but are the Anglo Saxons. There are numerous adherents of this theory, in the main Britishers of the Anglican church. In America it was confined to the parts of the country named, Canada and the New England states, until its recent infiltration into the Pacific coast region, which is due to the fact that California in particular is a sort of rallying ground for all of the fanatical sects from everywhere. The Anglo-Israelists have made a significant showing along the coast from Vancouver, B. C., to San Diego, Calif., if their claims are true that they had upwards of fifty thousand adherents in these coast sections.

Their theoretical views are completely contrary to ethnological history bearing on the origin of the British people and the Anglo-Saxon race, the facts of which the Anglo-Israel authors have the bold audacity to dispute and deny. But their unhistorical claims are no more pretentious than their unscriptural interpretations are presumptuous.

Brit-Am Reply: The above historical outline is misleading.
The Celtic British (Gildas), the Anglo-Saxons, the Early Irish, and the English from an early date all held beliefs consistent with the idea that they were descended from Israel.
We have also discerned similar notions from an early date in Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Holland (Frisia), and amongst the Jews concerning France and the west in general.

It may be that Richard Brothers and those who came after him helped popularize the belief in recent times but they did not originate it.
The belief in itself is not a conventional one nor it is socially respectable. The very nature of such a belief will initially be more amenable to "eccentrics". This goes with the territory and is also valid for all new ideas.
The initial association of revolutionary new notions (some of which are later proved valid) is a well-known phenomenon:

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self- evident." Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860

  "If you have had your attention directed to the novelties of thought in your own lifetime, you will have observed that almost all new ideas have a certain aspect of foolishness when they are first produced".
Alfred North Whitehead, Famous Mathemiatican and Philosopher.

"FEW": Now what is Anglo-Israelism? It is the doctrine that the Jews are not Israel. That is all a mistake, we are told. Jews are one thing and Israel quite another. It is a doctrine that originated in England, largely surrounding the British people. The doctrine asserts that the Anglo-Saxon peoples are the ten tribes the true Israel. And it is Israel, not the Jews, who will be restored in the millennium. This restored Israel, the Anglo Saxon people, with Jesus Christ seated on the reestablished earthly throne of David as king, will rule the whole world. Anglo-Israelism teaches that the literal throne of David exists today in the throne of the English kings, and when Jesus Christ returns he will simply occupy the throne which the British kings now hold, and have been holding for centuries, for him until he comes, until the millennium commences. That millennium will surround the Anglo-Saxon peoples, not the Jews at all. The Anglo-Saxon peoples of the earth will be gathered together in the millennium, and with Jesus Christ on the throne now held by England's House of Hanover, they will rule the world. Fantastic, do you say? That is not half of it - it is utterly false.

Brit-Am Reply: OK. This criticism is directed against British-Israel and its offshoots some of whom are fanatically anti-Semitic and we have nothing to do with them.
Our beliefs in many ways are the exact opposite of theirs and therefore we cannot not be expected to reply on their behalf.


"FEW": The bibliography of this movement is not as prolific as of some other cults, yet there are numerous books and publications devoted to its promotion. The leading magazine publication advocating the Anglo-Israel theory bears the name of DESTINY, and because of its rather suspicious political character, it was listed as a subversive influence in the book entitled UNDER COVER, by a well known American writer. The author of UNDER COVER appears to have good ground for his belief that Anglo-Israelism is seditious in character. It is, without doubt, a system of national religion, based on the general idea of nationalism, and politically it could hardly be consistent with American principles. The indictment against the system on political grounds appears to be justifiable.

Brit-Am Reply (henceforth "BAR"): We do not know what the writer is referring to in this specific instance. We do however agree that some so-called '"Identity" adherents are anti-American and subversive in character.

"FEW": A ranking authority on Anglo-Israelism is Professor E. Odlum, M.A., B.Sc., F.R.C., Inst., etc. He is author of an unusual book in defense of the Anglo-Israel theory. The book bears the title, "God's Covenant Man: British Israel."

BAR: We know very little about Odlum apart from the fact that he also wrote a book identifying the Japanese with the Lost Tribes of Israel.
This was well before WW2 where in some circles Japan was considered a potential future ally of Britain.
We have refuted the Japanese claim in our article:
"The Japanese  are not Hebrews! "

The appellation "British" could be interpretated as "Brit-ish" from the Hebrew meaning "Covenant-man". The Lost Ten Tribes are referred to (Isaiah 42 and 49) as a "Brit-Am" or "Covenant of People[s]" and "Britammia" was an alternative form for the name "Britain" in the past.  

"FEW": The following statements, gleaned from the pages of this book, will show the character of this theory. Let me read them to you:
"England is eating up the earth," as Israel was told he would do. "I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn
son.""p. 30.
"We must rule all nations, for he who has so decreed says:" 'For the nation and the kingdom that will not serve thee (Israel) shall perish; yea, those nations shall be utterly wasted'." p. 30.

BAR: These quotations are paraphrases of Biblical verses (e.g. Isaiah 60:12) that primarily refer to the Messianic Era and Rule of the Messiah.

The quotations below from "FEW" quote Odlum. Some are very far-fetched, some need to be considered in their historical perspective (i.e. 1915 CE"), and some are still pertinent.


"FEW": "Henceforth there are no nations, no people but one and indivisible will be the world, and the world will be one Britain." p. 32.
"The sun in its diurnal journey never ceases to look down on some portion of the British empire. We cannot but discern the hand of God, which has grown until now she looms up with a power that will soon fill and control the human
family."p. 48.
"Look at these Britons all over the world. They keep gaining territory and establishing permanent and benign rule." p. 48.
"If Britain be Israel, a descendant of David is on the throne of England. This, to a believer in the Bible, needs no argument. The scriptures are very explicit on this point. Where the house of Israel is, there is a Davidic
sovereign."p. 58.
"And while Joseph owns the stone it is the throne stone of the seed royal from David of the tribe of Judah, and king George V. is the Judaic
representative."p. 62.
"Brittany, Britain, Britannia, Bretagne, are all variants of the one word variously compounded. Britannia is the naval covenant, and no wonder that Britons the world over sing 'Rule Britannia." . . . This was and is the covenant of the deep." p. 75.
"Therefore Britain is Israel officially and in a national capacity. Therefore no other nation is or can be
Israel."p. 83.
"When any kingdom fills the whole earth there is no room for any other kingdom. This is the coming future. All the kingdoms must serve Israel-
Britain." p. 111.
"Thus while Israel must be at the head of the nations of the earth, he must also carry spiritual and material blessings to all nations. Only one nation in the history of the world has been doing this as fully as is Great Britain today and for past
centuries.p. 120.
"Britain is that
gateholder. And Britons are Saxons, the sons of Isaac, according to divine promise. Further, Britons are the British, and the word 'British' is a compound of two Hebrew words, Brit, a covenant, and Ish, a man, the covenant man."p. 120.
"Even now Britain has full possession of Egypt, most of Arabia, nearly all ancient Mesopotamia, and is the present holder of the Sudan and the headwaters of the Nile. Already she is moving steadily towards Jerusalem. Her ships and men are battering down the forts and Turks at the Dardanelles and at Smyrna, and at the Gulf of
Akabah, and at Bozrah, and on and on to the finale, which means the whole of the promised land of Canaan." p. 123.
"Those who have cursed Britain will be cursed until they confess and pray for forgiveness. This applies to the cursing Germans
today."p. 124.
"No wonder the whole world for long years have called Britain 'Great.' This is her special name on earth among the sons of earthborn
men."p. 126.
"If Britain has not become a multitude of nations, she is on a fair way to make good. She is now a confederation of nations such as the world has never known, and she is in crescendo in this respect, and promises to swallow, 'to eat up the nations' of the world, as the Scriptures long since foretold " p. 126.
"Who does not know how in Britain the
overlordship in any given estate, particularly the realty, was passed on from father to elder son? This is quite an Israelitish trait of character and custom. The people who are called in the name of Israel and after their father Abraham are also marked by the custom of the firstborn transfer of property."p. 132.
"These promises are fulfilled in Britain. They were not fulfilled in Israel in the land of Palestine. Do not forget this. These promises had to be kept, or the Book had to fall, and the name and word of God go into
disrepute." p. 134.
"However, we do find a large proportion of these promises made good to Britain. Hence Britain is Israel. Surely God moves in a way
mysterious."p. 135.
"Do you believe them (the prophecies)? If so, then you must believe that Israel is now a nation, and under a king from the royal line of
David." p. 137.
"His chosen people are Israel, and no other; and Israel is Britain, and no
other."p. 138.
"And all the blessings indicated here have come upon Britain and her people. Ergo, Britain is
Joseph."p. 139.
"Yes, the 'scarlet thread' has never been forgotten in Israel, and the scarlet is Britain's official
colour through the ages." p. 139.
"This is quoted to show that in olden days the Lord used nature as his servant to defeat the enemies of Israel; hence it is not unreasonable to believe that the same Lord used this same nature to save the same people during the invasion of Britain by the Spanish
armada."p. 140.
Here we find, as had been promised to Joseph, he was great a "great people."; Moreover, although Manasseh and Ephraim had already received three portions of land, they now ask for more and receive it. Thus we see they had a double portion at this early age
. No wonder John Bull is landhungry and 'is eating up the earth'.p. 141.
"Great Joseph ! Great Ephraim! Great
Britain!"p. 142.
"Therefore, wherever the kingdom of Israel is at present, there is a Sovereign descended from David, Solomon, and Judah. Britain is Israel, and therefore king George is of the royal house of Judah. I lay emphasis on this phase of the question, for this
reason: There are many who believe that Britain is Israel, but they seem to doubt the possibility of tracing our Sovereign from king Zedekiah. It is not important whether our king George comes from Zedekiah or not; but he does come from David." p. 149.
"I affirm that when we once grant that Britain is Israel, we do not require to be able to trace the royal descent from Zedekiah, Solomon, or David, for we know from the above promise of the Almighty that over Israel, and therefore over Britain, is a royal Davidic king. This is final and irresistible with all who believe that Britain is Israel, and who at the same time believe in the truth of the scripture
prophecy."pp. 149, 150.
Already the Israelites were water hungry. They had good reason, for the 'blessings of the deep' had been given their official head hundreds of years before, not only when they were in Egypt, but when they were in sight of the holy
land, just before Moses died on mount Nebo. From then until now Israel Britain has had a growing control of the 'deep' more than any other nation in human history. God's word has been made good in this case. p. 150.
"Right here we see an index to the future name of these very people when a
nation"an empire in the isles of the sea" and this name is John Bull. It is a part of the divine plan of the ages. The Almighty takes interest in the names of people and nations. p. 152.
"Hence, Britain will yet rule over Germany and all her Huns, if any remain after the awful slaughter close at hand for these murderers. I now write these words May 30, 1915. Show me Assyria, and I shall show you a country yet to be ruled by Israel, and therefore by Britain. Be assured God's Word stands sure. Furthermore, Israel is to possess his 'place,' and to have plenty of servants and handmaids from among the 'strangers.' No wonder that a great host of foreign people from Europe gather in large numbers to all Anglo-
Saxondom with pick and shovel, as servants. This is God's plan too. p. 160.
"Britain will remain at the head of the human family as long as mankind peoples this earth. Let this reach your head and heart, my dear reader. These strong statements are not mine. They are God's own plans, and the announcements of those plans. If Britain be Israel, and it is, then Britain will endure for ever. Further scriptures will make this fact very plain before our quotations are
finished. p. 170.
"Britain has been, and is today, the one great national light for all nations. This is one reason why she is so intensely hated. p. 172.
"No weapon formed by man can overcome Israel the covenant man. With this belief, Britons should possess their souls in
peace." p. 178.
"For the nation and kingdom that will not serve thee shall perish: yea, those nations shall be utterly wasted. There is no escape. All must serve Israel. All are serving Britain. Ergo, Britain is
Israel." p. 180.
"Hence the only nation or empire on earth answering to these two houses will be there. That nation is Britain. Then Ephraim, the bull, and Judah, the lion, will be heard roaring and bellowing in fiercest and most deadly conflict. Let all who read these words know that Edom is Turkey." p. 209.
"England will crush Turkey. Let
U.N.O. take notice! " "'Therefore I will save my flock.' This is Israel, and not the sinners of Turkey, Russia, and Germany. In the above words the Lord is not even thinking of the heathen sinners of other nations. He has other plans and thinkings.p. 221.
"Lastly, the only kingdom visible on earth having all the marks of Israel is Britain, and the Anglo-Saxon family of nations; therefore the descendants of England and her federated nations will rule end' p. 235
"And in that day God's holy chosen people, his Israel, his covenant, or British nation shall flourish, expand, increase, and 'possess their possessions' and rule the whole
world. p. 238.
"And other scriptures show clearly that not only will this take place in Palestine, but the king will be from the loins of David. And when he ascends the throne at Jerusalem, the world will know that he is descended from the present British king, the sailor king of
Britain." p. 241.
"In his early days of rule he ruled over Israel and Egypt; but now Joseph as the British empire will rule the whole world." p. 248.

BAR: Odlum may have gone overboard but he was writing in the heat of WW1 (1915).
Brit-Am regards Britain, the USA, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand (with part of South Africa) as the domain of Joseph.
Other nations in which descendants of the Lost Ten Tribes are prominent include: France, Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Norway, Iceland, Sweden, Finland, and Switzerland, with contingents of Israelites to be found scattered elsewhere in Europe and other portions of the world.
Joseph was to be pre-eminent power in the world and to possess a good portion of the wealth, strategic thoroughfares, and to rule over other nations, etc.
This description does apply to Britain before WW1 and to the USA after it.

"FEW": Thus deposes one of the highest authorities of the Anglo Israel politico-religio cult. The statements of this author are nothing short of amazing. They reveal the racial and political propaganda of this sect. If the nation of England held to this doctrine, if king George believed it, if her representatives in Parliament subscribed to it, and if British people in large percent embraced it, then Great Britain would thereby assume the same character as Nazi Germany before a civilized world, and would not only deserve to be subdued but for the sake of world security and freedom would, of necessity, have to be overthrown and divested of power as completely as Nazi Germany, or any other aggressor nation holding to the delusive doctrine of "the master race."

BAR: Historically before WW2 there were elements in the USA and Britain that were close in ideological outlook to those of Nazi Germany.
They were a minority but they did exist. In addition to this many leading personalities held nationalist, religious, racial, and Darwinist type notions that today would not be acceptable and that they would think twice about if they knew what we now know on the subject.
Apart from that,
Comparing what Odlum wrote to what the Nazis believed is unfair. It even verges on wickedness.
Most peoples consider themselves in some way or other superior to others. This is part of human nature.
It is not a justification for evil and there is no reason to imply that Odlum would in any way have countenanced anything whatsoever like what the Nazis perpetrated.

"FEW": Let it here be definitely stated that neither the British government nor the British people, not even the Church of England, make any claim that Great Britain is Israel. No more so than the United States government lends endorsement or encouragement to the Mormon claim that the original Americans are the ten tribes of Israel. Like Mormonism, therefore, Anglo-Israelism is just another "ism" that needs to be exposed. It is a false theory of late origin, the fallacies of which are manifest when compared with the facts of history and scripture. It is similar in origin to all other late isms and rests on much the same claims.

About a hundred years ago imposter Joseph Smith made the false claim of having special divine revelations, published a bogus book and Mormonism was born. A "FEW" years later Ellen White fell victim to some delusions which she called visions. Her followers thought her revelations were divine, named her their inspired prophetess, published her visions, and Seventh Day Adventism was born. Near the same time ecstatic Mary Baker Eddy found it profitable to dream dreams and to see visions, so she brought forth her system of so called science in the form of a creed called "Science and Health with a Key to the Scriptures," and "Christian Science," falsely so called, was born.

In this same era of "visions" and "revelations," Richard Brothers, in England, just another misguided soul, made himself believe that he was the subject of special revelations, too; and he conjured up the notion that the Anglo-Saxon peoples, not the hated Jews, are the real Israelites and Anglo-
Israelism is here. Being a Britisher himself, and fond of the Anglo Saxon idea anyway, it was not hard for Brothers to believe that they are Israel in other words, we are it. Thus Anglo-Israelism was born. That is precisely the way it came into existence, and like Mormonism, Adventism, Eddyism and all other humanisms, it has nothing in history, scripture, or common ordinary sense upon which to stand.

BAR: Here the author (Foy E Wallace Jr.) plays the dirty trick of "guilt by association".
He is not relating to the matter at hand but rather attempting to brand his opponent with the same brush as other groups he regards with disfavor and assumes that the reader does likewise.


Let us break this proposition down.

(1) The Bible and history.

A full discussion of Anglo-
Israelism will require a detailed examination of their historical, ethnological, philological and Biblical arguments, followed by an exposure of the political character of this British system of teaching.

If you have read the literature of these speculators you cannot have failed to observe an oft repeated
phrase""the Bible and history." The Bible and history teach it, they say. If the Bible teaches it that settles the history of it. The Bible does not conflict with history nor history contradict the Bible. Their overuse of this phrase reveals that they are afraid of their ground. If the Bible proof is positive, why do they not take the Bible and prove their proposition" They are conscious of their inability to do so, hence the need of keeping their followers confused and bewildered by reams of papers on centuries and millenniums of history.

The Bible Teaches:

But no sooner do they use that expression than they cant about "scriptural intimations," and "strong historical proof." These two expressions occur repeatedly in their writings and
addresses""scriptural intimations" and "strong historical proof." How much must the Bible "intimate" a thing to teach it? And how "strong" must the "proof" of a thing be to prove it?

But the Anglo-Israel "scriptural intimation" consists in interpretations of prophecy that are purely arbitrary. For instance, they apply certain prophecies to the cities of the :Axis Powers today that definitely referred to Babylon, Nineveh,
Tyre, and other cities of antiquity.

BAR: Foy E Wallace Jr. wrote this article in "1945AD" just as the Axis Powers were about to be defeated or had already been so.
Apparently the British-Israel writers he is referring to had identified the Axis Powers (Germany, Italy, Japan in WW2) with Biblical enemies of Israel.
For some reason this identification was not a pleasing one to "FEW".


 "FEW": They cannot cite one single passage and say, here it is, read it; this is my proof. Scriptural "intimations" indeed! Their theory bogs down in the meshes of history, ethnology and philology in the utter absence of Bible proof.

They know, we all know, that the origin of races is a speculative field. There is no certain way to determine definitely some questions that pertain wholly to ethnology. Their own meandering is one of the best proofs of that fact. But Anglo-Israel teachers rely on that very fact, the uncertainties and difficulties of the ethnological and philological realms, to impress their curious minded members with their claim to hold the key to an understanding of a very "deep" and "intricate" discovery. Their use of history is but a smattering of historical references; their use of the prophecies is but a smearing of the prophetic word; and their Bible "intimations" are but a garbling of biblical texts. A mere intimation, with no actual proof, is all that the theory promises at its best, even in the eyes of those who espouse it, and the most that can be claimed for it by those who teach it is that it is a doubt, and to one who actually knows the "Bible and history" it is a delusion.

History and the Bible:

It is very interesting to observe how the Anglo-
Israelist connects the two. For instance, one of their chief texts for a "scriptural intimation" and "strong historical proof" is Gen. 48:1820: "And Joseph said unto his father, not so, my father: for this is the firstborn; put thy right hand upon his head. And his father refused, and said, I know it, my son, I know it: he also shall become a people, and he also shall be great: but truly his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his seed shall become a multitude of nations. And he blessed them that day, saying, In thee shall Israel bless, saying, God make thee as Ephraim and as Manasseh: and he set Ephraim before Manasseh."

And here is the "
intimation""Ephraim should be called "great" and Great Britain is called Great, therefore Great Britain is Ephraim! On the other hand Manasseh must have a place in the picture, so the United States is Manasseh. That is the very hub of their British-Anglo-Saxon-Israel claim"that Great Britain is Ephraim and the United States is Manasseh. But the whole argument is based upon misquotation. The passage does not say that "Ephraim shall be called great""it says that

"his younger brother shall be greater than
he""that is, Ephraim should be "greater" than Manasseh," which could only mean, according to this theory that England is greater than the United States! Does lend-lease furnish "strong historical proof" on this point" How do Americans like that slant" Really, what might have happened to great Ephraim if little Manasseh had not come to the rescue" He would have been sunk! The theory furnishes very good British propaganda but, without reflecting on the imperial greatness of Britain or the national pride of America, if the glory of either is the hope of Israel it is a mighty poor affair.

BAR: Brit-Am also identifies the USA with Manasseh and Britain with Ephraim.
Our understanding is that Manasseh would be greater and richer especially in the Latter Days.
This however is only a part of our over-all justification of belief that encompasses hundreds of proofs ALL of which need to be considered together with the others as a comprehensive whole.
A List of Articles Concerning Joseph
Ephraimite Criteria


"FEW": A Great Nation:

Another "intimation" which is substituted for an argument is found in the expression "a great nation" or a "multitude" of nations, which Israel should become. But that is surely farfetched, especially since the same thing is said of Ishmael in Gen. 17:20 and Gen. 21:18. Since Ishmael should also become "a great nation" and a "multitude" also, it could be that Englishmen are
Ishmaelites instead of Israelites!

BAR: Both Ishmael and Israel were promised to become great nations. "FEW" says if we are using "great" as a criterion, and assuming that the adjective "great" could apply to Britain, how can we know whether Britain belongs to Israel or Ishmael? This "difficulty" might have been relevant if that was the ONLY attribute we were searching for, but it is not. It is one of the numerous proofs all of which need to be considered together.
If you were to describe someone to another person and you wanted your description to be of use, you would say, "He has such and such colored eyes, hair, height, build, clothes, domicile, etc, etc. "  You would not expect only ONE point of your description to be used without relating it to the other points.
So too with the Bible.
The Bible gives us numerous descriptions of the Lost Ten Tribes (especially Joseph) in the Latter Days.
We need to take all of these descriptions into consideration and search for the group of related peoples to which all of them apply. Individual proofs are not to be considered in isolation from the Whole Body of Evidence.
Brit-Am Biblical Proofs
Ephraimite Criteria

"FEW": It is asserted that Isaiah was prophesying of Great Britain in Isa. 60:12: "For the nation and kingdom that shall not serve thee shall perish, yea, those nations shall be utterly wasted." An Anglo-Israel authority, Odlum, page 180, says: "There is no escape. All must serve Israel. All are serving Britain. Britain is Israel." All that I have to say to that statement is that if what the British-Israel authority asserted represents the British government and the people of the British isles, England would be as bad as Nazi Germany and would deserve destruction. Fortunately Britain and her dominions espouse no such doctrine.

BAR: Once again this comparison with Nazi Germany is underhanded.
The argumentation of "FEW" is similar to the following analogy: Hitler was a vegetarian; the Hindus are vegetarians; ergo shall we assume that the population of India are Nazi sympathizers?
At all events, the verse in question refers to the Messianic Era:
Consider the Brit-Am interpretation of this verse:

In the Messianic Era all nations will have to worship the God of Israel and give tribute to the Temple in Jerusalem and receive instruction from Jerusalem. This is what the Bible says.


"FEW": (2) The Anglo-Saxon descendants.

The British-
Israelists assert that "multitude" of people means a "company of nations," and Great Britain is a "company" of nations"therefore Great Britain is Ephraim. But why pick on Britain " Babylonia, Persia, Grecia and Rome were all a company of nations. Cyrus the Great said that God had given to him all the kingdoms of the earth"2 Chron. 36: 23. Allowing that interpretation any company of nations could be selected to be Ephraim and thereby become Israel.

The Seed of Ephraim:

But if the expression "his seed" should become "a multitude" of peoples or nations, means Britain, it would of necessity embrace her dominions, for Britain alone is not a "company" of nations. Here the Anglo-
Israelist objects"for his theory calls for Anglo-Saxons only. And it is a known fact that Britain's "company" of nations are not Saxons. And those who are England's Saxons are a mixture of Celts, Normans, Picts, Gauls, and even the German Teutons. They all once occupied the whole of Great Britain and amalgamated with the Scots with Germans at the head of it. What a mongrel Israel!

The actual truth of that matter is that there is more Teutonic blood in king George of England than there is Saxon blood. The house of
Este, one of the oldest houses in Italy, married into the houses of Brunswick and Hanover, from which descended the English kings and their line of sovereigns. The house of Hanover is German. It was during the World War I that England changed the house of Hanover into the house of Brunswick, but it remains a fact nevertheless that their line of sovereigns is mixed with Italian and German to a predominating extent. It follows as an irresistible conclusion that the throne of England is in the family of king George and not in the ten tribes of Israel.

If the British-Israel argument on the "company" of nations is correct, we have British Israel with black and yellow Ephraim; for if they deny that Britain's dominions are the ten tribes also, they have no point on Great Britain's "company of nations" as the "multitude" from Ephraim's seed.

The Proposition:

The proposition affirmed by Dr. John Matthews in the Los Angeles debate was worded as follows: "The Bible and history teach that the Anglo-Saxon peoples have descended in large part from the ten tribes of Israel and are therefore God's modern covenant people." It will be noted that the gentleman does not know who the Anglo-Saxons really are, for he says they "in large part descended" from the ten tribes. He dare not say that they are the ten tribes! How "large part" did they descend" If they are not one hundred per cent Israel, then what percent"

The very phraseology "in large part descended" becomes an admission of a fatal
fact"namely, that they do not have a pure Israel, do not know exactly or in what percent Israel exists in the Anglo-Saxons, not knowing precisely who the Anglo-Saxons are, and therefore the theory offers to the whole world a mongrel Israel composed and consisting of Celts, Normans, Picts, Scandinavians, Danes, Norwegians, Scots, Russians and Germans. Furthermore, since there is a decided similarity of sound in the names Japheth and Japan, Manasseh and Manchuria, the African tribe of Mossi and Moses, it could be possible, according to the way an Anglo-Israelist argues, that the Japs descended from Japheth, the Manchurians from Manasseh, and the tribe of Mossi from Moses, so British Israel may be all mixed up with black Ephraim, and yellow Manasseh, all melted into a mongrel Israel, indeed!

BAR: Polemics! On the Biblical Points brought up above by "FEW" we repeat that all Brit-Am Biblical Proofs need to be considered as one whole and not as separate from each other.

The claims of "FEW" are not worthy of consideration BUT we are entitled to turn the demands of "FEW" around and request:
Find us another group of peoples who are numerous, world-powerful, control nearly all international strategic thoroughfares, are in all oceans, possess a good portion of world mineral resources, agricultural plenty, have their major base to the west of the Land of Israel, and to its north, in the Atlantic Ocean, have national names etc similar to those of Israelite Tribes and Tribal clans, etc, etc.

If "FEW" and those like him cannot accept a comprehensive body of evidence presented as one whole entity then they will not be able to accept any evidence whatsoever.
All possible proofs of identification when subjected to criticism in isolation from their context and supplementary evidence will have difficulty standing up on their own. This applies not only to our own field but to all scientific and historical disciplines!
We do not demand that anybody automatically agree with us, only that we receive the same courtesy and consideration that any other research project deserves to receive.

As for the racial, historical, and percentage arguments:
One would need to read Brit-Am Literature or that of similar advocates since we hold that the Angles and Saxons were not really "Germanic" and that even part of the Germans up until the 1800s included groups of Israelite descent.
Regarding the British Monarchs being of German descent this is not necessarily so since the Royal Lines of Europe (especially in Germany) only intermarried with each other. Ultimately (towards the end of most of them) they became one big family of no certain nationality by descent. Even if the Royal family of Britain was German (and by origin it is not) this would not disturb Brit-Am overduly since though we acknowledge the possibility that they may be of Davidic descent we do not emphasize it or rely upon it.
Concerning "percentages" we agree in part. We do not know for sure what percentage of the peoples we identify are really "Israelite" by descent. It could be nearly all of them, or it could be merely a significant minority that has exerted its influence on the others.
This lack of certainty exists but does not detract from the basic message of Identification.

"FEW": If it should be countered that only the Anglo-Saxons are Israel, then a question arises: Are the Anglo-Saxons "a company of nations? belonging to Great Britain? If not, in order for the theory to be true Great Britain must some future time rule over all the Anglo-Saxon world. And that is precisely what this system proposes as shown from the quotation from Odlum, page 180: "There is no escape. All must serve Israel. All are serving Britain. Britain is Israel." There is no doubt about it; this overall theory of Anglo-Israelism provides that Great Britain shall rule over all Anglo-Saxons. No wonder it has been under the surveillance of the FBI and is listed in UNDER COVER as a politically seditious movement.

According to British
Israelism the only difference between Israelism and Naziism is the question, who is the master race? The Lyric of Walt Disney, of California, might be recommended at this point as a fitting chorus: "When der Fuehrer say 'Ve iss der master race,' we say 'phewewew' right in der Fuehrer's face!"

This talk of the Anglo-Saxons being descendants of the ten tribes "in large part" reminds one of the theory of the origin of species. By the evolution theory they try to make a monkey out of a man, and by this British theory they are trying to make an Israelite out of an Englishman! But look at his line of descent. Even his Davidic throne has
Hamitic links. Wilhelm of Germany is alleged to be Hamite, while George V. of England, his cousin, is alleged to be an Israelite. King George is known to have more Teutonic than Anglo-Saxon blood. His throne inheres in a family, not in a tribe.

Like the theory of evolution, Anglo-
Israelism is at best a guess, born in doubt and exists in doubt. In one hundred years of its existence it still has nothing but doubt to offer. It consists of biological impossibilities, with centuries of mixed marriages, and brings forth a mongrel Israel. Their argument is not complimentary to the Anglo-Saxon people.

(3) The ten tribes.

It is insisted that the ten tribes are the real Israel, not the Jews of the tribes of Judah and
Benjamin "but the ten tribes and the Anglo-Saxons (us) are descendants of the ten tribes, therefore we are Israel". Now, using your thinker, ask yourself the question: When and how did the ten tribes originate? Read 1 Kings 12 and 13. They originated in the rending of the kingdom and went off in apostasy. God's throne and kingdom remained in Judah. God repudiated the kingdom of the ten tribes and sent a prophet out of Judah to denounce their altars. How does it happen now that the apostate ten tribes have the advantage over Judah?; Just how and when did the ten tribes fall heir to the throne from Judah?

Now let these Anglo-
Israelists quit careering all over creation and get down to the task of answering these questions; not mere "scriptural intimations," but direct scriptural answers, and they will be getting somewhere, at least we will. In order for the Anglo-Israelists to prove their theory there are a "FEW" things they must of necessity prove:

First: They must prove that the ten tribes were once lost. If so, how do they know it?

BAR: Brit-Am has proven that the Lost Ten Tribes were exiled, lost their identity, and are still in Exile.
"The Completeness of the Exile.
Answers to Deniers of Brit-Am Biblical Truth"
"Nachmanides: Ten Tribes Lost But will Return"

"FEW": Second: They must prove that they have found these lost tribes. If so, how can they identify them?

BAR: Brit-Am proves its case through Biblical Proofs supplemented by Historical and Related researches part of which is available on the Brit-Am web-site and part in Brit-Am Literature.
Biblical Evidence

"FEW": Third: They must prove that the British and American people are these lost ten tribes. If so, how shall they prove it? It will not be enough to say they "descended in large part", that will not fill the order; they must identify them.

BAR: See again our articles on Joseph that include character appraisals of Ephraim and Manasseh and a discussion of their identification. See:
A List of Articles Concerning Joseph

We have proven that Israelites settled in the British isles and that most of them derived from the Tribes of Joseph, Ephraim and manasseh.
The early population of the USA separated out from Britain and Western Europe and it can be shown that they possessed a dsitinction of their own. The sources identify them with Manasseh.
In short proofs identifying the USA with Manasseh include:
The name "Manasseh" in Hebrew can connote American-style representative responsibility; The name "America" derives from the Hebrew "Ha-Machiri" meaning literally "Belonging to Machir" who was the first-born of Manasseh. The leaders of Manasseh were to be "Sarim" ("Princes") with delimited jurisdiction connoting Presidents rather than Kings. Manasseh would receive his blessing later, after Ephraim. In the Last days Manasseh would be the greater and the wealthier. The early foundation-population of the USA came from areas in the British Isles (and later in Western Europe) in which contingents from Manasseh were dominant.
"The Tribes. The Israelite Origins of Western Peoples".

Brit-Am identifies Britain and her offshoot "daughters" as Ephraim because:
Tribal elements bearing names similar to those of Clans of Ephraim settled in the British Isles. The name "England" derives from "Angle" or "Aegel" which was a nickname for Ephraim and means "Bull-calf". England is represented by "John Bull", symbol of Ephraim. England and its population still hold by the Principle of Aristocracy, a characteristic of Ephraim. Britain and her Dominions fit the blessings to Ephraim and the Ephraim national character-profile.
We repeat that all these and many more considerations justify the Tribal identification when they are taken together as One Whole Body of Evidence together with other proofs that in general prove the Lost Ten Tribes to have settled in the British Isles.

"FEW": Fourth: They must prove that Great Britain is Ephraim and the United States is Manasseh. And having done that they will have only proved that England is greater than the U. S. A., which should throw lend-lease in reverse, start it working the other way, and let our armies come home.

BAR: See our answer to the previous question.
The barb about Lend-Lease and "FEW" continuing to harp on it lacks good taste.
Lend-Lease was an arrangement whereby the USA, while still formally "neutral", supplied to Britain (and later to Russia) armaments and supplies virtually for nothing but under a legal fiction of the recipient being prepared to return the goods intact at a later date.
Lend-Lease turned the USA into one gigantic hinterland of production-works that enabled Britain and the USSR to withstand the onslaught of Germany and her helpers.
Britain however was expected to agree in advance, in exchange for US help, to a change in the world-role of Britain after WW2.

The US justified Lend-Lease since through it Britain defended American interests and gave the USA a "breathing-space" to prepare for war with Japan and Germany that was bound to come. Britain in effect kept the Axis away from American shores!
A theoretical (though virtually impossible) alternative for Britain may have been for the USA to have fought Germany and Japan from the very beginning of the war and let Britain stay out of the conflict, not deplete its resources, and not have to give up its Empire in exchange for US assistance?
This is a theoretical "maybe" since it is doubtful if Britain was psychologically able not to participate from the very beginning even though a few "Quisling" elements were present in high places and still are.
Also the changes that Britain agreed to may well have been inevitable no matter what agreements had been made.

Fifth: They must prove that the ten tribes alone constitute the house of Israel, in which there are no Jews.

Why should there not be any Jews?
We have shown in the light of Scripture, history and the explanation of Nachmanides that many from Judah from the very beginning went into Exile with the Lost Ten Tribes and were considered as part of them.
On the other hand representative segments of the other Tribes were also to be found amongst the Jews of Judah.
Nevertheless, Scripture refers to the separate bodies as "Judah" and "Joseph" or similar terms emphasizing the predominant element in each distinct body of people.

"FEW": In the magazine DESTINY, page 347, this statement is made: "Jews are only a small part of Israelites. They are not the house of Israel, for in that house there are no Jews." Now compare that statement with the facts set forth in a "FEW" passages of scripture.

1. The house of Israel was in Babylon with
Ezekiel -Ezek. 3 :1-15.

In verse 1 God told Ezekiel to "go speak unto the house of Israel." In verse 5 God said that he should speak "to the house of Israel" only. In verse 11 he was told to speak "to them of the captivity, unto the children of thy people." In verse 15 it identifies them as those who were in Babylon with Ezekiel "that dwelt by the river
Chebar", in Babylon. But everybody knows that the Jews were in the captivity of Babylon, not the ten tribes. So the Jews in Babylon, according to Ezekiel, were the "house of Israel." Ezekiel was commanded to speak to them, but he was told to speak only to the house of Israel, those in Babylon, dwelling by the river Chebar. So it seems that there were quite a number of Jews in the house of Israel, after all, and DESTINY must be wrong about it. Moreover, Ezekiel 37 pictures the "whole house of Israel" in return from the Babylonian captivity. The statement that "in that house there are no Jews" is absurd and displays an ignorance that is appalling on the part of editors and writers of such a magazine as DESTINY.

BAR: We do not have to relate to what "DESTINY" magazine or anybody else stated.
"FEW" takes the words of Ezekiel in the first chapter and applies them to prophecies in the 37th!
Each passage needs to be considered in its own context.
The Book of Ezekiel is not a simple work and there are passages directed to the Exiles of Judah in Babylon, as well as passages where he speaks about the Lost Ten Tribes, and passages where he speaks of Judah and Joseph eventually re-uniting, building the Temple, and the Wars of Gog and Magog in the end times.
For a very brief but worthwhile overview of the Book of Ezekiel see:
The Book of Ezekiel: Highlights
For a more detailed analysis of specific passages in Ezekiel see:
Brit-Am Commentary to Ezekiel
The term "House of Israel" when used in justaposition with "House of Judah" means the Northern Ten Tribes. The same applies to the terms "Judah and Israel". The Jews of Judah however are also Israelites and also part of the "House of Israel" and of "Israel". In some contexts the terms "Israel" and "House of Israel" can apply to those Israelites who were present and in the Book of Ezekiel according to the context this applies to Jews from Judah in Babylonian Captivity. Ezekiel chapter 37 concerns the End Times and not the return from Babylonian Captivity.

"FEW": 2. The house of Israel returned from Babylon with Ezra, Zerrubbabel and Nehemiah.
. 47:13. "Thus saith the Lord God: This shall be the border, whereby ye shall inherit the land according to the twelve tribes of Israel: Joseph shall have two portions."

Here Ezekiel tells them the portion of all the twelve tribes when they return.

BAR: "When they return", i.e. when the Lost Ten Tribes return in the Last Days according to the message of Ezekiel, when ALL the Tribes return, when Judah and Joseph reunite, when they keep the Law with a new heart and a new spirit, when they divide up the Land of Israel from the Nile to the Euphrates into thirteen separate portions; when they rebuild the Temple, defeat all their enemies; when the Land is miraculously healed and fish swarm in the Dead Sea as described by Ezekiel; etc, etc, in the Last Days.
This has nothing to do with Ezra and Nehemiah who were the leaders of a group of returnees from Babylon who were all Jewish. By "Jewish" is meant descendants of the southern Kingdom of Judah from the Tribes of Judah, Benjamin, and Levi, along with a few representative remnants of the other tribes. The overwhelming majority of the Ten Tribes remained in Exile and according to Ezekiel and the other Prophets will only return to the Land of Israel in the Last days or just before them.

"FEW": Jeremiah said that the house of Israel would return from the north country to dwell again in their land. Jer. 23:8: "But the Lord liveth, which brought up and which led the seed of the house of Israel out of the north country, and from all countries whither I had driven them; and they shall dwell in their own land." Cyrus the Great, king of Persia, made a proclamation in Babylon to all the Jews "throughout all his kingdom" for any who were "of all his people" (God's people) to return. Ezra 1:1-3: "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, and build the house of the Lord God of Israel; (he is the God) which is in Jerusalem." This proclamation was addressed to Israel. God had "stirred up the spirit of Cyrus" to make this proclamation. It fulfilled all that Jeremiah had spoken concerning the return of Israel to their land, a blanket fulfillment. If the ten tribes were not included in this proclamation, they were not of "all his people", not God's people. They all had the opportunity to return, all Israel in Babylon, and those in the "north country", "the ten tribes" and this proves definitely that the distinction which the Anglo-Israelists attempt to make is a false distinction.

BAR: The question is why were the Ten Tribes not included in the Proclamation of Cyrus?
Nachmanides answered this in his own way.
Brit-Am studies indicate that by the Time of Cyrus most of the Ten Tribes were not within the jurisdiction of the Persian Empire. At all events, they were no longer technically "Jews" and the Proclamation did not apply to them.

"FEW": After the return to Jerusalem Ezra commanded a sin offering for every tribe of Israel, and he referred to them as "all Israel." Ezra 6 :16-17: "And the children of Israel, the priests, and the Levites, and the rest of the children of the captivity, kept the dedication of this house with joy, and offered at the dedication of this house of God an hundred bullocks, two hundred rams, four hundred lambs; and for a sin offering for all Israel, twelve he goats, according to the number of the tribes of Israel." Why offer for "all Israel" if it was only the Jews who returned from Babylon, and not Israel at all, as Anglo-Israelites assert?

BAR: Why should they not offer sacrifices for all the Tribes of Israel? That is what the Temple was for! This question is treated in our article
"Completeness of the Exile"
See (5) Claim 5.
When Ezra and Nehemiah led the captives back from Babylon the returnees were referred to as "the Children of Israel" and they offered sacrifices on behalf of all twelve tribes of Israel. This does not show that "all Israel" were present.
See our answer to this same question in the article.
Other questions concerning Hebrew Biblical ("Old" Testament) sources raised by "FEW" are answered either by us or by Nachmanides in the Brit-Am articles referred to above.

"FEW": In the book of Ezra they are called Jews eight times and Israel forty times. In Nehemiah they are called Jews eleven times and Israel twenty two times. If these terms are not used interchangeably by Ezra and Nehemiah, how could they have used them interchangeably if they had wanted to do so? If these terms are not used interchangeably, then we have more Israel than Jews in Ezra, and the argument is reversed, for Anglo-
Israelists insist, that only the Jews, not Israel, returned to Judah from Babylon. But if the terms "Jews" and "Israel" are used interchangeably, then they are identical, the same in more than "two or three instances," and their whole argument is lost. In the two lists found in Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7, the number of Israel was 12,000 and the number of Judah was 30,000, and the sin offering was made for "all Israel," for "every tribe of Israel." Why" These facts are fatal to the Anglo-Israel theory.

It is pertinent here to inquire, who returned to Palestine. The Anglo-
Israelists deny that Israel returned. Only the Jews returned. Israel remained scattered and lost, to be found centuries later in the British Isles. Let us see. In 1 Chron. 9 13 we read: "So all Israel were reckoned by genealogies; and behold, they were written in the book of the kings of Israel and Judah, who were carried away to Babylon for their transgress on . . . And In Jerusalem dwelt of the children of Judah, and of the children of Benjamin, and of the children of Ephraim and Manasseh." Let it be noted that this was after the return, and who is in Jerusalem? First, "all Israel," and they were "reckoned by genealogies," so it must have been true. Second, among them were "children of Judah" and "children of Benjamin," who were Jews, according to Anglo-Israelists. But note: "And of the children of Ephraim and Manasseh." Here are the very ones who the Anglo-Israelists say were "Israel" and they were there. But they tell us only the Jews were there, not Israel at all. They are dead wrong.

BAR: There were minority groups from the other Tribes in Jerusalem as explained by Nachmanides and by us. Even so, in the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah only the names of families from Judah, Benjamin, and Levi are mentioned.
Likewise in the Books of Chronicles only the geneaologies of Judah, Benjamin, and Levi are given in detail while those of the other tribes are more general and are given only up until the Assyrian Exile, e.g.







"FEW": In 713 B.C., during the reign of Hezekiah, Sennacherib, king of Assyria, invaded Judah, "took all the fenced cities" 2 Kings 18:3 and carried the captives to Assyria. But that is where the ten tribes were, in Assyria. So in this way both Judah and Israel were in Assyria. Later, the proclamation of Cyrus, Ezra 1:13, gave all the opportunity to return, and all who wanted to return but were not able were given government aid.

Anyone can see what these facts do to the Anglo-Israel theory. That theory contends that Israel was "in the north country" and did not return to Palestine, that the ten tribes subsequently became lost, and never did return, but were traced to the British Isles, and now exist in the British, Anglo-Saxon, Celtic races. The passages cited show that their contention is wrong. These scriptural facts are absolutely fatal to the Anglo-Israel doctrine.

BAR: These questions are all thoroughly answered, see:
"The Completeness of the Exile.
Answers to Deniers of Brit-Am Biblical Truth"
"Nachmanides: Ten Tribes Lost But will Return"

"FEW" continues but begins quoting from the "New Testament" in the same vein as he quoted from the "Old".
We have skipped over these excerpts and picked up with "FEW" where he has returned to quoting from the Hebrew Bible:

"FEW": Sixth: They must prove that "Jews" and "Israel" are never synonymous. Let us look into the uses of these terms in both the Old Testament and New Testament and thus determine if the Anglo-Israel claim of a difference is in fact a true distinction.

BAR: "FEW" is right on this point to a degree. The term "Israel" does indeed encompass both Judah and the Ten Tribes though sometimes it can be used for the Ten Tribes as distinct from Judah or for all Israel who were present meaning in that case only or mainly Judah.
The term "Jews" refers to descendants of the Southern Kingdom who were not taken into Exile by the Assyrians along with refugees from the Northern Kingdom who joined them. It refers primarily to members of the Tribes of Judah, Benjamin, or Levi but can also include members of other Tribes. A representative portion of each Tribe is to be found amongst the Jews according to tradition. Nevertheless, the Tribal expression of members of the Ten Tribes was not to be acheived through "Judah" but rather via those of the Ten Tribes who were in exile and subsumed under the terms "Ephraim" or "Joseph" as shown in Ezekiel ch.37 and elsewhere and as explained by Nachmanides.

"FEW": In the Old Testament: The terms "Hebrew," "Jew" and "Israel" were used interchangeably in the law governing slavery. In Ex. 21:2 it is said, "If thou buy a Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing." In reference to this same law on slavery in Lev. 25:46 the "Hebrew servant" is mentioned as "your brethren, the children of Israel" over whom they should "not rule" continuously "with rigour." Then in Jer. 34:9 the same law of slavery is restated, that every man should let his "Hebrew" servant "go free," and this phrase is added: "To wit, of a Jew his brother." Here we have three statements of the same law. Moses stated it twice and used the terms "Hebrew" and "Israel" interchangeably. Jeremiah quoted the same law and used the terms "Hebrew" and "Jew" interchangeably, showing that he recognized no difference. Moses and Jeremiah understood Hebrew, Jew and Israel to mean the same thing and used the three words synonymously. The reference to the covenant that God made with Israel when he brought them out of Egypt shows that Jeremiah was referring to the same law of slavery. "Thus saith the Lord, the God of Israel; I made a covenant with your fathers in the day that I brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondmen, saying, at the end of seven years let ye go every man his brother an Hebrew, which hath been sold unto thee." Jer. 34:13-14. Jeremiah did not know about this late distinction the Anglo-Israelists are making between Jews and Israelites; he thought a Hebrew, a Jew and an Israelite were all the same thing. The Old Testament does not bear out the distinction.

BAR: Jeremiah was speaking to the People in Jerusalem:
There were two categories of "slaves" or indentured servants,
a. A "Canaanite" (i.e. non-Israelite) slave; and
b. An Israelite slave or indentured servant known as an "Eved Ivri" literally translated as "Hebrew Slave".
This is discussed in the
Brit-Am Commentary to Jeremiah chapter 34.
Jeremiah was telling the People of Jerusalem to free their Hebrew Servants who under the circumstances would have been "Jews".

"FEW": Seventh: They must prove that God chose the ten tribes over Judah. In Psa. 78:67-68 David says very specifically that God "refused the tabernacle of Joseph" and "chose not the tribe of Ephraim" but "chose the tribe of Judah." When did God change his mind and choose the tribe of Ephraim instead"

We hereby make the challenge for any man to produce the passage that proves God ever chose the Ten Tribes over Judah. We demand that passage.

BAR: God did not chose the Ten Tribes over Judah. When the Ten Tribes were exiled their spiritual membership with "Israel" was lost. It was as if the Almighty had abandoned them in that particular sense. The Almighty however through the Prophet says that HE will return and have mercy on Joseph and once again accept them as HIS people and that ultimately they will re-unite with Judah. In the meantime they have a task and destiny of their own to fulfil.
The Ten Tribes were exiled by the Assyrians and lost their identity. It was prophesied that they would be lost amongst the Gentiles.
This is described in the Prophets including Hosea:
Hosea says,
The Kingdom of Israel will end.

Northern Israel will disappear altogether.

Judah will be saved. The decree does not include Judah.


God will disown them.


After the Northern Ten Tribes have been cut off, their kingdom abolished, God having disowned them (but not Judah), they will be reconciled with God and with Judah in the End Times.

"AMMI" i.e. "My People".
"RUHAMAH" i.e. "Shown mercy Unto".
God DID NOT choose Israel over Judah. He had different tasks for them.
"Role to Rule. The Task of Joseph"

"FEW": To the contrary, the exact opposite of that, Isaiah the prophet declared that Ephraim should cease to be a people. Ephraim was forming an alliance against Judah. God said it would not stand, or come to pass, and that Ephraim would be broken, cease to be a separate people and become extinct as a nation. In fulfillment of that prophecy they went into captivity and never came out one people again.
Do you ask where is such a prophecy found?
I shall read it from
Isa. 7:58: "Because Syria, Ephraim and the son of Remaliah hath taken evil counsel against thee (Judah), saying, let us go against Judah and vex it, and let us make a breach therein for us, and set a king in the midst of it . . . Thus saith the Lord God, it shall not stand, neither shall it come to pass . . . For the head of Syria is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Rezin; and in three score and five years shall Ephraim be broken that it be not a people." This prophecy was spoken by Isaiah in 733 B.C., according to the dates agreed upon by such authorities as Wordsworth, Adam Clarke and Pulpit Commentary. The prophecy was fulfilled in 669 B.C., sixty-five years later, "three score and five years," when Ephraim was carried into captivity. The prophecy is linked with the prophecy that the invasion of Judah by Samaria would fail. That invasion did fail. But the prophet said that Ephraim would cease to be a people. Ephraim did cease to be a people. And it all occurred within the period named"B.C. 783 and B.C. 669, "three score and five years," or sixty-five years. Ephraim never came out of that captivity to exist as a people again.

The trouble with the Anglo-
Israelists is that they have a theory, and know a certain trail, but they have no fundamental knowledge of the prophecies or of the Bible as a whole. I seriously doubt if a one of them even knows that Isa. 7 :68 is in the Bible. That passage puts an end to their theory with one stroke; they surely do not know that it is there. On the other hand, if they do, their plight is even worse, for they must repudiate a plain prophecy with the date of its fulfillment, supported by the actual facts of history, in order to uphold a theory and have it their own way.

BAR: It is "FEW" who has to prove things. After spending a great deal of space arging that the Ten Tribes did not disappear but rejoined Judah he suddenly switches his argument, admits that indeed they were exiled, and did disappear but then dares us to find them!
Notice here that "FEW" appears to be BACKTRACKING!
"FEW" is now admitting that the Ten Tribes were exiled, disappeared, and did not rejoin Judah.
"FEW" has now accepted that the Ten Tribes were to become a separate entity only he is now claiming that they were not destined to amount to much.

"FEW": Eighth: They must prove that Ephraim was restored as such and reorganized into a nation.

We have just shown where Isaiah the prophet foretold that Ephraim would cease to be a people, and that he named the events connected with the fulfillment of his prophetic declaration. Let us now study the statements of other prophets regarding the same thing.

1. The prophet Hosea said that Judah would be forgiven but Israel would not be
forgiven. Hos 11-11

Verses 1 to 3 of
Hos. 1 refer to Israel's sins under the figure of whoredom. Verse 4 very positively states that God would cause to cease the kingdom of the house of Israel. Verse 6 declares that God would "no more have mercy upon the house of Israel" but would "utterly take them away." Verse 7 states that he would "have mercy upon the house of Judah." Verse 11 shows that after the return Israel would not exist as a separate nation, but would become one with Judah, under one head and one nation.

BAR: The key words are "after their return" and the Prophets all say that the return will be in the End Times and did not occur in their times.

"FEW": 2. The prophet Ezekiel said that after the Return there would be no more two nations, neither two kingdoms, but one, Ezek. 37:21-22.

"And say unto them, Thus
saith the Lord God; Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among the heathen, 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." It is here plainly declared that when God brought the children of Israel back "into their own land" "from the heathen nations whither they be gone," he made them "one nation" in the land of Israel, with "one king" (God), and they were "no more two nations" nor "divided into two kingdoms any more at all." That ought to be plain enough.

The verses just read,
however, verses 21 and 22, are but the conclusions drawn from verses 15 to 20. Let us read these verses: "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: then take another stick, and write upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and for all the house of Israel his companions: And join them one to another into one stick; and they shall become one in shine hand. And when the children of thy people shall speak unto thee, saying, Wilt thou not show us what thou meanest by these" Say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God: Behold I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel his fellows, and will put them with him, even with the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, and they shall be one in mine hand. And the sticks whereon thou writest shall be in shine hand before their eyes."

The application to anyone informed in these Old Testament facts will not be difficult. There were two sticks given to Ezekiel. Upon one of them he wrote, "For Judah," and upon the other, "For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim." Why the stick of Joseph in the hand of Ephraim? Because
Jereboam led the ten tribes away and became king over Ephraim, the ten tribes, in apostasy. But in the Return the "two sticks" were joined "one to another into one stick." When Ezekiel enacted this illustration before the people, with the two sticks in his hand, then joining them into one, the people said: "Wilt thou not show us what thou meanest by these"? Then God told Ezekiel to say: "Behold, I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel his fellows, and will put them with him, even with the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, and they shall be one in mine hand." Then with the sticks in his hand "before their eyes," Ezekiel carried out God's instructions, and very plainly told Israel in Babylon that joining the two sticks into one stick meant that after the Return the two nations, Judah and Israel, would be "one nation in the land of Israel" and "no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all." Thus the ten tribes ceased to be a people, no longer having identity as a nation. So said Isaiah, so said Hosea, so said Ezekiel. Anglo-Israelism to the contrary, notwithstanding.

BAR: What we saw from Hosea in the previous answer should be enough to answer all of the above.
Ephraim, meaning the Ten Tribes, as a recognisable entity did not return. He was to fulfil his destiny in Exile amongst the heathen and elevate himself alongside them pulling them up with him. We do not have to show that "Ephraim" was restored to a Kingdom.
It is enough if we note Prophecy in general concerning "Ephraim" and locate whatsoever nations fulfill those Prophecies.
This is what we have done, e.g.
See: The Joseph Characteristics
Introduction to Proofs from Joseph
Rule Over Other Peoples
A World Power
Military Might
Joseph Defeats Esau-Edom
The Bull-Calf English "Aegel"
India and Egypt
Ephraim and Aristocracy
Menasseh and Representation
The Lion and Unicorn
Summary of Joseph Aspects

"Gates of Your Enemies"
Mineral Resources
Agricultural Prosperity
Immense Multitudes

Be a Blessing to Others
Be a Light to the Nations
Be Separate from Judah
Not Recognizable by Judah
Dolmens and Megalith Path of Migration
Hebrew Patriarchal Names
Tribal and Clan Names

"FEW": Ninth: They must prove that Israel was promised an earthly king.

A king on earth was not a part of the original promise, and was never made a part of any subsequent promise to Israel. In
Hos. 13 :911, the prophet declares: "O Israel, thou has destroyed thyself; but in me is shine help. I will be thy king: where is any other that may save thee in all thy cities? And thy judges of whom thou saidst, Give me a king and princes? I gave thee a king in mine anger, and took him away in my wrath." These words cannot be misunderstood, after the Return they should have no king on earth; God would be their king.

The statement of God through Hosea, "I gave them a king in mine anger, and took him away in my wrath," refers to the demand of Israel for an earthly king in the days of Samuel. The record of it is found in 1 Sam. 12:19: "And all the people said unto Samuel, pray for thy servants unto the Lord thy God, that we die not: for we have added unto all our sins this evil, to ask us a king." Here it was a confessed evil that Israel should ask for an earthly king. God told Samuel that in so doing the people had not rejected Samuel, but had rejected God. It was a self confessed sin. Hence, God gave them a king in "anger" and removed him in "wrath," and Hosea said "the iniquity of Ephraim is bound up; his sin is hid."

BAR: The question of Samuel etc is discussed in the Brit-Am Commentary to Samuel.
When the Almighty says that he will establish a King over them (Ezekiel 37) or they shall not want a descendant of David reigning over them (Jeremiah 33:26) common sense says that the intention is a literal one. Anyone who says otherwise should prove it.
Apart from that, from the present Brit-Am perspective, the aspect of Royalty is a valid point but not one we could not do without.
If we were ever to be contradicted on this point (and definitely we have not been) it would not affect our main justification for Brit-Am Belief and Knowledge.

"FEW" continues with a theological debate on Theoretical Doctrines beyond our field of interest.
He then comes to,

"FEW": (6) The kings of England and Judah.

It is noteworthy here that the British-Israel authority,
OdIum, on page 149, makes the following statement: "King George IS of the royal house of Judah . . . there are many who believe that Britain is Israel, but they seem to doubt the possibility of tracing our Sovereign from king Zedekiah."

BAR: "FEW" here quotes different geneaologies etc as if to say that "King George" could not be descended from Israel.
The fact is that he could be. Whether he was or was not is another question but it is not beyond the realm of possibity.
"Sons of David as Rulers"

The notion of Davidic ancestry is not a new thing with British Monarchs:
Edward IV (1442-1483 CE) "ordered his heralds to draw up his family tree. This was published on a roll some 18 feet long, which today resides in the Lancashire record office. Going back through the centuries, it made the astonishing claim that Edward was descended from Jehoshaphat and the ancient kings of Israel."
"The New Jerusalem", by Adrian Gilbert, 2002, p.69

"FEW": This concludes the analysis of the proposition in its various phases, as affirmed by the Anglo-
Israelists, and I shall now turn to some of their main arguments for a detailed refutation of their claims.


This particular so-called argument of the Anglo-Israelites is a thing of which their own speakers know very little and a thing of which their audiences as a rule know nothing. But I will point out their stereotyped, cut and dried chatter on "ethnology."

(1) The gist of the argument.

It runs on this wise:
That Israel and the Saxons are an ethnic unit.
That continuity of Jacob's race exists under another name
That the Anglo-Saxons are of
Israelitish origin.
That we, therefore, "have Abraham unto our father."

(2) The asserted proof.

Their first line of assertions, which they always substitute for proof, is found in what is called racial resemblance. It is an argument on physiognomy. For instance: Abraham's wife, Sarah, was fair.
Laban, her brother, means white. Leah, Jacob's wife, was "tender eyed""meaning that she was a blonde. Rachel, Isaac's wife, was beautiful, also a blond -and "gentlemen prefer blondes," you know"therefore"we are it! A similar line of argument based on similarity could as well follow this pattern: David means "ruddy"-therefore, the king of England is redheaded!

Their second line of assertions is found in what is known as racial nomenclature. That is, the names of places in various countries. This attachment of names appears to be to places, however, instead of persons. For instance, the ten tribes left their marks in names. The name of the tribe of Dan is found in the name of a country called
Denmark, actually Dan-mark. Then again, Dan has put his mark on a city called London, actually, Lon-dan. Another city marked by Dan is Edinburgh, actually E-dan-burgh.

Here a "FEW" more questions push up. According to that line of argument to prove that Israel is in England and adjacent territory, what about such names in England as Birmingham? Did Ham get his mark on the Englishman, too? He must be quite a mixed up person. Then, what about taking in some Africans and Egyptians? For instance: Dan-
ikil: Dan-ikil is a tribe in northeast Africa. So Dan marked the Africans as well as the Englishmen. Then Din-ka, actually Dan-ka, belongs to the Nile section; and Don-gola: "Dan-gola", is also in Egypt. Did Dan mark the blacks and the browns, as well as the fair, in his racial nomenclature perambulations? Besides all of that, why not take in some of Hitler's "yellow aryans" in the deal, for Japan could as well be a derivation of Japheth, Japan, you see? And Manchuria could very easily descend from Manasseh: Manchuria, you know? So after all, these British-Israelists might be wrong about Great Britain being Ephraim and the U. S. A. being Manasseh, may be Japan is little Manasseh, and he doesn't like it because Ephraim was so much "greater" than Manasseh, so he is trying to do something about it?? Plausible, isn't it? About as plausible as Israelism is silly, based on racial resemblance and racial nomenclature.

Their argument on these points of "ethnology" will take in brown races of the Egyptians, the dark faces of Africans, and the yellow midgets of the "Rising Sun." Black Ephraim! Brown Manasseh! Yellow Israelites! That is the color line

Israelism leaves on Israel after their argument on the ethnology of resemblance and nomenclature. Anglo-Israelism is pure guesswork, unsupported by either historical or ethnological proof"and certainly without Bible proof.

BAR: Racial Resemblance: There is some resemblance. After about three thousand years of different environments and some intermixing we should expect certain differences.
Nevertheless, some similarity still exists. We are not racialists but if some physical resemblance is still to be noticed it may serve as evidence along with other proofs. This is not proof in itself but it is worth noting.
Israelite Physical Types
Hebrew Pictures

Concerning the similarity of Names. The names exist. In some cases a similarity between names may be due to coincidence. There are, however, numerous cases where the simple explanation is that the names reflected traditions concerning the ancestors of those who gave the names. The great quantity of names that have Biblical parallels and the regions they are found in together with other factors consitute proof to be taken into consideration as part of a complex of acceptable evidence.


Here again they enter into a field concerning which their own debaters and writers are without expert knowledge. They are not specialists in these fields at
all, yet they would speak as one having authority, as skilled experts, in branches of research concerning which they are as unschooled and unskilled as a layman in the field of sciences. But we will notice their claims concerning philology.

(1) The affinity of language.

The claim is that racial relationships lie in affinities in language, or vocabularies. The Hebraic in sound and sense, it is claimed, is
Saxon, so Saxons are Hebraic, therefore Israel. This argument becomes a tacit admission that Anglo-Israelism is a doctrine that no English reader could ever learn from the English Bible. The one hundred and forty-eight translators of the King James and the American Standard versions did not translate the British-Israel idea into our English texts.

Here is a sample of an Anglo-Israel argument. In the magazine DESTINY, the leading Anglo-Israel publication, we have the following: "The ancient British language is closely related to the
Hebrew", Destiny, page 367. Therefore, the conclusion goes, the British people, with us as near neighbors, are Israelites. But we could just as well say that the English language is closely related to Latin; therefore, we are Romans. And the French language is closely related to the Spanish; therefore Frenchmen are Spaniards. Or, if the French wish to turn the argument around, the Spaniards are Frenchmen. The fact is that only in isolated islands, where there has been no contact with the civilized world for generations, could a language be found that would not have words similar to other languages.

(2) The similarity of sound.

It is claimed that there are one hundred and forty words, in the Hebrew and English that are similar in sound. Countering this claim, however, it has been stated that only a small percent of the words claimed would actually check with lexical authority. But even if so, comparing the Hebrew with the German, Greek, Latin, Arabic and Syrian, there are even a greater number of similar words. The Hebrew descended directly from the
Aramean, which is the oldest language on earth, and it is possible to find similarities of the same nature in every language on earth. The English language itself is mixed up with the Norman, Scandinavian and later, the French.

If the Hebrew and ancient British prove the British people to be Israelites, then the Hebrew and the Aramaic prove the Arabs to be Israelites. If not, why not?

BAR: We are not certain what exactly "FEW" was getting at here.
There are linguistic proofs and they are as valid and as acceptable as anything else and we do not see why they should not be.
The Linguistic Evidence may well be stronger than even British Israel claimed! Similarity of language does not prove anything in itself but it is an indication of possible common origin that deserves to be considered alongside other lines of evidence and as complementary to them.

(3) Attachment to the Hebrew scriptures.

It is argued by British-
Israelists that the attachment of the people of England to the scriptures is due to the similarity of the English language to the Hebrew. If that be true, then what is the reason for German attachment to the scriptures? It is a known fact that all through the centuries, before and after the time of Martin Luther, Germany has furnished some of the most learned and pious scholars and commentators the religious world has ever known. Philip Schaff, renowned scholar, historian, Bible commentator, and chairman of the revision committee of the American Standard Revised Version was a German. Lange, Olshausen, Hengstenburg, Meyer, and names too numerous to mention were all Germans. It will not be disputed that the Germany of past centuries was the cradle of the reformation and has been the battleground where many victories were won for the Bible and Christianity. It cannot be shown that England has contributed more in devotion' to the scriptures than even Germany of the past, no matter what the Huns, Teutons and warlords of the German military have made of the nation today. The argument will work both ways.

There is no argument to be based on similarity of sound, affinity of speech, or of one nation's attachment to scriptures, that can favor Anglo-
Israelism. It is nothing short of an admission of weakness and a lack of something conclusive for such flimsy evidences to be offered in support of a system making such bold and pretentious claims. We repeat that only in the isolated islands of the earth, where for many generations the inhabitants have had no intercourse or contact with civilization, could any language be found that was not in some respects related to and similar to other languages.

The historical, ethnological and philological arguments of the Anglo-
Israelists will not stand the test of investigation. In these fields they have made a complete flop. And we shall now see that they can do no better when it comes to the Biblical argument.

BAR: The devotion of people in the British Isles to the Bible has often lead to an adoption of Hebrew Customs, and a feeling of affinity with the Jews and with their desire to return to the Holy Land.
This was not necessarily the case with other peoples who may have studied Scripture even more than the British and kin did. In the case of the British, the Bible served as a catalyst for an arousal of Hebrew consciousness and an adoption of Hebrew values. This to our mind is an additional indication of Hebrew ancestry.


The Anglo-Israel plan, like all other systems of prophetic vagaries, is to indiscriminately quote Old Testament prophecies and assert their application to the particular theory being promoted. We shall now point out their misquotations and misapplication of certain Old Testament passages.

(1) The seed of
Isaac, Gen. 21:912.

In the twenty-first chapter of Genesis is related the story of Ishmael and Isaac. When Ishmael, the son of Abraham by Hagar, was seen mocking Isaac, Sarah the wife of Abraham, and mother of Isaac, ordered Abraham to "cast out this bondwoman and her son: for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac." The thing grieved Abraham because Ishmael was his son. But God said unto Abraham "in all that Sarah hath said unto thee, hearken unto her voice; for in Isaac shall thy seed be called." So Anglo-
Israelists assert that this passage means that a nation would be named Isaac: "in Isaac shall thy seed be called", and Saxon means "Isaac-sons," or Saxsons, hence the Saxons are Israel.

But the text does not say, or even hint, that a nation would be called Isaac, even if Saxon meant Isaac, which it does not. The text says that his seed should be called in Isaac.

BAR: The text indeed does not necessarily mean that the descendants of Abraham would be named after Isaac though it could be a connotation of the passage.
Historically the Scythians (Isak-gulu, Iskuzi, Zohak, Saka, Sacassene, Saxone) and Saxons apparently did received their name from a northern mispronounciation of the Hebrew Yitschak (Isaac). See also:
Hebrew Patriarchal names

"FEW": (2) The appointed place, 2 Sam. 7:10-14.

It is argued by the Anglo-
Israelists that God's promise to David to "appoint a place for my people Israel" meant a place for the Anglo-Saxon people. Let us read the passage.

"Moreover I will appoint a place for my people Israel, and I will plant them, that they may dwell in a place of their own, and move no more; neither shall the children of wickedness afflict them any more, as before time, and as since the time that I commanded judges to be over my people Israel, and have caused thee to rest from all shine enemies. Also the Lord
telleth thee that he will make thee an house. And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build an house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men."

Several comments are in order on this passage:
It is asserted that "the appointed place" is the British Isles, with London as Jerusalem, the capital of Christendom, and that the British people are "my people Israel" of this passage. It is not a new claim in some respects, for the medieval popes made similar claims for Rome.
It may be inquired quite properly as to when the place was or is to be "appointed" for "
Israel""during the millennium or now? Also will the throne be in Jerusalem during the millennium, and the place in the British Isles? It would seem that the throne should be in the place.
The language of the passage was spoken before the rending of the kingdom, before the division between Judah and the ten tribes, hence when the Jews were Israel. The text specifically mentions the building of Solomon's temple, and "the place" was where the house was to be
built, verse 13. Where was the house built? In the "appointed place""not somewhere else? Well, the house of Hanover was certainly built in London, but not that house. So London is not the "appointed place."
The reference in verse 11 to the "time of the judges" connected with verse 13 on where the house was to be built shows clearly the location of the "appointed place."
Notice the statement: "As since the time I commanded judges to be over Israel, and have caused thee to rest from all shine enemies." The place was appointed then, and would be continuous from the time of the judges on. That does not fit Great Britain or the British Isles in any sense at all, nor the Anglo-Saxon peoples.

Since they dote so heavily on the "Hebrew" language, we may pertinently ask the Anglo-
Israelist what tense is "will appoint" in the original Hebrew? Let him read the passage in the Hebrew. It reads: "I have appointed thee a place." I call attention to this fact merely for Anglo-Israel consumption. The English rendering is good enough for me. The rendering "will appoint" only indicates that the place would be appointed from the time of the judges, continuously, hence the future tense was applicable to the idea set forth, a continuous appointment from the time of the judges, and the place appointed was where the temple of Solomon, the house of God, was to be built.

Where, then, was the appointed place? Let us compare some passages.

First, Joshua called it "the land which he
sware to give unto their fathers . . . and they possessed it . . . and the Lord gave them rest round about.",
. 21:43-45. It was the land of Canaan, not the British Isles, that God sware to give unto their fathers, referring to the promise made to Abraham.

Second, Nehemiah said it was the "place" to which Israel returned after their captivity, when God "gathered them from thence" to "bring them unto the place that I have
chosen", Neh. 1:8-10. And Nehemiah further said that it had been done when the children of Israel, the Jews, returned from Babylon to the land of Judea. Furthermore, he referred to them, the Jews, as "thy servants and thy people" whom God "had redeemed" from captivity and brought them to the place he had "chosen" and "appointed." So the "appointed place" was the land of Palestine, and "his people Israel" were those who had returned from captivity from Babylon and everywhere they had been scattered.

Third, Hezekiah the king wrote letters to "all Israel and Judah," and "also to Ephraim and Manasseh," reminding them of God's promise that they should "come again into this land", 2
Chron. 30:1, 9, 11, 18.

That the ten tribes were represented in this call of Hezekiah is clearly shown by reference to "Ephraim and Manasseh" in verse 1, and to "divers (many) of
Assher and Manasseh and Zebulun" in verse 11, and "a multitude of people, even many of Ephraim, and Manasseh, and Issachar, and Zebulun" in verse 18. All of these tribes answered the call of Hezekiah to come to the house of the Lord in the "place" that God had appointed, referred to as "this land."

Incidentally, the passage says that these tribes were "humble, which might prove that the Anglo-
Israelists are not they! For if there has ever been a party built on pride, and a tribe composed of egotists, Anglo-Israelists are both

So "all Israel," with the ten tribes mentioned along with Judah, came into the place that God had appointed, which
Hezekah said was "this land," where the house of God, the temple, was built, the land in which he was king, the land that was promised to the fathers, and which they had then possessed, the land of Palestine, of course, not the British Isles.

BAR: See our article The Completeness of the Exile (2) Claim 2, regarding King Hezekiah. Hezekiah reigned through the final exile of the northern Tribes. The Tribes were exiled in stages. He began his reign while a remnant of the Tribes still remained and were centered around the city of Samaria. In the first year of his reign Hezekiah sent messages requesting from those of the Northern Tribes who were still not exiled to come up to Jerusalem to celebrate the Passover. Most of the Israelites mocked him (2-Chronicles 30:10) though some did come to Jerusalem. This was in the first year of his reign. In the sixth year of the reign of Hezekiah (2-Kings 18:10), Samaria was captured by the Assyrians and its inhabitants taken into captivity (2-Kings 18:11-13).

Fourth, Jeremiah said concerning this "appointed place" that God would "cause" Israel to "dwell in this place, in the land that I gave to your fathers" after they should return from their captivity Jer. 7:7.

The prophet told Israel of their impending exile, described its duration and their return, and said
then, note it, "then will I cause you to dwell in this place." To what place did Israel return? In what place did they dwell after they returned? The appointed place was the place to which they returned from captivity and the land in which they dwelt then? and it was not the British Isles by a long shot.

Fifth, Ezekiel said that God would open the grave of Israel's captivity, cause them to come out, and place them in their own land
again, Ezek. 37:11-14.

In their captivity in Babylon Israel was represented as being in their graves. But God said to them, "I will open your graves . . . cause you to come out . . . bring you into the land of Israel . . . ye shall live . . . and I will place you in your own land." Anybody who can see through a barrel with both ends knocked out can see that this "place" was the land of Palestine, and that "Israel" was simply the Jews.

Sixth, Ezra referred to the proclamation of Cyrus for the release of the Jews from Babylon, which was addressed to "all his people," and named the place where the house of God was built as "the land of
Judah", Ezra 1:13. So the "appointed place" was the land of Judah. And if the ten tribes were included in the expression "of all his people" among "all the kingdoms of the earth," they were included in this emancipation proclamation.

Thus Joshua, Nehemiah, Hezekiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Ezra, all bear testimony as to what the "appointed place" was, and where it was, and to the fact that the ten tribes were in it. Anglo-
Israelism to the contrary, notwithstanding.

The appointed place was the land promised to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The promise was made to Abraham in Gen. 12 and was repeated to Isaac in Gen. 26:24. The promise was next repeated to Jacob in Gen. 35:1012, and finally this same promise was repeated by Jacob to Joseph, as having been handed down to him from Abraham, when he blessed the sons of Joseph, in Gen. 48:34. These facts prove conclusively that the only land or place God ever promised to the seed of Abraham, Jacob, Isaac, or Isaac's sons, was the land of Canaan, and according to the combined testimony of the Old Testament
writers, their seed possessed it and dwelt in it.

BAR: The "appointed place" (2-Samuel 7:10-14) was never a proof used by Brit-Am but despite everything "FEW" wrote above we do not see why it could not have referred to the British Isles or North America. "FEW" has not shown us that the Ten Tribes were included in the decree of Cyrus. The evidence indicates otherwise since the Census Lists of Ezra and Nehemia only mention the express names of Israelites from the Tribes of Judah, Benjamin, and Levi. Members of some of the other tribes may indeed have been present, as suggested by the Midrash, but they were there as a minority segment of their main Tribes that were elsewhere at that time and after it, see the article by Nachmanides.

"FEW": (3) The gate of his
enemies, Gen. 22:1514

Israelists assert that "the gate" of this passage refers to Gilbraltar, Suez, and Singapore, as "gates of enemies," and that Great Britain is the "seed" that "possesses" these "gates" of the enemy. They base their theory on these verses in Genesis 22, which we will now read and examine. "And the angel of the Lord called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time, and said, By myself have I sworn, saith the Lord, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, shine only son: That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the seashore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice."
Let it be noted first that the passage does not say "gates", it says "gate."
The passage does not say that "peoples" or "nation" shall possess
it. It says "seed", "thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies."
The word "gate" refers to power not to passages of traffic. It means power over, not physical protection from the enemies mentioned.
Rebekah it was said, in Gen. 24:60, "Be thou the mother of thousands of millions, and let thy seed possess the gate of those which hate them." So the word "gate" meant power, dominion over enemies.

What did God mean when he said that Abraham's "seed" should possess the "gate" of his enemies" Well, the very next verse reads: "And in thy seed shall all nations of the earth be
blessed", a repetition of Gen. 12:3,

BAR: "Gate of his enemies" and "Gate of those who hate them" in the Hebrew may be understood as connoting a plurality. The expressions refer to strategic geographic points of international importance.
This is the smple meaning of the Hebrew and how the Sages understood it. The Sages pointed to Tadmor in the North Syrian Desert controlling the International spice trade as an example of such a "gate".
Gates of Your Enemies

"FEW": (4) The isles of the sea, Isa. 11:11.

The Anglo-
Israelists assert that "the isles of the sea" in Isa. 11:11, Isa. 24:15 and Isa. 49:20 designate England as the land in which Israel should dwell. That you may see how "plausible" the assertion sounds, let us read these verses in their order mentioned.

"And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the, remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from
Pathros and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea", Isa. 11:11.

"Wherefore glorify ye the Lord in the fires, even the name of the Lord God of Israel in the isles of the
sea", Isa. 24:15.

"The children which thou
shalt have, after thou hast lost the other, shall say again in shine ears, The place is too strait for me: give place to me that I may dwell", Isa. 49:20.

According to the marginal note in the text the expression "isles" in these passages is defined to mean "coast lands." The United States has more coast land than England, as numerous other countries also have. The "isles of the sea" evidently denote the farthermost and uttermost parts of the earth.

BAR: Brit-Am does not need to relate to any "marginal note in the text". The simple meaning is "Isles" and Islands are what the verse intends.
Isles of the Sea

"FEW": A short study of the passages will reveal the fallacy of the British-Israel interpretations.
The remnant of the people would be recovered "from" the islands of the sea in Isa. 11:11, and not settled "in" them.

BAR: What is the difference whether they would be "recovered from" or "settled in"? The bottom line is that is where they would be.

The location is wrong for the British Isles, as shown in verse 14, for Philistia is not west of England.
The history is also wrong for Britain, for Edom, Moab and
Ammon do not exist now, which proves that the passage does not support any future idea.
If the place in these verses refers to Britain, why should they object to slavery, since
Isa. 14:12 states that in that place they would possess their enemies for handmaids and servants. Does that fit Britain?
If these "isles of the sea" refer to the British Isles as the place God appointed for
Israel, why does Israel complain of being thus exiled?
Isa 49:20 represents them as saying "the place is too strait for me: give place to me that I may dwell." A British-Israel publication called "British-Israel Truth," chapter 5, says that this verse refers to the appointed place, but it would become too limited in area for their immensely increasing numbers, hence
Isa. 49:20. In other words God removed his people Israel to the British Isles, the place he appointed for them, but they were displeased with the Lord's selection of the place and said, Lord, this place is too strait; we have not enough room; we are exiled on this island. So Israel objects to the appointed place and complains of God's taste for locations. Really, why pick on the British Isles for the fulfillment of such passages? Why not choose Borneo, New Guinea, Java? They are all "isles of the sea" and in that case Isa. 49:20, "this place IS too strait for me!" might be applied to Japan expansion! Would not that be "plausible"?
If these passages refer to Anglo-
Israelism, and if the U. S. A. IS a part of Israel as they contend, but the British Isles IS the appointed place for Israel, then God could not be "in the midst" of them, as declared in Isa. 12:6. The theory is a chain of farfetched imaginations, a network of speculations, a bundle of pure guesses.
The thing that was declared in the "isles of the sea" shows that the British-Israel idea is wrong. Read
Jer. 31:10: "Hear the word of the Lord, O ye nations, and declare it in the isles afar off, and say, He that scattered Israel will gather him, and keep him, as a shepherd cloth his flock." The thing declared in the "isles," where Israel was at the time, was that God would bring Israel back to their own land. So the "isles of the sea" were not Israel's "own land". God declared to Israel, who was then scattered "in the isles" that he would bring them back to their own land. "And there is hope in thine end, saith the Lord, that thy children shall come again to their own border."
The "isles of the sea" simply referred to the "inhabitants of the coasts," and bringing Israel back "to their own border" took place when they returned from the North "to the land that I have given for an inheritance unto your
fathers.", Jer. 3:18. That land, of course, was the land promised to Abraham, the land of Canaan, Palestine. We are plainly told that the Edict of Cyrus the Great, king of Persia, fulfilled all of these prophecies spoken by Jeremiah concerning Israel and her land, a blanket fulfillment, to which reference has several times been made in this series of addresses. Read 2 Chron. 36:2023 and Ezra 1:13.

BAR: The Prophets prophesied that the Ten Tribes would be in islands and on the Peninsulas as we have explained.
Isaiah chapter 11 speaks of the Last Days. The Messiah Descendant of David will appear [Isaiah 11:10]. He will redeem the Exiles who had been exiled to different places including the Isles of the Sea [Isaiah 11:11]. These are the exiles of Judah and Israel: The places spoken of are areas to which exiles were taken and from there went elsewhere. They are not necessarily places from which the exiles will return. The Lost Tribes and Judah will be gathered together (11:12) and there will be no more anti-Semitism from Ephraim or trouble-making from Judah (11:13). Together they will expel the Palestinian-Philistines, flying them out to the west (Isaiah 11:14). They will subdue Edom, Moab, and the Ammonites meaning either their present day descendants or peoples who dwell in their lands. Isaiah 14:2 says they will take captive those who captured them and rule over their oppressors. This does not necessarily imply (as "FEW" insinuates) a re-institution of slavery though one never knows, does one?
"FEW" quotes Isaiah 49:20 and argues that if it is Britain it cannot be America etc. "FEW" here is refuting British Israel type arguments that Brit-Am never adopted so it does not really concern us. Nevertheless it is worth noting that the refutations of "FEW" are not convincing.
Jeremiah 31:10 when seen in the context of that chapter and compared to other verses does indicate that the Lost Israelites are to be in the Isles.

"I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn. Hear the word of the LORD, O ye nations, and declare it in the ISLES afar off, and say, He that scattered Israel will gather him and keep him, as a shepherd doth his flock" (Jeremiah 31:9-10).

Isaiah also refers to Israel in the "Isles":
"Listen 0 ISLES unto me. Thou art my servant, O Israel, in whom I will be glorified... to bring Jacob again unto him... to raise up the tribes of Jacob... a covenant of the people [in Hebrew: "Brit-am"] to establish the earth... to inherit the desolate heritages... these from the north and the west; and these from the land of Sinim" (Isaiah -49;1-6).

"The name of the Lord God of Israel in the ISLES of the sea"(Isaiah 24;15) .

"The ISLES shall wait for his law"(Isaiah 42;4).

"Hearken unto me, MY PEOPLE...O my nation...mine arms shall judge the people, the ISLES shall wait upon me" (Isaiah 51;4 5).

"Surely the ISLES shall wait for me, and the ships of Tarshish first, to bring thy sons from far" (Isaiah 60;9).

"FEW" asks why should "Isles" refer to the British isles? Why not "Borneo, New Guinea, Java" which are all "isles of the sea"?
Here too, we must return to the "General Principle of One Whole Body of Evidence" that we insisted upon at the beginning. Each piece of evidence must be considered as part of a whole picture and must be placed where it is most suitable and in accordance with all other points of evidence alongside it.
We need to look for a people or group of peoples that has a major base in "islands" and ALSO rules the oceans and fulfils all the other myriad criteria that determine membership of the Lost Ten Tribes of Israel.

"FEW": (5) The ships of Tarshish, Isa. 23:1-10.

Israelists claim that the "land of Tarshish" is the British Isles and "the ships of Tarshish" are the British Navy, the greatest marine power, we are told, and therefore "the appointed place." That line of talk may have seemed a little more plausible a "FEW" years ago than now, but it is about to become obsolete since the British Navy is not now the "greatest world marine" and hence may turn out not to be "the appointed place" at all.

Since the
Isa. 23:11 passage is one of their most important texts, let us read the whole of it, with proper attention:
"The burden of
Tyre. Howl, ye ships of Tarshish; for it is laid waste, so that there is no house, no entering in: from the land of Chittim it is revealed to them. Be still, ye inhabitants of the Isle: thou whom the merchants of Zidon, that pass over the sea, have replenished. And by great waters the seed of Sihor, the harvest of the river, is her revenue; and she is a mart of nations. Be thou ashamed, O Zidon: for the sea hath spoken, even the strength of the sea, saying, I travail not, nor bring forth children, neither do I nourish up young men, nor bring up virgins. As at the report concerning Egypt, so shall they be sorely pained at the report of Tyre. Pass ye over to Tarshish; howl ye inhabitants of the isle. Is this your joyous city, whose antiquity is of ancient days? Her own feet shall carry her afar off to sojourn. Who hath taken this counsel against Tyre, the crowning city, whose merchants are prince, Whose traffickers are the honourable of the earth? The Lord of hosts hath purposed it, to stain the pride of all glory, and to bring into contempt all the honourable of the earth. Pass through thy land as a river, O daughter of Tarshish; there is no more strength."

A good look at this asserted
prooftext will be sufficient to convince the candid that their deductions are wholly wrong.

1. The people of
Tarshish were Gentiles, not Israelites, Gen. 10 :45. Isles referred to are the "inhabitants of the coasts," as mentioned in verse 2. Those who "passed over" to Tarshish were Gentile inhabitants, as shown in verse 5.
The Gentiles among the nations to be punished would flee to
Tarshish, to Pul and to Lud. Isa. 66:19-20: "And I will set a sign among them, and I will send those that escape of them unto the nations, to Tarshish, Pul and Lud . . . to the isles afar off . . . and they shall declare my glory among the Gentiles. And they shall bring all your brethren for an offering unto the Lord out of all nations . . . to my holy mountain Jerusalem, saith the Lord."
That is a poor text for British
Israelism. It has God bringing his people Israel to Jerusalem instead of to the British Isles, and the Gentiles among the nations to be punished as fleeing to Tarshish, Pul and Lud. Then in the next verses of the same chapter it describes the temple being rebuilt in Jerusalem and the Jews resuming the observance of the new moon and the sabbath ceremonies of the law of Moses. All of these passages have to do with Israel's captivity and return, and contain not even a remote hint at the contentions of Anglo-British Israelism. But a visionary speculator does not need a "hint" when he goes in for manufacturing theories, he just needs a theory!

BAR: "FEW" is right here to a degree. "Tarshish" in the Bible does refer to a Gentile nation. There were a few important places in Ancient Times referred to as Tarshish. The best known include Tarsis in Cilicia (Southeast Turkey), and Tartessos in Southwest Spain by the straits of Gibraltar. Tartessos of Spain was called "Tarsis" by the Phoenicians and Assyrians. The connection between the Assyrians, and the Phoenician center of Tyre, and Tartesssos in Spain, along with the settlement of Israelite Exiles according to historical researches and archaeological finds has been explained in detail in our work, "Lost Israelite Identity"; see also our "Brit-Am Answers to Queries" article on "Tarshish".
According to the Sages, The term "Tarshish" in the Bible could also apply to the Atlantic Ocean and "Ships of Tarshish" to ships from the Atlantic Ocean area. Isaiah predicted that the Exiles would return by plane, "FLY AS A CLOUD AND AS THE DOVES TO THEIR WINDOWS (Isaiah 60:8), and in Ships of Tarshish (60:9). These verses together with other verses indicating the isles of the sea in a westerly and northern direction from the Land of Israel etc strengthen our conclusion that the Lost Ten Tribes in the End Times will at least partly be located in the British Isles and North America.
See also:
Brit-Am Biblical Proof: Tarshish.

"FEW" continues for the rest of this thread in similar vein but mainly rehashes points he has already made and which we have answered above.


It can be readily seen by all who have followed closely the arguments set forth, that Anglo-
Israelism is a British doctrine. It originated in England and spread to Canada, Australia, New Zealand and other British dominions. Its first foothold in the United States was in the New England states among the immigrants from the British Isles or those not far removed from England's ancestry and British pride. Its strongest appeal therefore is to Anglo-Saxon glory. On this basis I list the following indictments against this foreign vanity:

(1) It is a System of national religion.

Here I quote again from Anglo-Israel's official organ: "Destiny identifies the Anglo-Saxon-Celtic and kindred peoples as the house of Israel under the leadership of the U. S. A. and Great
Britain.", DESTINY, Oct., 1943, page 336. Again: "These two nations are the greatest power on earth and being of the stock of Israel are fulfilling the many prophecies of Israel's greatness in these latter times.", DESTINY, page 337. More: "Our responsibility in these matters is deepened by the fact that the Anglo-Saxons are the people with whom God made his unalterable covenant, and upon whom he laid his law.", DESTINY, page 336. Thus does DESTINY, the official publication of Anglo-Israelism, testify to the nationalism of the system, thus pleading guilty to the charges, and in its admissions of nationalism it renders itself incompatible with Christianity.

But there is yet more evidence. Doctor John Matthews of Los Angeles, is a recognized authority of Anglo-
Israelism. He deposes as follows: "Beginning the kingdom at mount Sinai, it was later removed to and continued in Ireland . . . Later of the royal line in Scotland . . . and now we have king George VI ruling over the house of Israel on the British throne.", Radio address, August 21, 1943. This radio address was printed and distributed both at public meetings and through the mail. It is what Anglo-Israelists believe, namely, that king George VI occupies David's literal throne in England and "rules over the house of Israel on the British throne." Hear this: "Queen Victoria, queen of England, knew that she had inherited the throne of David.", Dr. John Matthews, August 21, 1943.

Now, friends, ponder that
assertion, study the meaning of that claim. If the house of Hanover (lately Brunswick) is the house of Israel, and the throne of England is the throne of David, where are we? If that is true, when the thirteen colonies rebelled against England, they rebelled against a divine throne, the throne of David. If that is true, then this nation of ours the United States of America, was formed in rebellion against the divine throne of God on earth, and is being perpetuated in rebellion against that divine throne. And if that is true, the only way the condition could be cured would be for this nation to dissolve the Union and go back under the British crown! That is Anglo-Israelism. I am speaking to an American audience, what do you think about it? Whether Anglo-Israelists avow this consequence, as doubtless some of them in their hearts do, or whether they do not, it is the inevitable consequence of the theory.

BAR: "FEW" claims that accepting these beliefs means advocating British-domination of the USA.
This is not so.
See our work, "Joseph. The Israelite Destiny of America" where the opposite conclusion could also be arrived at.
At all events, first it should be decided whether Brit-Am is correct or not and then the implications may be discussed, not the other way round.

"FEW": (2) It is a system of race superiority.

One of the oldest authorities of British-
Israelism is a book entitled "Anglo-Israelism," by Howlett. On page 66 of this book, Howlett deposes as follows: "It is the manifest destiny of both our race and our language to dominate the world." Again he says: "All India is studying English. In Japan it is taught in the national schools at government expense.", page 67. Compare that statement with some similar utterances in "Mein Kampf" by a man named Adolf Hitler Schicklegruber! Incidentally, we have the explanation now as to why Japan was teaching some of her citizens the English language a "FEW" years ago at government expense. They meant to have this government changed by now, thought they would be running things over here, and would need plenty of Japanese who could speak English. And, incidentally again, Anglo-Israelism teaches that very ambition to "dominate" all the world by universal government and language through Great Britain whom they style "British Israel." Therefore"the only difference between Anglo-Israelism and German Nazi-ism can be reduced to one question: Who is the master race?

Continuing the evidence, I shall call your attention to another British-Israel publication, entitled "The Morning Cometh." On page 2 of that publication I have gathered the following: "When Russia has completed her part in the purpose for which 'the three heads of eagles' were raised . . . she herself, as one of the three heads and part of the image of Dan. 2 and the 'second beast' of Dan. 7:5, will be destroyed, as God states that he will 'incite you (Go") and induce you, and bring you up from the far north and lead you to the hills of Israel,' where at Armageddon he will destroy
Gog (Russia) and his army for their love of cruelty and anti-God and anti-Israel activities." This paragraph from this British-Israel authority teaches that Russia was being "led" and "induced" to bring her armies near England, "the hills of Israel," where God would arrange for Great Britain (Israel) to double-cross Russia, her ally, and destroy her! What a doctrine! The authority mentioned cites "Fenton's Translation""their pet version of the scriptures, to prove it.

Then on page 48 of the same publication this Anglo-
Israelist authority endorses the Hitler purge. Here it is: "It would appear that Hitler and Mussolini and the anti-semitism through-out the many European countries are the fulfillment of Jeremiah 16:16-17 . . This prophecy was made in 601 B.C. after the 'Good Figs' of Jeremiah 24:1-7 had been deported out of the land some years earlier, and was directed against the "evil figs," i.e., the Jews, the remnant of Judah.

The hatred of the Jew is as deeply imbedded in the being of an Anglo-
Israelist as it was in the bosom of Adolf Hitler. So they have Hitler carrying out God's will in getting rid of the "evil figs", the Jews, while the "good figs" are the real Israelites, and he should not exterminate them. Who is it saying all of this? Not just some stray author without authority or endorsement. It is quoted from a book that bears the seal of "The British-Israel Association, Vancouver, B. C.," and is printed officially by that association for free distribution. The farther we go the worse the doctrine becomes, but we proceed to another indictment.

(3) It is a system of political propaganda.

All must be greatly impressed with the great modesty of these British-
Israeliters, in their claims of British superiority over the U. S. A. on the ground that Ephraim should be greater than Manasseh! It is not because I particularly relish the reading of their phraseology that I am dishing out so much of it, but purely for its evidential value, that you may see the true character of this boasted, vaunted theory.

In "Morning Cometh," page 3, is found this statement: "Ephraim is placed before Manasseh, Great Britain and the United States respectively." So he respectfully, as well as respectively, assigned the United States to a rank of subordination to Great Britain. So we are just "little Israelites." On pages 48-49 this British-Israel authority advocates the complete over-throw of the United States monetary system. So if this "religion" should come to "dominate" what they call "Manasseh", meaning us you can see what they would do to our
government. They would liquidate it, for Odlum says "all must serve Israel . . . and Britain is Israel." Matthews declaims that "the British Empire is greater than the old Roman empire, three times greater.", August 21, 1943.

BAR: It is not correct to take statements made by people in Britain well before the Holocaust and compare them to the effects of the Holocaust. In Most (but not all) cases it has been proven by deed that those in Britain who made such statements actively tried to prevent the Germans from carrying out the Nazi agenda. They therefore should not be impugned as if they had a similar agenda.
Nevertheless strong virulent anti-Jewish Nazi like elements (mainly in the USA) have adopted British-Israel type doctrines and exploited them for their own Satanic purposes. We have to face up to this. This does not mean that our beliefs are wrong only that filthy villains have been exploiting the need of others to learn about this subject. They have been perverting the truth and will continue to do so as long as they who are aware of the Truth as it is remain silent! There is a need, a vacuum. We must supply it with the truth in order to obviate evil and lies.
Not to do what we can to spread Brit-Am beliefs wherever and whenever possible would be a dereliction of duty. As for the British and USA controlling most of the world this may not be a bad idea. They could do better than others have. It may well be the best possible solution in many ways. Or it may not.
Whether such notions are worthy of consideration or not should however be secondary issues to be discussed once the main ones (presented by Brit-Am and our THREE Rs: Research; Revelation (propagating knowledge); and Reconciliation); have been decided.

"FEW": (7) Finally, the whole theory is a wasted effort.

After all the effort, if it could be proved that the Anglo-Saxons in general, Great Britain in particular, and little lend-lease U. S. A. Manasseh thrown in for Ephraim's good measure, are in reality the descendants of the ten tribes, it still would not follow that they are God's modern covenant people. God has no modern covenant people in any fleshly sense. An admission of the fleshly connection would only put the Anglo-Saxon people exactly where the Jews
are, just has-beens so far as the flesh IS concerned. Far from doing so, and as impossible as it IS to do so, if nevertheless we did concede the ten tribes contention we could still deny and disprove the main Anglo-Israel doctrine, i.e., that God has a fleshly people now, or that he ever will have another such people, and that David's throne is on earth now or ever will be on earth again.

BAR: Scripture in its simple straight forward sense does deal with the world, with world politics, and with flesh-and-blood beings who have both duties and destiny. "FEW" has not disproved it while Brit-Am really has proved it.
If one wishes to take the Bible as a collection of allegories and spiritual allusions having no concrete expression in this world one should say so before discussing the literal meaning of Biblical verses.
The Lost Ten Tribes according to the Bible were to be exceedingly numerous, numbering in the tens and hundreds of millions; they were to possess agricultural plenty and the major mineral resources; they were to be internationally powerful with all other nations like a prey before them; their ships were to be in every ocean; they were to possess international strategic bases making hostile elements vulnerable to them; they were to be named after their forefathers; they were to be uplifters of other nations and on the whole to bring a blessing to the world. Their major bases were to be in Islands and in the North Country located somewhere in the Ocean to the north and west of the Land of Israel; they were to be associated with the Atlantic Ocean; a portion of them were to be found in the "Land of Sinim" meaning Australia and New Zealand; they were to defeat "Edom" meaning the nations of Central Europe; etc. All these and NUMEROUS other proofs need to be taken ALTOGETHER as one comprehensive whole and applied to whatsoever group of peoples fit them.


Join the Brit-Am Ephraimite
Discussion Group
Just Send an
with "Subscribe"
in the Subject Line
and again with the same word "Subscribe" in the body of the massage. Nothing more is necessary.
Main Page

Offerings and Publications

Go to List of Articles on Brit-Am Site