Table of Contents

Introduction

Chapter One - Are the So-called “Lost” Tribes of Israel Really Lost?

Chapter Two - The Mysterious Abrahamic Promises—Fulfilled?

Chapter Three - The Birthright Promises Passed to Abraham’s Offspring

Chapter Four - A Great Nation and a Great Company of Nations

Chapter Five - The Kingdom of Israel: From Empire to Exile

Chapter Six - Israel Goes into Captivity—Becomes the “Lost” Ten Tribes

Chapter Seven - The Tribes of Israel Reemerge Under New Names

Chapter Eight - Israel Migrates to the North and West

Chapter Nine - The Tribe of Dan—Trailblazing Pioneer of Israel

Chapter Ten - Celtic-Saxon Israel Moves into Northwest Europe, British Isles

Chapter Eleven - The Abrahamic Promise of Judah’s Scepter

Chapter Twelve - The Prophet Jeremiah’s Mysterious Royal Commission

Chapter Thirteen - Modern Israel’s Astonishing Rise to Greatness

Chapter Fourteen - The Decline of Anglo-American Influence

Chapter Fifteen - The Shocking Moral Decline of Britain and America

Chapter Sixteen - What Now for America and Britain?

Epilogue

Appendix 1 - Problems Associated with “British Israelism”…….

Appendix 2 - Modern Locations of the Twelve Tribes of Israel

Appendix 3 - Jesus’ Divine Right to the Davidic Throne

Appendix 4 - The Three “Overturns” of Ezekiel 21:27

Appendix 5 - Jacob’s Pillow Stone—The Prophetic “Stone of Destiny”

Appendix 6 - The Scriptures—God’s Gift to Britain and America

Appendix 7 - America Rapidly Losing Economic Superiority to China

Appendix 8 - The Failure of Christianity in Britain and America

Appendix 9 - Germany—Modern Counterpart to Ancient Assyria

Appendix 10 - America as Ephriam—An Alternate View

Selected Sources

Unless otherwise noted,
all Scriptures used in
this book are quoted from
The Holy Bible In Its
Original Order—A Faithful
Version With Commentary.
ISBN 978-0-9675479-7-2

ISBN: 978-0-9819787-9-6
Copyright 2014
York Publishing Company
Post Office Box 1038
Hollister, California 95024-1038

All rights reserved. Except for brief excerpts for review purposes, no part of this publication may be reproduced or used in any form or by any means—electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or information storage and retrieval systems.

About the Author

Philip Neal is a 1988 graduate of Ambassador College, Big Sandy, Texas, where he studied theology and journalism. He subsequently spent 10 years as a designer and copywriter for an advertising agency. Since 2006, Neal has served as editor for York Publishing and the Christian Biblical Church of God, Hollister, California. He also creates print and Web advertising promoting the CBCG’s publications and Internet sites. He presently lives near Meridian, Mississippi.

Other published books include Judaism—Revelation of Moses or Religion of Men? Booklets include What the Bible Teaches About Clean and Unclean Meats, Are Enoch and Elijah in Heaven?, and Why “Christianity” has Failed in America. Each are available through York Publishing/CBCG.

Acknowledgments

Considering the vital subject of this book—the biblical origin and prophetic destiny of the Anglo-American peoples—it is most appropriate to express profound gratitude to our Creator God for His marvelous purpose for mankind. His exciting plan for the nations is revealed in the Bible— “here a little, there a little”—and it is our privilege to “search out” the Word of God for this understanding.

As would be expected, a book of this nature depends quite heavily on the research of numerous historians and scholars, both ancient and modern. It is refreshing to realize that there are those who have dedicated themselves to preserving true history. As a writer, I am grateful.

A number of individuals are to be recognized for their contributions to this book. First, thanks to Fred R. Coulter, publisher, for his leadership and overall direction. Also, special appreciation goes to Duncan MacLeod, Craig White, and Dave Obey for their studious input. For layout and design, thanks goes to John and Hiedi Vogele. And for the cover design, a big thanks goes to Cindy Curley.

Introduction

Approximately one third of the Bible is prophecy—most of which applies to the “latter days” and beyond. The interrelated prophecies of the books of Daniel and Revelation, for example, draw a complex scenario as to how this present age will come to a close with the Kingdom of God being established over the entire world. Numerous nations are mentioned in the Bible by name as they engage in this end-time geopolitical interplay. In many cases, the biblical name has been carried over into modern usage— names such as Egypt, Syria, Libya, Ethiopia, and others. Moreover, with no more than a modicum of research it can be established that Iraq lies in the area known anciently as Babylon, that biblical Edom is today’s Turkey, and that ancient Persia is modern Iran. More prominent nations—such as Russia, China, Japan, even Germany—are also identifiable in Scripture, but careful research is required to correlate them to their ancient biblical names.

But where in the Bible is the United States of America to be found? What about Great Britain? Their apparent absence from the Bible has long puzzled scholars. Considering the almost immeasurable impact these two nations have had on the modern world—and that they will undoubtedly play leading roles in any end-time scenario—it is inconceivable that God would choose to omit even so much as a mention of them in Bible prophecy.

Biblical prophecy mentions all of the great ancient empires: Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome. But has the God Who says He declares “the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things that have not yet been done”[1] actually neglected to acknowledge the greatest empire the world has ever known—the British Empire, which dominated the world for over two centuries? Or the single richest and most powerful nation in all of history—the United States?

The prophet Amos wrote, “Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing unless He [first] reveals His secret [plans concerning the nations] unto His servants the prophets” (Amos 3:7). Would not those plans include America and Great Britain? In revealing events leading up to the return of Christ in the last days, is it logical that God would simply overlook the United States and Britain?

Or is it possible that Bible scholars and church leaders are woefully ignorant of one of the most vital keys to biblical prophecy—the identity of modern-day English-speaking nations in the Scriptures? Perhaps we need to revise our thinking and consider just how America and Britain might be mentioned in the Bible after all—in literally hundreds of passages!

Two Great Nations that Changed the World

How and why have the British and American people come to possess the absolute richest and most productive lands of the entire world— lands blessed with unparalleled natural resources? Why have they enjoyed an unrivaled level of economic wealth and military power? To say the least, the unprecedented and rapid rise of the Anglo-American nations to dominant positions of power and influence throughout the 19th and 20th centuries is nothing less than phenomenal.

Chafing under the influence of a Romish Europe and the dominance of an imperialistic Spain, England began in the 16th century to look beyond her own shores, crossing vast seas to establish new trade routes and forge new partnerships. This proclivity for expansion led to the establishment of colonies around the world and eventually to the formation of the British Empire. One of Britain’s key colonial settlements, of course, later developed into the United States of America.

At the height of its power and influence early in the 20th century, the British Empire covered approximately one fourth of the world’s territory (in 1922 it incorporated 13 million square miles) and ultimately boasted of 54 territories and colonies—including Egypt, India, Pakistan, parts of Africa, the Caribbean, Hong Kong, Singapore, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Palestine, and others. (Today, 16 of the original members still recognize the British monarchy as relevant in terms of national politics.) The Empire also possessed or controlled several strategic sea gates—the Suez Canal, Gibraltar, the Cape of Good Hope, etc. It was without question the most expansive and influential empire in the history of the world.

Historians agree that Britain became the preeminent nation of the world as a consequence of wresting itself from French dominance. Indeed, after defeating Napoleon in 1815 it became clear that Britain was the undisputed ruler of the civilized world. Supported by unrivaled naval power, what followed was a century of peace—“Pax Britannica”—cut short only by the German militarism that triggered World War I in 1914.

While the British Empire was built on the principle of imperialism, it was by no means tyrannical. Many of its colonies and territories experienced newfound freedoms; increased commerce led to added jobs and better living standards; education and literacy were given a high priority; many subjects were able to own land; and, for the most part, one could practice the religion of his or her choice. Plus, there was the important benefit of security under Britain’s impressive military. Ultimately, most of the Empire’s colonies flourished into politically stable and highly productive territories.[2]

In time, the growing New England colonies broke away from British rule—mostly owing to oppressive taxation by England. Concepts such as democracy, freedom of speech and religion, and power invested in the people would eventually become hallmarks of the world’s most successful republic, the United States of America. That same zeal for freedom helped to inspire the Industrial Revolution, which has obviously changed the world in innumerable ways. During Britain’s rise to global dominance, it was British capital, expertise, and “stick-to-itiveness” that helped to develop her colonies as well as her own industrial might. Following suit, American ingenuity quickly pushed industry and commerce to new heights. From Robert Fulton’s first steamboat in 1806 to Henry Ford’s success with largescale mass production, industrialization exploded in America.

Following the early 1800s, more than half of the world’s cultivatable lands came into the possession of these two great nations. Utilizing the richest natural resources and farmlands known to man, America quickly became the “breadbasket” of the world.

But beginning in the 1950s, the British Empire gradually ceased to be economically and militarily relevant. In fact, by the end of World War II, Britain was broke and facing major problems in two of its territories, India and Palestine.[3] No longer able to manage an empire, Britain began granting independence to many of her colonies. As well, the burden of “policing the world” fell more and more to the United States.[4] It was becoming all too clear that “Pax Britannica” was fast coming to an end.

Yet, as American power and influence began to rise in the aftermath of World War II, it was obvious that the United States would never have the unrivaled international role enjoyed by the British for two centuries. There were two principal reasons. First, America had no desire to become a world-colonizing power. The United States, at one time or another, ruled only the Philippines, Guam, Puerto Rico, Cuba, and various islands in Oceania—including one of the world’s key strategic sea gates, the Panama Canal. Secondly, as America began assuming Britain’s historic role, it faced a major military rival—the Soviet Union—which in many ways restrained U.S. power.

Soon after World War II, the U.S. dollar began to replace the British pound as the world’s leading currency (London, however, is still the world’s leading financial center). The growing American economy led to rapid prosperity at home and enabled the United States to generously fund the rebuilding of Europe through the Marshall Plan.[5]

In two world wars, the British Empire and the United States saved virtually the entire world from fascist powers bent on global domination. While the United States struggled through conflicts in Korea and Vietnam, many analysts believe America achieved undisputed global dominance after its invasion of Iraq in 1991. However, in the aftermath of the 9/11 terror attacks, America’s economic hegemony and global influence are plainly diminished. Bogged down in Afghanistan in its dubious “war on terrorism” and facing a deteriorating economy under a liberal-progressive White House, the United States is now rapidly losing its place as world leader.

Both at home and abroad, Britain and America face complex and seemingly insoluble problems. Their steady decline has, in fact, already left a growing vacuum of power around the globe. Consequently, a developing European Union, a resurgent Russia, and a burgeoning China are all moving to challenge American supremacy.

Never in the history of the world has there been such a dramatic and rapid rise to global power and dominance—followed by an even more rapid decline—than has been experienced by Britain and America. Why?

Why have stupendous economic and material blessings been poured out on the English-speaking nations? Why has America in particular been so benevolent in freely sharing that wealth with the world? Why are the Anglo- American people increasingly despised and mocked around the world?

How could such a phenomenon be ignored in biblical prophecy?

The Vital Key to Bible Prophecy

Who are the British and American peoples—really? How do these two great powers fit into Bible prophecy? Is it possible that scholars and theologians have simply failed to see that these two great nations are indeed discussed in numerous detailed passages of the Bible—in prophecies that both accurately predicted their rise to unprecedented greatness and describe their subsequent demise in the end time?

Using Scripture and the record of history, this book will demonstrate that the British and American peoples are, indeed, identified in the pages of your Bible—by their ancient ancestral name: Israel.

Shocking? Incredible? Impossible?

Based on astounding promises made to the patriarch Abraham and subsequently fulfilled through the exile and reestablishment of the so-called “lost” ten tribes of Israel, both Britain and America are the realization of an amazing plan by which God has blessed (and will yet again bless) the entire world. Incredible as it may sound, both America and the British Empire were destined to reach world-power status, to dominate the international affairs of their time—and to ultimately fall into dismal decline!

It’s time you understood what is no doubt the most important key to unlocking the prophecies of your Bible—the identities of America and Britain in biblical prophecy.

A Note to the Reader…

It is the goal of this book to demonstrate the Israelite origins of the Anglo-American peoples—as well as to outline the prophetic destiny of America and Britain from the immediate future to the age to come. In addition to the Bible and standard resources such as encyclopedias and specific historical works, this book leans heavily on a number of scholars who have spent many years researching and studying this subject. Sifting through the evidence has been a time-consuming and difficult task. No two writers agree on every point, and differing conclusions are often simply a matter of how one interprets the information available. It is incumbent upon any writer to be careful with the facts and to base conclusions on context with an eye toward the intent of the original source. This is especially important when dealing with the Scriptures.

That said, it is the author’s judgment that many of those who have written extensively on this particular subject have carelessly misapplied certain biblical passages in order to “make their point.” In more than a few cases, such passages are taken completely out of context and an unfounded meaning is “read into” the text. (A number of these passages are discussed throughout this book.) This usually happens when one approaches an issue with preconceived conclusions and is consequently tempted to “cherry-pick” passages in order to “prove” his point. The apostle Paul, however, warns us to be careful in how we use Scripture (II Tim. 2:15; II Cor. 4:2).

In writing this book, every effort has been made to accurately reflect the meaning of the biblical passages used based on their context and on the obvious intent of the original writer. The fact is, there is plenty of biblical evidence to support the conclusion that America and Britain are of Israelite origin without resorting to abusing Scripture.

Moreover, it must be noted that this book attempts to steer clear of what has come to be called British Israelism. True, the movement rightly promotes the Israelite origins of the Anglo-American nations. But British Israelism comes with a troubling set of baggage that has the potential to bring disparagement to this profound truth. For example, the movement’s chief tenet attempts to equate the British Empire with the Kingdom of God. This, of course, is plainly contrary to numerous biblical passages (please refer to Appendix 1 for more information on British Israelism).

What You’ll Find Inside…

In the hope of arousing the reader’s interest, below is a chapter-bychapter synopsis of what this book will attempt to convey.

Chapter 1 demonstrates that the so-called “lost” ten tribes of ancient Israel were never really lost at all. After all, their whereabouts were known by Jesus’ apostles (Matt. 10:6). As you will see, what had been lost was, in fact, their identity as Israel. Chapter 2 introduces the extraordinary promises God made to the patriarch Abraham. These promises remain a mystery to Bible scholars; while they can clearly recognize the messianic side to these promises, they completely overlook the “birthright” promises of national greatness. Importantly, these prophetic promises do not foretell of average nations, but describe nations with superpower status. Not only were these national blessings never fulfilled in ancient times, they cannot be applied to the Jews of today. What nations, then, have been the recipients of these very specific promises?

Chapter 3 explains how the Abrahamic “birthright” promises were passed on—first to Isaac, then to Jacob, and finally to Joseph. As these promises were handed down, new details were added giving greater insight into the form these “birthright” nations would ultimately take. Chapter 4 focuses on a key aspect of the promises—that Abraham’s offspring would eventually expand into a single great nation and a “company” of nations. How and through what peoples have these promises been fulfilled?

Chapter 5 takes the reader from Israel’s golden age under Solomon to the nation’s division into two kingdoms—north and south. This division set the stage for both kingdoms to eventually be taken into exile—but at different times. Chapter 6 details how the ten tribes of the northern House of Israel were taken into captivity by Assyria. Unlike the Jews of the southern kingdom who were restored to the Promised Land after 70 years of exile in Babylon, the northern tribes never returned to Palestine. Where did they go? Do they even still exist? If so, who are they today?

Chapter 7 reveals the essential detail that the House of Israel, while in exile, came to be known by alternate names—not as “Israel.” These alternate names are the key to tracing their subsequent migrations. Chapter 8 documents how the exiled Israelites eventually left the areas of their initial exile and began migrating to the northwest. Emphasis is placed on the fact that the “lost” tribes were never restored to the land of Israel—in spite of the numerous prophecies that speak of their restoration. How are we to understand these seemingly “obsolete” biblical passages? (This apparent “contradiction” is resolved in Chapter 16, which shows how such “dual” prophecies have a latter-day application for end-time Israel.)

Chapter 9 examines the intriguing maritime exploits of the Israelite tribe of Dan, showing how their early explorations helped pave the way for exiled Israelites to migrate to the British Isles. Moreover, the early Danite colonization of Ireland played a vital role in the preservation of the “exiled” throne of David. Chapter 10 details the Israelite origins of the Celts and Saxons (among other clans) as they moved into and through northwest Europe from areas around the Black Sea. These Celtic and Anglo-Saxon Israelites were the key settlers of the British Isles—and, later, of America.

Chapters 11 and 12 bring out the messianic aspect of the Abrahamic promises. The preservation of the Davidic royal line is explained, showing that when the nation of Judah fell to Babylon the “throne” was relocated to other “Israelite lands” for safekeeping.

With Chapter 13, we move into modern times by detailing the rapid and unprecedented rise of the British Empire and the United States to worldwide prominence—a direct result of the Abrahamic promises. The average Anglo-American has no realization of the magnitude of power and influence once wielded by these two great nations. Then, in Chapter 14, the rapid decline of American and British influence is examined in stark detail. Most people would be shocked to learn how much our nations have lost in terms of influence and dominance—in just one generation. Chapter 15 outlines the appalling moral decline of the Anglo-American nations—emphasizing the reasons for God’s impending judgment on Britain and America.

Finally, Chapter 16 reveals what Bible prophecy has to say about the future of America and Britain. While warning that modern-day Israel faces the same fate as did the ancient House of Israel—captivity and slavery—this chapter also reveals the wonderful future for the Anglo-American nations in the soon-coming messianic age.

For the sake of clarity, several appendices add a few missing pieces of the puzzle—and hopefully answer some nagging questions.

INTRODUCTION NOTES

1. Isaiah 46:10, author’s paraphrase. Unless otherwise noted, all biblical quotations are taken from The Holy Bible In Its Original Order. The use of italics—in both biblical and non-biblical quotations—indicates emphasis added by the author.

2. Unfortunately, some of the territories held by the Empire fared poorly under British rule (see Chapter 13 notes).

3. Technically not a colony, Palestine fell under British control in 1920 as the result of a mandate by the League of Nations.

4. For example, Britain’s gross mishandling of the 1956-57 Suez crisis has been noted by analysts as marking the end of the Empire’s role as a superpower. American leadership was central to bringing the crisis to a peaceful resolution.

5. It should also be noted that the Marshall Plan was hatched as a way to prevent Soviet-led communism from gaining a hold on postwar western Europe.

CHAPTER ONE

Are the So-called “Lost” Tribes of Israel Really Lost?

Biblical prophecy overwhelmingly revolves around God’s chosen nation, Israel. Typically, other nations are involved only as they come into contact with and influence that key nation. But who is Israel? Is the modern Jewish nation known today as the “State of Israel” the same nation God established through the biblical patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? Astonishingly, most people, including Christians, carelessly make this very assumption. In fact, one of the most significant misrepresentations in Judaism is the claim that the Jews are the sum total of the people of Israel.

Scripture, however, shows that Jews are actually descendants of the distinct nation of Judah, which was composed primarily of three of the twelve tribes that originally made up the ancient Kingdom of Israel. As for the remaining tribes, Jewish and Christian scholars alike have relegated them to the pages of history, claiming that their assimilation into various Gentile nations has rendered them nonexistent. A few Jewish scholars insist that the ten tribes were somehow reunited with the Jews and that all twelve tribes are collectively represented by those called “Jews” today. But not only is there no historical proof of such a reunion, the idea goes against the clear scriptural record. As this book will show, the “lost” tribes of Israel have not simply vanished; neither have they returned to Palestine. Rather, they migrated over time to new lands and, having lost their identity as Israel, became established nations with new names. Still, the Bible does speak of the ten tribe’s being restored to Palestine. As will be explained, such prophecies point to a future restoration not of the original “lost” tribes, but of their modern-day counterparts—nations that have descended from ancient Israel.

As can be easily shown from the Old Testament, the original nation of Israel was composed of twelve tribes. Following the death of Solomon, the nation was divided into two kingdoms—north and south. The southern kingdom, referred to as Judah, the “House of Judah,” or by its capital, Jerusalem, was made up of three tribes—Judah, Benjamin, and Levi— blended as if one. In close proximity to Jerusalem, most of the tribe of Benjamin was politically part of Judah. The Scriptures also show that most of the tribe of Levi, because of their association with the temple, migrated to Judah after the kingdom became divided. Hence, in II Kings 17:18, Judah is said to be the “only” remaining tribe after the northern kingdom was removed—meaning it was the only full tribe left.

The northern kingdom, referred to as Israel, the “House of Israel,” or by its capital, Samaria, was composed of the remaining tribes. The half-tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh (representing the tribe of Joseph) were each counted separately, thus making a total of ten tribes. For their evil in God’s eyes, the entire “House of Israel” was taken into captivity by the Assyrians in the eighth century BC and never allowed to return. The Israelites were resettled initially in areas north and east of the Euphrates River, while pagan peoples were brought in to replace them (II Kings 17:23-24).

By Jesus’ time the exiled northern tribes had long migrated out of the Middle East, and the land north of Jerusalem continued to be settled by Gentile “Samaritans.” Thus, in Matthew 10:6, Jesus instructed His disciples to take the message of the Gospel to the “lost sheep of the House of Israel,” which proves that both their identity and whereabouts were known to the early church. Jesus’ use of the term “lost” was merely indicative of Israel’s exilic, migratory status—as the so-called “lost” tribes of Israel had by this time migrated into parts of Europe, forming well established communities.

The southern nation of Judah—referred to as “the Jews” for the first time in II Kings 16:5-6, where they are actually at war with the northern nation of Israel—also went into captivity (II Kings 24:10, 14), only to return some 70 years later to rebuild Jerusalem and the temple. Ezra refers to the returning exiles—those of “Judah and Benjamin, and the priests, and the Levites” (Ezra 1:5)—as “Jews” of Judah (Ezra 5:1). In the most literal sense, a Jew may be viewed as a direct descendant of the tribe of Judah (the term Jew is a derivative of the Hebrew Judah). From the post-exilic period on through the first century AD, a Jew was any Israelite indigenous to the land of Judah. Today, in common usage, one may be considered a Jew based not only on lineage but on adherence to the religion of Judaism.

Thus, all Jews are Israelites, but only some Israelites are Jews.

Meaningless Prophecies?

While the prophet Jeremiah dealt primarily with the nation of Judah, he also prophesied concerning the northern tribes, the House of Israel. For example, Jeremiah gives this promise from God, which deals with both Judah and Israel: “ ‘For, lo, the days come,’ says the LORD, ‘that I will turn back the captivity of My people Israel and Judah … and I will cause them to return to the land that I gave their fathers, and they shall possess it’ ” (Jer. 30:3). What is interesting about this passage is that when Jeremiah penned it the northern tribes of Israel had been in captivity for over a hundred years.

The nation of Judah was indeed returned to the land God gave to their fathers—but the northern tribes of Israel have never returned. The captivity of the House of Judah was accomplished by 586 BC, but was subsequently overturned 70 years later. Jeremiah, as a young man, began to prophesy in Jerusalem around 629 BC, the thirteenth year of King Josiah’s reign (Jer. 1:2). The House of Israel, however, had long been taken into captivity—with the fall of Samaria taking place in 722 BC.

Notice that Jeremiah’s message from God is “concerning Israel and concerning Judah” (Jer. 30:4)—both houses. Focusing on the northern tribes of Israel, he writes: “ ‘O My servant Jacob, do not fear,’ says the LORD. ‘Do not be terrified, O [House of] Israel. For lo, I will save you from afar, and your seed from the land of their captivity. And Jacob [Israel] shall return [to their own land], and shall be at rest, and be quiet, and none shall make [them] afraid [again]” (verse 10). Obviously, this passage has never been fulfilled through the original tribes that went into Assyrian captivity. Why? Are the “lost” tribes permanently lost? Have they ceased to exist? How is this prophecy to be fulfilled?

As we will see, the House of Israel eventually migrated far from the lands of their captors to become established in new lands—where they reside to this day. Thus, this passage can only refer to a future captivity and a future restoration. Indeed, as will be brought out later, Jeremiah 30 refers to a time of national trouble (verses 7-8) that is soon to come upon the nations of modern Israel—descendants of those “lost” ten tribes—as well as on modern Judah, the Jews.

The fact is, such prophecies—and there are scores of them—cease to have meaning if we assume that the “lost” tribes of Israel no longer exist. After all, something that no longer exists cannot be restored. But what if they do exist, today, as modern descendant nations of those tribes—still prophetically carrying the name “Israel” or “Jacob”?

Like Jeremiah, the prophet Ezekiel prophesied about Israel’s future long after they had been taken into captivity by the Assyrians. As a youth, Ezekiel was one of the thousands of Jewish captives taken into Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar—about 130 years after the northern kingdom went into exile. Yet Ezekiel’s message was primarily aimed at the House of Israel (Ezek. 3:1, 4, 5, 7, 17, etc.). The phrase “house of Israel” occurs 78 times in the book, while “house of Judah” occurs only five times. Similarly, there are three prophetic references to the “whole house of Israel”—a phrase uniting all 12 tribes (Ezek. 37:11; 39:25; 45:6). For example, notice this promising passage where God foretells of the restoration of both the northern and southern kingdoms from a yet future exile:

“ ‘And the [Gentile] nations shall know that the house of Israel was exiled for their iniquity. Because they were unfaithful to Me, therefore I hid My face from them and gave them into the hand of their enemies, and [their men of war] all fell by the sword. According to their uncleanness and according to their transgressions I have done to them, and hid My face from them.’

“Therefore thus says the Lord GOD, ‘Now will I again bring back the captives of Jacob [Israel], and will have mercy upon the whole house of Israel, and will be jealous for My holy name after they have borne their shame and all their sins by which they have sinned against Me when they dwelt securely in their land and no one terrified them. When I have brought them again from [among] the people, and gathered them out of their enemies’ lands, and am sanctified in them in the sight of many nations, then they shall know that I am the LORD their God Who exiled them among the nations. But I have gathered them to their own land, and have not left any of them there’ ” (Ezek. 39:23-28).

Similar to the prophecy of Jeremiah 30, this passage speaks of a future captivity on the whole House of Israel—on the modern, descendant nations of Israel and Judah (the modern Jews). It is impossible for this passage to refer to the initial exile of the northern tribes in 722 BC, for they were already in captivity—and had been for about 130 years—when the prophecy was given. It can only refer to a future captivity and subsequent deliverance. Thus, modern-day descendants of the House of Israel exist today, somewhere on this earth—and God warns through Ezekiel that they will yet again face national captivity.

Of particular interest are the aptly-called “watchman” prophecies of Ezekiel. “Son of man, I have made you a watchman to the house of Israel. Therefore hear the word from My mouth, and give them warning from Me” (Ezek. 3:17). The instruction is repeated in chapter 33: “And you, son of man, I have set you as watchman to the house of Israel. Therefore you shall hear the Word from My mouth, and warn them from Me” (verse 7).

But how and when did Ezekiel fulfill this command if the House of Israel was long gone by his time? The answer is that he never did—for Ezekiel himself was a captive in Babylon, held there with the Jews in exile. Even if Ezekiel had been able to travel to the areas where the northern tribes had been taken, there would be no way to effectively deliver his warning message. At this time the Israelites were still scattered and had just begun to migrate out of the various areas of their captivity. The whole concept of a “watchman” is based on warning an intact, established nation (see Ezek. 33:2, 6-7)—not a scattered people.

Clearly, Ezekiel’s message could not have been intended for the ancient Kingdom of Israel—for that ten-tribe kingdom had long since vanished. Thus, it becomes obvious that 1) the so-called “lost” tribes of Israel are not truly “lost” at all—they do indeed exist; and 2) scores of vital prophecies—almost all of which deal with the end time—have been carelessly misapplied to the modern Jewish nation of “Israel” (Judah) when they were, in fact, specifically written concerning the latter-day descendants of the House of Israel.

Without a doubt, these passages from Jeremiah and Ezekiel speak of a full future restoration of the entire Kingdom of Israel—north and south. But such a restoration can only be possible if the northern tribes of Israel still exist—otherwise the Bible itself is false. Israel, then, aside from the Jews, must exist today under a different name!

How the House of Israel Lost its Identity

Many scholars are convinced that the northern tribes of Israel have literally disappeared from history. The Jewish historian Alfred Edersheim, for example, wrote: “No notice has been taken of those wanderers of the ten tribes, whose trackless footsteps seem as mysterious as their after fate…. Still, the great mass of the ten tribes was in the days of Christ, as in our own, lost to the Hebrew nation.”[1] This, of course, flies in the face of Jesus’ clear instruction to His disciples to actually go to the “lost” sheep of the House of Israel. Jesus and the disciples obviously knew where the northern tribes had resettled centuries after their initial captivity.

Similarly, the Jewish sage Heinrich Graetz writes, “The kingdom of the ten tribes of Israel had in one day disappeared, leaving no trace behind. The country vomited out the ten tribes as it had [earlier] vomited out the Canaanitish tribes. What has become of them?... [There] can be no doubt that the ten tribes have been irretrievably lost among the nations.”[2]

But have the northern tribes of Israel really become “irretrievably lost” among the nations?

The prominent Jewish historian Josephus notes that while the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, joined by the Levites, were still located in “Asia” (a term that typically included Palestine), “the ten tribes are beyond [the] Euphrates till now [when he wrote, about 100 AD], and are an immense multitude….”[3] This indicates that the whereabouts of the northern tribes were known in Josephus’ time.

Why is it that the northern tribes seemingly disappeared—having ostensibly been swallowed up by the nations? The answer has to do with the fact that the northern tribes despised and countermanded the very sign God gave to identify them—His seventh-day Sabbath. As we see in Exodus 31, the Sabbath was given to Israel as a special sign that would identify them as God’s people. Through Moses, God said:

“Speak also to the children of Israel, saying, ‘Truly you shall keep My Sabbaths, for it is a sign between Me and you throughout your generations [enabling you] to know that I am the LORD Who sanctifies you. You shall keep the Sabbath therefore, for it is holy to you…. Therefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations as a perpetual covenant. It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel forever…’ ” (Ex. 31:13-14, 16-17).

Of Israel’s sojourn in the wilderness, Ezekiel recounts: “And also I [God] gave them My Sabbaths to be a sign between Me and them, that they might know that I am the LORD who sanctifies them. But the house of Israel [all 12 tribes] rebelled against Me in the wilderness; they did not walk in My statutes, and they despised My ordinances, which if a man does, he shall even live in them. And they greatly polluted My Sabbaths… (Ezek. 20:12-13). As this passage shows, Israel had a tendency to disregard God’s Sabbath even as they journeyed in the wilderness prior to possessing the Promised Land.

Much later, after the nation of Israel was divided into two kingdoms, the northern ten tribes fell into the same idolatrous practices—including gross Sabbath-breaking (verse 30). It was their blatant disregard for God’s Sabbath that eventually led to their captivity at the hands of the Assyrians. (Note that the remainder of Ezekiel 20 refers to a yet future captivity—and regathering—of those same tribes.)

Meanwhile, God warned the southern nation of Judah that Sabbath-breaking would result in their captivity as well (Jer. 17:21-22, 27). But they would not obey. As history records, the Jews were consequently taken captive by the Babylonians. After their return to Palestine 70 years later, the Jews still had difficulty keeping the Sabbath holy. Nehemiah warned them, asking, “What evil thing is this that you do and defile the Sabbath day? Did not your fathers do this, and did not our God bring all this evil upon us and upon this city? Yet you bring more wrath upon Israel [Judah] by defiling the Sabbath” (Neh. 13:17-18).

Ultimately, however, the Jews continued to keep the Sabbath—at least outwardly, as their spirit and intent were often wrong. Thus, they never lost the sign that identified them as God’s people. But unlike the Jews, the House of Israel lost sight of the very sign—the seventh-day Sabbath—that would have identified them as God’s chosen people. They never repented of that grave sin, never reaffirmed that all-important identifying sign.

Long prior to captivity, Israel had abandoned the Sabbath and turned to wholesale idolatry—forgetting the true God. Then, in exile, scattered among the nations, Israel all but forgot their own national identity. Without the identifying Sabbath sign, they became indistinguishable from the nations among which they had been placed. Even today, the modern nations of the House of Israel do not know their true identity and have long been unrecognizable to the world as Israel.

“Lost” Israel Not Utterly Destroyed

When we honestly examine the biblical record, it becomes clear that the so-called “lost” tribes of Israel are not really lost at all. Rather, it is their identity as Israel that has been lost. Thus, as we search for the “lost” tribes, we should not look for a Sabbath-keeping people called Israel. Indeed, as the exiled northern ten tribes wandered from the Middle East, they were known by other names—such as Cimmerians, Scythians, Celts, Saxons, etc.— names historians have not readily linked to ancient Israel. It is not surprising, then, that most scholars and researchers deny the survival of the “lost” tribes of Israel. They have not known where to begin looking!

When Jesus sent the twelve out to preach the Gospel, He said: “Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter into a city of the Samaritans [Gentiles who displaced the northern tribes]; but go instead to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matt. 10:5-6). Jesus and His disciples knew the whereabouts of the “lost” northern tribes—and that they, in fact, were the “house of Israel.” Why do we hear almost nothing of the original apostles after about 60 AD? After taking the Gospel to the Jews and the major areas of Asia Minor, did the apostles take the Gospel to the northern tribes where they had become reestablished in new lands? During the years immediately preceding the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, we hear nothing of Peter and James? Why? Had they gone, as Christ instructed, to the “lost” tribes of Israel?

Prior to the House of Israel going into captivity, the prophet Amos quoted God as saying:

“ ‘Behold, the eyes of the Lord GOD are on the sinful [Israelite] kingdom, and I will destroy it from the face of the earth [it would vanish as a kingdom]; except that I will not completely destroy the house of Jacob [Israel],’ says the LORD. ‘For lo, I will command, and I will shake the house of Israel among all the nations, as one shakes with a sieve, yet not a grain shall fall to the earth [that is, the Israelites as a people would not be utterly lost or destroyed]” (Amos 9:8-9).

As a nation, the northern kingdom vanished in captivity and was later “sifted” among numerous countries. But it was not utterly destroyed. Writing during the Jews’ captivity in Babylon (some 130 years after the fall of Samaria) Daniel as well refers to those of Israel who were afar off, scattered throughout many nations (Dan. 9:7)—but not destroyed. Through Amos’ prophecy—which in a dual fashion refers to Israel’s ancient captivity as well as to a future captivity on their modern descendants—God also shows that the nation would not be amalgamated with other peoples. After suffering decades of harsh punishment in captivity, significant numbers of Israelites would migrate toward the northwest, reestablishing themselves in various areas. Over time they would reemerge intact, as a handful of related clans—yet largely ignorant of their own true identity!

Contrary to misinformed scholars, the ancient House of Israel was not “irretrievably lost”—for in His mercy God has decreed that they would not be utterly destroyed. In fact, their modern descendants comprise several of today’s major nations. Moreover, the House of Israel will ultimately be reunited with the House of Judah in the latter days. Notice this wonderful prophecy from Ezekiel 37:16-22.

“And you, son of man, take a stick and write on it, ‘For [the southern Kingdom of] Judah and for his companions, the children of Israel.’ And take another stick and write on it, ‘For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and all the [northern] house of Israel, his companions.’ And join them to one another [to form] one stick. And they shall become one [nation] in your hand.

“And when the children of your people shall speak to you, saying, ‘Will you not declare to us what do you mean by these?’ Say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD, “Behold, I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the [northern] tribes of Israel, his companions, and I will put them with him, even with the stick of [the House of] Judah, and will make them one stick, and they shall be one in My hand.” ’

“And the sticks on which you write shall be in your hand before their eyes. And say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD, “Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among the [Gentile] nations where they have gone [into their final end-time captivity], and will gather them on every side, and will bring them into their own land. And I will make them one nation in the land on the mountains of Israel, and one king shall be king over them all. And they shall no longer be two nations, nor shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all.” ’ ”

This prophecy has never been fulfilled. It cannot apply to Israel of old—for the northern tribes of Israel vanished, and have never been restored to their land or rejoined to their Jewish brothers. This prophecy can only be understood as a future regathering of both the northern and southern tribes of Israel into one united kingdom at the end of the age.

Thus, the northern House of Israel does exist! But where? Are we really to believe that all of the far-reaching prophecies of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, Hosea, etc.—not to mention the detailed “blessings and curses” of Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28—apply solely to the tiny Middle Eastern Jewish nation called “Israel” today? Indeed, scholars have made this very assumption—which has caused them to totally misunderstand Bible prophecy.

Again, the identity of the modern-day descendants of the northern tribes of Israel is the key to unlocking biblical prophecy. As we will see, the records of both Scripture and history give positive proof of the identity of these peoples. This understanding will bring the entire panorama of end-time prophecy into sharp focus!

CHAPTER 1 NOTES

1. Alfred Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, pp. 14, 16

2. Heinrich Graetz, History of the Jews, vol. 1, p. 265

3. Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, bk. 11, ch. 5, sec. 2. The phrase “beyond [the] Euphrates” would have meant beyond the headwaters of the Euphrates—across the Caucasus Mountains. The Israelites, by Josephus’ time, had migrated out of the Middle East and had mostly resettled in areas around the Black Sea. The apostle James also plainly confirms that the ten tribes had not disappeared from history. He addresses his epistle “to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad” (James 1:1).

CHAPTER TWO

The Mysterious Abrahamic Promises—Fulfilled?

What happened to the ten tribes of the northern Kingdom of Israel after the Assyrian Empire forcibly removed them from their land? Where did they go—where are they today? History traditionally declares that they were fully assimilated by the nations among which they were scattered. History books make little mention of them today, only remembering them as the “lost” tribes of Israel.

But the Scriptures say otherwise—God Himself says otherwise. God entered into a divine covenant—a binding contractual commitment—with the entire nation of ancient Israel, all twelve tribes. In that covenant, God promised to keep, lead, and bless Israel above all nations, while Israel, in turn, agreed to worship and obey God alone. As we will see, that covenant agreement was fully based on and was the result of specific promises God had made centuries earlier to the patriarch Abraham.

When the people of Israel were held captive as slaves in the land of Egypt, God heard their groaning and “remembered His covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob” (Ex. 2:24). This covenant was the reason for God delivering Israel out of bondage and subsequently settling them in the land promised to Abraham. A few weeks after the children of Israel were freed from Egypt, they fell into gross sin—through the idolatrous “golden calf” incident (Ex. 32). Fearing God might actually destroy the entire nation in His anger, Moses interceded on their behalf—appealing to God’s covenant promise to Abraham. He said: “Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, Your servants, to whom You swore [in a covenant] by Your own self, and said to them, ‘I will multiply your seed as the stars of the heavens, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give to your seed, and they shall inherit it forever’ ” (Ex. 32:13).

Because of specific promises made to Abraham, Israel was to be God’s chosen nation—forever!

Even as the tribes of Israel fell into sin and rebellion again and again, God has purposed that—while He would most assuredly chasten and correct them—He would never cast them off permanently. Notice this key prophecy in the book of Leviticus dealing with God’s corrective punishment on the tribes of Israel—and how He would always “remember” His covenant with their fathers.

“[While in corrective captivity,] if they shall confess their iniquities and the iniquities of their fathers with their own iniquities which they sinned against Me, and that they have walked contrary to Me, so that I, in turn, have walked contrary to them and have brought them into the land of their enemies, and if their uncircumcised hearts are then humbled, and they accept the punishment for their iniquity, then I will remember My covenant with Jacob, and also My covenant with Isaac; and also My covenant with Abraham I will remember. And I will remember the land. The land also shall be forsaken by them and shall enjoy its Sabbaths while it lies waste without them. And they shall accept the punishment of their iniquities; because, even because they despised My judgments, and because their soul hated My statutes.

“And yet for all that, when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not entirely cast them away; neither will I hate them to destroy them utterly and to break My covenant with them, for I am the LORD their God. But for their sakes, I will remember the covenant of their ancestors [made at Sinai] whom I brought forth out of the land of Egypt in the sight of the nations, so that I might be their God. I am the LORD” (Lev. 26:40-45).

According to God’s own divine plan and based on His irrevocable promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the entire nation of Israel will always be His people and He will always be their God. As we saw earlier, the southern Kingdom of Judah was sent into captivity at the hand of the Babylonians—only to return 70 years later. Indeed, God remembered His covenant with Abraham, sparing the Jewish nation from utter destruction.

But what about the northern tribes? Has God forgotten them—or will He yet remember His promises to Abraham concerning their future? If God’s Word is true, He will remember—He will deliver them as well from captivity and certain destruction. But this can only be so if the northern tribes of Israel still exist on this earth today.

Nehemiah writes that God always keeps His covenants (Neh. 9:32). Recalling history, David wrote that God remembered His covenant with Abraham when He delivered them from Egypt. But David’s words are also prophetic in that God will yet remember this special covenant—“forever”! “O you seed of Abraham His servant, you children of Jacob His chosen [nation]. He is the LORD our God; His judgments are in all the earth. He has remembered His covenant forever, the word which He commanded to a thousand generations; the covenant which He made with Abraham…” (Psa. 105:6-9).

Though both houses of Israel will suffer under the corrective hand of God, they will be fully restored in the age to come—having been shown tremendous mercy by God. The prophet Micah writes:

“Who is a God like You, Who pardons iniquity and passes over the transgression of the remnant of His heritage [Israel]? He does not keep His anger forever because He delights in mercy. He will turn again; He will have compassion upon us. He will subdue our iniquities. Yea, You will cast all their sins into the depths of the sea. You will perform the truth to Jacob, and mercy to Abraham, which You have sworn to our fathers from the days of old” (Micah 7:18-20).

As we will see, God’s Word shows that Israel is destined to play a key role in the age to come—after she is miraculously delivered from near total destruction in the troublesome latter days. As noted earlier, millennial prophecies, such as in Ezekiel 37:16-22, speak of the full restoration of the tribes of Israel into one united kingdom. But one cannot restore what does not exist. Moreover, Jesus promised His twelve apostles that in the kingdom age they would sit on literal thrones ruling over the twelve tribes of Israel— proving that they must still exist today.

If this is so—if the Bible is to be trusted—where are the “lost” tribes today? Where and how can we find them? The answer lies in the mysterious promises made to the patriarch Abraham.

God’s Unique Covenant With Abraham

Almost any long-time churchgoer can recount numerous biblical stories, including ones about the great patriarch Abraham. There’s the story of Abraham going to war to deliver his nephew Lot from the hand of marauding kings; and who doesn’t remember the account of Abraham being asked by God to “sacrifice” his son Isaac?

But ask most any churchgoer about the “covenant promises” of material and national blessings made to Abraham—promises subsequently passed on by “birthright” to Isaac and Jacob—and you’ll likely get a blank stare. Theologians and church pastors correctly teach that God’s covenant with Abraham featured the promise of the Messiah. They are likewise aware that God’s promises to Abraham resulted eventually in the establishment of the Kingdom of Israel under David and his son Solomon. But “Christianity” as a whole is woefully ignorant of the fact that God’s covenant promises to Abraham extend immeasurably beyond what was accomplished through the biblical nation of Israel.

The fact is, God’s covenant promises to Abraham were not limited to the small, ancient people known as the nation of Israel. The Abrahamic promises not only extend far into the future—into eternity, in fact—they ultimately involve the entirety of the human family.

As we examine God’s covenant with Abraham, we will begin to grasp the immense scope of the promises made to the patriarch. The details of this covenant, as revealed in the Scriptures, will become an infallible guide in our search for the modern identity of the “lost” ten tribes of Israel. Detailed descriptions of physical and material blessings—of national prominence—will provide vital clues; the promised possession of strategic land and sea gates will be key; geographic makeup and location will be important factors—all leading us to the unmistakable identity of modern Israel.

God Begins Anew Through One Man—Abraham

God began the human family through Adam and Eve, with the intent that their offspring—in addition to inheriting the entire earth—would enjoy a close relationship with God. But Adam’s sin (Rom. 5:12) not only disqualified him from leading mankind into that relationship, it set the entire human family on a course of sin and rebellion against God’s way of life. Only the work of the spiritual “second Adam”—Jesus the Messiah—would restore mankind to the relationship God had originally sought.

Still, righteous men such as Abel, Enoch, Noah, and Shem found favor with God. But in His grand design for humanity, God would choose one man through which to initiate His plan of salvation—Abraham. In Genesis 12, we read:

“And the LORD said to Abram, ‘Get out of your country, and from your kindred, and from your father’s house into a land that I will show you. And I will make of you a great nation. And I will bless you and make your name great. And you shall be a blessing. And I will bless those that bless you and curse the one who curses you. And in you shall all families of the earth be blessed.’ Then Abram departed, even as the LORD had spoken to him…” (Gen. 12:1-4).

Through the patriarch Abraham—who obeyed God without question or hesitation—God would start His own, particular nation, a people He could call His own. Of them, God says, “This people that I formed for Myself, they shall [yet] declare My praise”—as a “model nation” to all the world (Isa. 43:21). (This passage hints at the future role Israel will yet play in the age to come, when they will be instrumental in bringing salvation to all of mankind.)

Even in the early stage of His covenant with Abraham, it was clear that God’s promise was twofold: 1) “I will make of you a great nation”—an obvious indication of material, national blessings (Genesis 18:18 says “a great and mighty nation”); and 2) “In you shall all families of the earth be blessed”—a veiled reference to the eventual coming of the Messiah as Abraham’s “seed” (Gal. 3:16).

Abraham would not only become the father of a great nation, he would ultimately become the spiritual “father of all who believe” the Gospel—including Gentiles (Rom. 4:11-12; Gal. 3:29). God was working out a role for Abraham that would ultimately bring salvation to the whole world. Thus, in Galatians 3:8, Paul links the “promised seed” to the Gospel message of the kingdom age. In fact, Christ’s entire mission—through both His first and second comings—is predicated on these covenant promises.

But here is where theologians and scholars overwhelmingly jump track. They read Genesis 12:1-4 and assume that the Abrahamic promises have been fulfilled. Yes, Abraham did become a “great nation” via the ancient nation of Israel (under Solomon’s rule); and yes, through Christ, “all families of the earth” will ultimately be spiritually blessed. But scholars and theologians fail to acknowledge the depth and richness of the promises of material blessings God made to Abraham and his descendants. It is on this key point that theologians err—thus, they are blinded to the truth about the identity of modern-day Israel.

As will be brought out, the material and national promises God made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob involve so much more than most have imagined. As time went by, God reaffirmed His promises to Abraham and his sons, each time expanding and elaborating on the promises, adding greater detail as to the magnitude of the physical blessings. It is in these detailed descriptions of geographic size and scope, worldwide prominence and influence, and national wealth that we will find the keys to Israel’s modern-day identity.

What is a Covenant?

A covenant is simply a binding agreement between two or more parties. Many Bible students are familiar with what is called the “Old Covenant”—a “contract” between God and the nation of Israel, struck at Sinai. In this covenant, God, for His part, promised to lead, protect, and bless Israel—claiming them as His “special treasure” and “holy nation” (Ex. 19:3-6). For their part in the agreement, Israel promised to obey and follow God in every way—“All that the LORD has spoken, we will do” (verse 8).

A short time prior to entering the Promised Land, God reaffirmed the Sinaitic covenant with the children of Israel:

“You stand today, all of you, before the LORD your God: your captains of your tribes, your elders, and your officers, all the men of Israel, your little ones, your wives, and your stranger that is in your camp … so that you should enter into covenant [a restating of the Old Covenant] with the LORD your God and into His oath which the LORD your God makes with you today; that He may establish you today for a people to Himself, and that He may be your God as He has said to you and as He has sworn to your fathers—to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob” (Deut. 29:10-13).

This passage demonstrates the continuing nature of the Abrahamic covenant—that the promises to Abraham were extended to Israel and on to their descendants. Indeed, the “Old Covenant” was the direct result of the covenant promises God made to Abraham. The establishment of Israel as a nation under God was the fulfillment of Genesis 12:2—but only in part.

In order for Abraham’s descendants to become a “great nation,” the patriarch would need an heir. In Genesis 15, God promised Abraham a son—one from his “own loins.” Of that seed, God said it would grow into a multitude like the stars—uncountable for number (verse 5). To affirm His promises, God had Abraham participate in a special ceremony (verses 9-12, 17) designed to show that God Himself, as guarantor, would see to it that the promises would be fulfilled—even if Abraham’s descendants (Israel) failed on their part (which they did repeatedly). The ceremony was also messianic in that it foreshadowed the redemptive sacrifice of Jesus Christ, as His death—through the power of divine reconciliation—would ultimately guarantee the full realization of the Abrahamic promises. In effect, Abraham was being told that even if his descendants failed to live up to their part of the covenant, God Himself would take full responsibility to “make it right.” Thus, God’s covenant promises to Abraham—including the Old Covenant, which in time would be superseded by the New Covenant—were absolutely sure, for their success ultimately depended on God alone.

The key—as pictured by the ceremony of Genesis 15—would be the redemptive work of the Messiah. This is why the apostle Paul wrote that Jesus came “so that He might confirm the promises given to the fathers [Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob]” (Rom. 15:8). As Messiah, Jesus confirmed the Abrahamic promises through His death and resurrection.

“A Great Nation” Expanded to “Many Nations”

Initially, God told Abraham He would give him the land of Canaan, in which he was to sojourn (Gen. 12:6-7). Later, after Abraham and Lot had parted ways, God told the patriarch to “look northward and southward, and eastward and westward; for all the land which you see, I will give to you and to your seed forever. And I will make your seed as the dust of the earth, so that if a man can count the dust of the earth, then shall your seed also be counted. Rise up and walk through the land, in the length of it and in the breadth of it, for I will give it [all] to you” (Gen. 13:14-17). Thus, whatever territories Abraham’s descendants could see or walk through was to be theirs. The implication here is that the land promise was, ultimately, to be unlimited.[1]

Still later, in Genesis 15, God revealed to Abraham that his descendants would become slaves in a strange land—but that He would deliver them in keeping with the promises He had made (verses 13-14). In reaffirming the covenant, God added: “I have given this land to your seed, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates” (verse 18)—an area considerably greater than just the “land of Canaan.”

The covenant promises of material and national greatness continue in Genesis 17, where we see an important addition—that multiple nations would come of Abraham’s seed.

“And when Abram was ninety-nine years old, the LORD appeared to Abram and said to him, ‘I am the Almighty God! Walk before Me and be perfect. And I will make [confirm] My covenant between Me and you, and will multiply you exceedingly.’ And Abram fell on his face. And God talked with him, saying:

“ ‘As for Me, behold, My covenant is with you, and you shall be a father of many nations. Neither shall your name any more be called Abram [exalted father], but your name shall be Abraham [father of a multitude]; for I have made you a father of many nations. And I will make you exceedingly fruitful, and I will make nations [plural] of you, and kings [plural] shall come from you.

“ ‘And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your seed after you in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your seed after you. And I will give the land to you in which you are a sojourner, and to your seed after you, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession. And I will be their God’ ” (Gen. 17:1-8).

Does the land of Canaan qualify as “many nations”? Could the original, ancient tribes of Israel be described as “many nations”? Is the modern Jewish nation of Israel “many nations”? Impossible. The biblical language used— exceedingly fruitful, I will make nations of you, kings shall come from you— clearly identifies Abraham’s descendants as numerous, well-populated nations. As we continue, we will see that the Abrahamic promises go immeasurably beyond “all the land of Canaan”—which was a mere “down payment.” The fact that God, at this point in time, changed Abram’s name to Abraham is indicative of His ultimate intent—to make Abraham, literally, the father of a multitude of nations.

What about the church—does it not fulfill these promises? The church is spoken of as a (singular) “holy nation”—spiritually (I Peter 2:9). Collectively, the saints are, through Christ, Abraham’s spiritual children (Gal. 3:29). But scattered Christians do not form nations, plural. Moreover, they have never inherited the physical, material wealth clearly promised to Abraham’s descendants. Obviously, neither the Jews nor the church could be the fulfillment of these profound promises.

Again, the spiritual aspect of the Abrahamic promises is being fulfilled through the “one seed”—Christ. But where, how, and through whom have the physical promises been fulfilled? Where are the “many nations,” the “many kings” promised to Abraham?

The Promises Amplified Yet Again

It is important to note that, up to this point in Abraham’s relationship with God, the covenant promises were conditional—they hinged on the patriarch’s obedience to God’s ways and laws. In Genesis 22, God puts Abraham through a sore trial and test, commanding him to sacrifice the very heir through whom the promises would be fulfilled—his only son, Isaac. Upon passing the test, God says of Abraham, “[For] now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me” (verse 12). From that critical juncture, all of the covenant promises become unconditional. God could see that Abraham would always be faithful in his obedience to Him. God said:

“By Myself have I sworn … because you have done this thing, and have not withheld your son, your only son; that in blessing I will bless you, and in multiplying I will multiply your seed like the stars of the heavens, and as the sand which is upon the seashore. And your seed shall possess the gate of his enemies. And in your seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice” (verses 16-18).

This passage repeats the promise of the Messiah—“in your seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed.”[2] It also again emphasizes the vastness of the “multitudes” to come from Abraham, offspring so numerous they would be like the stars of heaven and the sand of the seashore— uncountable for number.

But here, God also adds a key detail to the promises—the possession by Israel of their enemies’ “gates.” This is a reference to strategic sea gates—such as the Panama Canal, the Strait of Gibraltar, the Suez Canal, etc. But notice, these are not simply “gates” which Israel would control as part of their own lands—these “gates” belong to Israel’s enemies. Thus, Abraham’s descendants would have powerful control and influence over other nations via these strategic “gates”—impacting whole economies and determining the outcomes of wars. This key aspect of the covenant promises points to worldwide dominance and power for Abraham’s descendants!

The promise of strategic seas gates is repeated in Genesis 24, this time to Rebekah, Isaac’s affianced wife. Obviously aware of the covenant between Abraham and God, Rebekah’s family blessed her, saying, “Our sister, may you become the mother of countless thousands, and may your children possess the gates of those who hate them” (verse 60; author’s paraphrase).

But Israel of old never possessed such gates, and today’s Jewish State of Israel has possessed no such gates. We are forced to look for the fulfillment of these very specific promises elsewhere—and they must be fulfilled or God’s Word is not reliable. Where—how—in what peoples have these monumental promises been fulfilled?

CHAPTER 2 NOTES

1. In Romans 4:13, Paul writes that Abraham is to be “heir of the world”— indicating that Israel would (at some point in the messianic age) fill the earth. Compare this to what Jesus says in Matthew 13:31-33, that the Kingdom of Heaven would fill the earth (also Dan. 2:44; 7:14; Rev. 11:15; 19:15). Inheriting David’s throne, Jesus is to rule over Israel forever, and His kingdom will have no end (Luke 1:32-33). These passages show that a restored Israel forms the basis of the world-encompassing Kingdom of God.

2. The promise that “in you [in your seed] shall all families of the earth be blessed” (Gen. 12:3) is repeated several times: Gen. 18:18; 22:18; 26:4; 28:14. While the promise is clearly messianic, it is also obvious that the entire world was (and is) to be blessed in manifold ways through modern Israel—Britain and America.

CHAPTER THREE

The Birthright Promises Passed to Abraham’s Offspring

A custom during Abraham’s time was the passing down of birthright blessings. A birthright is a native right or privilege—it is something to which one has a right, by birth. In Bible times, the birthright—which typically included a “double portion” or some other special blessing—was passed down from the father to the eldest son. Thus, the birthright blessings legally belonged to the oldest son, unless he became disqualified or the process was altered by divine intervention.

The physical, material blessings promised by God to Abraham were subsequently passed down to his son, Isaac—and from him to his son, Jacob—through the birthright custom. This “right of the firstborn” custom will figure prominently as we continue.

As we have seen, the covenant promises God made to Abraham included—in addition to the spiritual promise of the “one seed,” Jesus the Messiah—the following physical, national blessings to be bestowed on Israel: 1) a great nation, later expanded to 2) a multitude of nations, which would include numerous kings; 3) descendants so populous they—like the sands of the seashore and the stars of heaven—would be innumerable; and, 4) the possession of strategic sea gates. Additional details were added as the promises were passed on to Abraham’s firstborn son, Isaac.

Promises Renewed to Isaac

As the “son of promise,” the Abrahamic promises were to be perpetuated through Isaac. As noted earlier, Rebekah’s family—obviously aware of the covenant between God and Isaac—blessed her, saying, “Our sister, may you become the mother of countless thousands, and may your children possess the gates of those who hate them” (Gen. 24:60; author’s paraphrase). Earlier, God had said He would bless Abraham’s descendants “exceedingly” (Gen. 17:6). Indeed, according to this pronouncement to Rebekah, Israel would, in time, number in the multiple millions (actually, the Hebrew indicates an unlimited number).

In Genesis 26, God reaffirmed the Abrahamic promises to Isaac. Note here that the promises are still predicated on Abraham’s obedience:

“[Sojourn] in this land, and I will be with you and bless you, for to you and to your seed, I will give all these lands; and I will establish the oath which I swore to Abraham your father. And I will multiply your seed as the stars of the heavens and will give to your seed all these lands. And in your seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because Abraham obeyed My voice and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws” (verses 3-5).

Later, in verse 24, God strengthened Isaac with the following affirmation: “And the LORD appeared to [Isaac] the same night, and said, ‘I am the God of Abraham your father. Do not fear, for I am with you, and will bless you and multiply your seed for My servant Abraham’s sake.’ ” As Isaac approached old age, he would need to pass the Abrahamic promises on to his seed—through his firstborn son, Esau. However, Esau would forfeit his rightful claim to the promises—resulting in the birthright going to his younger brother, Jacob.

Jacob Receives the Birthright Promise

As Isaac’s wife, Rebekah, was near giving birth, she inquired of God concerning the twins she was carrying. God’s response shows that divine intervention would alter how the birthright promises would be passed along to Isaac’s sons. Esau, the firstborn, naturally possessed the birthright. But, according to God’s intervention, he would end up serving his younger brother, Jacob, who would be greater (Gen. 25:22-26).

Jacob obtained Esau’s birthright by taking advantage of his brother (Gen. 25:29-34). Later, Rebekah helped Jacob to deceive Isaac into passing the birthright blessings on to Jacob (Gen. 27). Once he realized he had been deceived, Isaac told Esau, “Your brother [Jacob] came with deceit, and has taken away your blessing” (verse 35). But it was too late—“Yea, he shall be blessed!” (verse 33).

When we examine the details of the blessings passed on to Jacob, we see the Abrahamic covenant amplified yet again—to include national promises of great material wealth and prosperity. Notice:

“And may God give you of the dew of heaven [abundant rainfall] and of the fatness [rich places] of the earth, and plenty [an abundance] of grain and wine. Let people serve you, and let nations bow down to you. Be lord [rule] over your brethren, and let your mother’s sons bow down to you. Cursed be everyone that curses you, and blessed be he that blesses you” (Gen. 27:28-29).

The “dew of heaven” and “fatness of the earth” point to rich, fertile lands producing an abundance of agricultural resources. The phrase “let nations bow down to you” clearly speaks of geopolitical dominance and prestige—on at least a regional level, if not worldwide. As history would prove, Jacob was to rule over the descendants of his brother, Esau, which today are the Turkish peoples.[1]

Isaac continued blessing Jacob in Genesis 28:

“And may God Almighty bless you, and make you fruitful, and multiply you, so that you may be a multitude of people. And may He give you the [covenant] blessing of Abraham, to you and to your seed with you, so that you may inherit the land in which you are a stranger, which God gave to Abraham” (verses 3-4).

Later, God confirmed the promises to Jacob in a dream:

“I am the LORD, the God of Abraham your father, and the God of Isaac. The land on which you lie I will give to you and to your seed. And your seed shall be like the dust of the earth, and you shall spread abroad to the west and to the east and to the north and to the south. And in you and in your seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed [this is the third mention of the promise of the Messiah]. And, behold, I am with you, and will keep you in every place where you go, and will bring you again into this land, for I will not leave you until I have done that which I have spoken of to you” (verses 13-15).

In the Hebrew, to “spread abroad” means literally to break forth—in all directions, to the north, south, east, and west—around the world. This passage suggests colonization, placing no limits on how much land God would ultimately give to Abraham’s descendants.

In the end, how much land would be included in the Abrahamic promises? In Romans 4:13, Paul writes that Abraham is to one day become “heir of the world.” How can this be? In the messianic age to come, the covenant promises to Abraham will reach their zenith. At that time, a restored and united Kingdom of Israel will be God’s model nation—to which all nations will seek. On a physical and national level, Israel will form the foundation of the Kingdom of God, which will grow to fill the entire earth (Matt. 13:33; etc.). In time, all of mankind will be included as Abraham’s spiritual children. Ultimately, then, the Abrahamic promises are to include the entire world!

A Vital Identifying Key

Upon examination of these passages, it becomes obvious that the ancient nation of Israel—which possessed only the land of Canaan—has never fulfilled these prophetic promises. Nor have they been realized by the Jews today with their tiny Mideast nation, which covers even less than the land of Canaan. Indeed, neither Israel of old nor the Jews have ever been more than one nation—never many nations; they have never possessed their enemies’ sea gates; they have never possessed vast farmlands or forests yielding an abundance of agricultural products; they have never spread to the north, south, east, and west through colonization.

Some have suggested that these covenant promises are to be fulfilled only in the age to come. As noted above, the Abrahamic promises will, in fact, reach their zenith at that time, as the promised blessings ultimately spread to the whole world. However, the promises must be primarily fulfilled in this age—in fact, largely at the end of the age. Notice again that Abraham’s descendants are to possess the strategic sea and land gates of their enemies. In the millennial age to come, Israel will have no enemies— all the world will be at peace (see Isa. 2:2-4; etc.). Rather, the entire world will seek after Israel, to learn of her way of life based on God’s Word (Zech. 8:23). The prophecies of Israel possessing her enemies’ gates can only apply to this present evil age, when Israel—whoever she may be today—has enemies.

Continuing with God’s promises to Jacob, we see a vital key stated in Genesis 35—“a nation and a company of nations.”

“And God appeared to Jacob again after he came out of Padan Aram and blessed him. And God said to him, ‘Your name is Jacob [i.e., one who supplants]. Your name shall not be called Jacob any more, but Israel shall be your name.’ And He called his name Israel [i.e., one who prevails with God]. And God said to him, ‘I am God Almighty. Be fruitful and multiply. A nation and a company of nations shall be from you, and kings shall come out of your loins. And the land which I gave to Abraham and Isaac, I will give to you, and to your seed after you I will give the land” (Gen. 35:9-12).

From this point the Abrahamic promises take on a more specific character: the promised “multitude of nations” would eventually take the shape of a single nation and a company of nations. Thus, in our search for the modern descendants of the “lost” tribes of Israel, we must look for a single great nation, one with tremendous power, wealth, prestige, and global influence—as well as a great company or commonwealth of nations, also having a strong worldwide presence and impact. Both must be related, as they are both of Jacob—and a royal line of kings must be included. Together they must possess and control key strategic land and sea gates, impacting international affairs—even if such gates belong to their enemies. Both must possess rich farm lands and abundant natural resources; both must number in the hundreds of millions.

These amazing promises must be fulfilled or we cannot rely on the Word of God as infallible. But scholars, Bible critics, and theologians are seemingly blind to the fulfillment of these promises. Why? Has God failed to make good on His word to Abraham?

CHAPTER 3 NOTES

1. Esau as well received a prophetic “blessing” from his father, Isaac: “Behold, your dwelling shall be far from the fatness of the earth and far from the dew of heaven from above. And you shall live by your sword and shall serve your brother. But it shall come to pass that when you shall have the dominion, you shall break his yoke from off your neck.” Thus, “Esau hated Jacob” (Gen. 27:39-41).

Historical records indicate that the descendants of Esau became the Turks of today. Thus, end-time prophecies referring to Esau (or Edom) generally point to the Turkish nation.

Isaac’s prophecy foretold of a time when Esau’s descendants would have “dominion” and throw Jacob’s “yoke” off their necks. This has actually occurred. Because of sin, Israel was ultimately driven from the Promised Land. Subsequently, the Turks came to power and possessed Palestine for 400 years before relinquishing it to Britain in 1917. Even today, Esau’s descendants lust for that land—central to the birthright they lost.

CHAPTER FOUR

A Great Nation and a Great Company of Nations

As Jacob neared death, it was time to pass on the birthright. Reuben, Jacob’s firstborn by his first wife, Leah, had become disqualified through sin (Gen. 35:22), thus the birthright passed to Joseph, Jacob’s firstborn son by Rachel (verse 24). Notice:

“And the sons of Reuben, the firstborn of Israel—for he was the firstborn; but since he defiled his father’s bed, his birthright was given to the sons of Joseph, the son of Israel, and the genealogy is [therefore] not to be reckoned according to the [original] birthright. [Moreover,] Judah prevailed among his brothers, and from him came the chief ruler, but the birthright was Joseph’s” (I Chron. 5:1-2).

As the birthright promises were passed to another generation, note that there is no mention of spiritual blessings—no mention of the “one seed” through which all nations would be blessed. Only the birthright—physical, material blessings of national wealth and prosperity, great populations, worldwide influence and prestige, dominance over other nations—was passed on to Joseph.

Normally, the birthright is passed directly to the firstborn son— which, in this case, would be Joseph because of Reuben’s disqualification. As the story unfolds, however, we see the guiding hand of divine intervention. God had already determined that on a national level the Abrahamic promises would take the shape of “a nation” and “a company of nations.” This would be achieved by actually conferring the birthright blessings directly onto Joseph’s two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim.

Joseph—Two National Identities

Each of the twelve tribes of Israel was identified by its ancient tribal name—except Joseph. Throughout the Old Testament, the tribe of Joseph is referred to as though it were actually two tribes—Manasseh and Ephraim. No other tribe is presented as such. This all came about because Jacob—the father of the tribes of Israel—passed the birthright directly to Joseph’s sons. The prophetic implications of Jacob’s maneuver will in time become obvious.

“And it came to pass after these things, that one told Joseph, ‘Behold, your father is sick.’ And he [Joseph] took with him [to visit Jacob] his two sons, Manasseh [his firstborn] and Ephraim. And one spoke to Jacob, and said, ‘Behold, your son Joseph comes to you.’ And Israel strengthened himself and sat upon the bed.

“And Jacob said to Joseph, ‘God Almighty appeared to me at Luz in the land of Canaan and blessed me. And He said to me, “Behold, I will make you fruitful and multiply you. And I will make of you a multitude of people, and will give this land to your seed after you for an everlasting possession.” And now your two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, who [were] born to you in the land of Egypt before I came to you in Egypt, are mine. Like Reuben and Simeon, they shall be mine’ ” (Gen. 48:1-5).

Jacob essentially adopts Joseph’s two sons. In so doing, he made the two boys legally his sons. Jacob did this so that the birthright could be passed to them directly. Remember, the birthright belongs legally to the firstborn—unless God intervenes to do otherwise.

Notice that Manasseh is mentioned first in verse one, as he was the firstborn. Later, in verse five, Jacob mentions Ephraim first—showing that he was about to favor him with the greater portion of the blessings.

“And Israel beheld Joseph’s sons, and said, ‘Who are these?’ And Joseph said to his father, ‘They are my sons, whom God has given me in this place.’ And [Israel] said, ‘Please bring them to me, and I will bless them.’

“And the eyes of Israel were dim for age; he could not see. And [Joseph] brought [the boys] near him, and he kissed them and embraced them. And Israel said to Joseph, ‘I had not thought I would see your face, and, lo, God showed me also your offspring.’ And Joseph brought them out from between his father’s knees, and he bowed his face to the earth. And Joseph took them both, Ephraim in his right hand toward Israel’s left, and Manasseh in his left toward Israel’s right hand. And he brought them near to him” (verses 8-13).

Jacob was practically blind—but he knew how Joseph would present the boys. Manasseh, as the oldest of the two and the firstborn of Joseph, was placed at Jacob’s right hand where he would have typically received the full birthright blessing (verse 13). Ephraim, the younger of the boys, was positioned so that Jacob’s left hand would have been on his head—denoting a lesser blessing.

Notice the divine intervention. Under God’s direction, Jacob crossed his hands deliberately so that the greater of the blessings went not to the older Manasseh, but to Ephraim, the younger lad.

“And Israel [Jacob] stretched out his right hand and laid it upon Ephraim’s head, who was the younger, and his left upon Manasseh’s head, crossing his hands, for Manasseh was the firstborn. And he blessed Joseph and said, ‘May God, before Whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac walked, the God Who fed me all my life to this day, the Angel Who has redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads. And let my name be perpetuated in them, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac, and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth.’

“And Joseph saw that his father laid his right hand upon the head of Ephraim, and it displeased him. And he held up his father’s hand to remove it from Ephraim’s head to Manasseh’s head. And Joseph said to his father, ‘Not so, my father, for this is the firstborn. Put your right hand upon his head.’

“And his father refused and said, ‘I know it, my son, I know it. He [Manasseh] also shall become a people, and he also shall be great, but truly his younger brother [Ephraim] shall be greater than he, and his seed shall become a multitude [a company, or commonwealth] of nations.’ And he blessed them that day, saying, ‘In you shall Israel bless, saying, “God make you as Ephraim and as Manasseh.” ’ And [thus] he put Ephraim before [ahead of] Manasseh” (verses 14-20).

Back in Genesis 35:11, God had promised Jacob that his descendants would grow into “a nation” and “a company of nations.” Now it was clear that this would be accomplished through Joseph’s two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh. Note that the birthright blessings went to them jointly—“bless the lads. And let my name be perpetuated in them, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac, and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth.”

But notice also that Jacob passed the greater portion of the birthright blessing—which was normally reserved for the firstborn, the oldest—on to Ephraim, the younger of the two. Thus, as noted in verse 20, Jacob “put Ephraim before Manasseh”—that is, Ephraim was placed ahead of or in preference to Manasseh in terms of blessings. Also, as history would go on to prove, Ephraim would grow into the promised “company of nations” first; Manasseh would follow some time later, developing into a single great nation.

Again, ancient Israel has in no way fulfilled this prophetic promise. Ephraim was unquestionably the dominant tribe of the northern kingdom— but was always only one tribe, not a “company” of tribes, let alone a company of nations. Neither has this prophecy been fulfilled by the Jews.

As we search for the modern descendants of the “lost” tribes of Israel, we must look for a company or commonwealth of nations—one which is closely related to a single great nation. This is the key to identifying modern Israel today.

“May They Be Called by My Name”

When it comes to understanding biblical prophecy, it is imperative to know just who is Israel. What nation or nations qualify today as Israel—by God’s definition? The answer is quite astonishing.

Notice in Jacob’s blessing of Ephraim and Manasseh that he passed on something else to the boys, something quite profound—his very name. In Genesis 48:16, Jacob said, “let my name be named on them” (KJV). In other words, “may they be called by my name.” Jacob’s name had been changed, by God, to Israel. Thus, Ephraim and Manasseh inherited the name Israel.

Now we see why Jacob adopted Joseph’s boys. The name Israel could not be legally conferred to Ephraim and Manasseh by Joseph himself; thus, Jacob “adopted” the boys in order to pass his name directly to them. The name Israel would be indelibly stamped on Ephraim and Manasseh.

The fact is, the modern descendants of Ephraim and Manasseh— whoever and wherever they may be today—are biblical Israel. They alone carry the name Israel—not the Jews, who are but a remnant of the ancient tribal nation of Judah. Indeed, Jacob’s prophecies about Joseph’s two sons had nothing to do with the Jews—for Judah was not even present at the time. While there are actually several modern-day nations that can trace their origins to the various “lost” tribes of Israel (such as the French being descendants of the tribe of Reuben), only the descendants of Ephraim and Manasseh prophetically carry the name Israel.

This is profound knowledge—the master key to understanding Bible prophecy—overlooked by theologians and scholars. Hundreds of prophetic references to Jacob or Israel—which have long been assumed to refer to the Jews—apply first and foremost to the modern descendants of Ephraim and Manasseh (especially those prophecies relating to the latter days).

Who then, according to Scripture, is the real Israel? Who has the right to the name Jacob or Israel? Only Ephraim and Manasseh—who were to develop into a great company of nations and a single great nation.

But who and where are they today?

A Key Prophecy for the Latter Days

As demonstrated, the Abrahamic birthright promises were passed on to Joseph (I Chron. 5:2)—specifically to his sons Ephraim and Manasseh. Shortly after Jacob blessed Joseph’s sons, the aged patriarch asked to see all twelve of his sons—the fathers of the tribes of Israel. Under divine inspiration, Jacob was to give his sons a prophetic glimpse into the future, into the “latter days.” In so doing, Jacob describes certain key attributes of Joseph that can help us to determine the modern-day identities of his sons, Ephraim and Manasseh. Jacob’s key prophecy is found in Genesis 49; he begins thus: “Gather yourselves together, that I may tell you what will happen to you in days to come. Gather yourselves together and hear, sons of Jacob, and listen to Israel your father” (verses 1-2; author’s paraphrase throughout Gen. 49). Starting in verse 22, Jacob addresses Joseph, saying:

“Joseph is like a fruitful vine, a prolific vine watered by a spring, whose branches grow and run over the walls.”

Ephraim and Manasseh, who inherited Joseph’s blessings, were destined to become notably fruitful—like a well-watered plant whose vines or branches extend far beyond their natural borders. This points not only to rich agricultural blessings, but also to the large populations promised to Abraham. That Joseph’s vines or branches run over the wall points to colonization (we have already seen in Genesis 28:14 that Abraham’s descendants were to “spread abroad” in all directions). Thus, Joseph’s offspring would become prosperous, well populated, and highly productive nations—spreading around the world through the establishment of colonies.

“With bitterness and hatred [Joseph’s] enemies have attacked him, but his arms have remained strong and quick as he aims his bow accurately—because his power comes from the Mighty One of Jacob, the Shepherd, the Rock of Israel” (verses 23-24).

These two verses indicate that Joseph’s descendants, Ephraim and Manasseh, would be unjustly attacked and provoked—resulting in their involvement in major military conflicts. Yet they would be victorious by God’s help. What nation and company of nations does this suggest?

“Indeed, your father’s God, the Almighty, has helped you and blessed you with the blessings of the heavens above, with the blessings of the deep that are hidden below, and with the blessings of the breast and womb. The blessings I proclaim for you are as certain as the ancient mountains, as sure as the age-old hills. Let all these blessings rest on the head of Joseph, on the one most distinguished among his brothers” (verses 25- 26).

These material blessings are obvious: blessings of heaven refers to rich agricultural abundance—produce, grain crops, orchards, etc.—made possible by plentiful rainfall in due season; blessings of the deep refers to rich natural resources such as oil, coal, minerals—all that lies beneath (including beneath the seas). Of course, blessings of the breasts and of the womb refer to large, growing populations (recall the earlier promise to Rebekah, that her and Isaac’s seed would grow into an incalculable multitude).

We find a similar prophecy in Deuteronomy chapter 33. Here, Moses pronounces special blessings—which are highly descriptive—on each of the tribes of Israel. Of Joseph, he says:

“May the LORD bless your land with the precious rain of heaven above [abundant crops and produce from rain in due season] and with the deep waters that lie below [the abundance from the seas]. May He bless you with the best produce the sun brings forth and the finest fruits the months yield [produce in its season]; with the choicest treasures of the ancient mountains and the precious resources of the everlasting hills; with the very best gifts the earth can offer [abundant mineral resources]—and may you delight in the favor of Him Who once dwelt in the burning bush. Let all these blessings rest on the head of Joseph, on the one preeminent among his brothers.

“Joseph’s glory is like that of a firstborn bull—but with the strong horns [symbolic of power and influence] of a wild ox! He uses them to push at the nations, even those at the ends of the earth. Thus describes the multitudes of Ephraim, and the host of Manasseh” (verses 13-17; author’s paraphrase).

Again, these passages portray great national wealth, abundance, fruitfulness, large populations, along with global influence and prestige. The middle part of verse 17—Joseph using his “horns” to push at the nations, even those at ends of the earth—clearly suggests worldwide influence and military reach.

God’s promises to Abraham have been fulfilled—on one level—in that the ancient Kingdom of Israel, as a great nation, possessed the “Promised Land” in the time of Solomon (Deut. 1:10; I Kings 4:20-21, 24-25). But the promises were to be multiplied many times over—“May the LORD, the God of your fathers, make you a thousand times more than you are, and bless you as He has promised you!” (Deut. 1:11). As we have seen, God continued to expand on His promises to Abraham through each succeeding generation as they were passed on to Ephraim and Manasseh. In those two tribes—who alone carry the name Israel—the birthright promises were to reach their zenith.

Indeed, the Abrahamic promises clearly describe a “company” (or commonwealth) of nations and a single “great” nation; together, they are a highly productive, populous people who have expanded their territories by colonization—and even possess their enemies’ sea gates. With favorable climates, rich soil, abundant rainfall, and vast natural resources (oil, coal, timber, minerals, etc.), they have inherited the choicest parts of the earth. Their economic stature and military might give them superpower status, allowing them great international influence—politically, economically, and culturally.

Without question, these amazing promises must be fulfilled exactly as described or the Bible is a fraud. In all of history, what nations fully and accurately match the highly detailed descriptions we have seen here in the Abrahamic promises?

When we put all of the evidence together, the answer is clear: Great Britain and the United States of America fulfill the covenant promises God made to Abraham! Ephraim was to become a “company” of nations— fulfilled through the British Empire; Manasseh was to become a single great nation—fulfilled through America. Astonishingly, these English-speaking nations are none other than the modern-day descendants of Joseph—and they alone carry the prophetic name Israel!

CHAPTER FIVE

The Kingdom of Israel: From Empire to Exile

After Moses’ death, Joshua successfully led the children of Israel in the initial stages of their conquest of the land of Canaan, the Promised Land, dividing up each tribe’s inheritance according to the casting of lots. By the time Joshua reached the end of his life, God had given the nation rest and peace all around (Joshua 23:1). However, there remained much land to be possessed—and based on God’s promises to Abraham, it was Israel’s simply for the taking. In his parting address, Joshua warned the people not to forsake God and follow the ways of the nations remaining in the region:

“ ‘Now, therefore, fear the LORD, and serve Him in sincerity and truth. And put away the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the [Euphrates] River, and in Egypt, and serve the LORD…. But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.’ And the people answered and said, ‘Far be it from us to forsake the LORD to serve other gods….’

“And Joshua said to the people, ‘You are witnesses against yourselves that you have chosen the LORD, to serve Him.’ And they said, ‘We are witnesses.’… And Joshua said to all the people, ‘Behold, this stone shall be a witness to us, for it has heard all the words of the LORD which He spoke to us. It shall therefore be a witness to you, lest you deny your God.’ And Joshua sent away the people, each man to his inheritance” (Josh. 24:14-16, 22, 27-28).

After Joshua’s death, the children of Israel quickly set out to possess the lands promised to them. After a great deal of success, however, some of the tribes began to compromise with God’s instructions: rather than drive out the inhabitants of certain areas, the Israelites allowed them to remain, forcing them to pay tribute. In time, another generation arose that had no firsthand knowledge of God or the works He had done for the nation (Judges 2:10).

Israel began to worship the false gods of the nations around them, and God responded by causing them to be cursed in their efforts to finish taking the land. Again and again, God would use the nations indigenous to the area to punish the Israelites, who seemed bent on disobedience. Throughout this time the nation was led and corrected by prophets; as well, judges were raised up to deliver the people from distress and oppression. The period is aptly described in the final verse of the book of Judges: “In those days there was no king in Israel. Every man did what was right in his own eyes” (Judges 21:25).

In time, Israel asked for a human king—rejecting, in fact, God as their true King (I Sam. 8:4-9).[1] Saul, a Benjamite, was chosen as the nation’s first monarch. He was physically impressive (I Sam. 10:23-24) and seemed to embody all that one would want in a king. But, as time would reveal, Saul did not have the heart to put God first in faithful obedience.

Saul ultimately disqualified himself as king, and God sought out another—one who would faithfully put Him first. Centuries later, the apostle Paul summarized God’s thinking: “And after removing [Saul], [God] raised up David to be [Israel’s] king; to whom He also gave testimony, saying, ‘I have found David, the son of Jesse, a man after My own heart, who will perform all My will’ ” (Acts 13:22).

The Righteous Reign of David

Following Saul’s death, David was initially anointed king in Hebron by the tribe of Judah alone (II Sam. 2:3-4). He reigned for seven years from Hebron before the other tribes acknowledged him as king; their acceptance ushered in a period of unity and continued conquest of the land (II Sam. 5:1-5). With the entire country behind him, David amassed an army of some 350,000 soldiers and began subduing the nations that had long plagued Israel. David’s military expeditions were legendary, greatly expanding the geographic size of the nation (I Chron. 11:9). Under his leadership, Israel soon began enjoying unparalleled political and economic preeminence in the region.

In spite of David’s mistakes and sins of the flesh, God was always with him. Why? Because David had a repentant heart—he genuinely sought an intimate relationship with God based on heartfelt obedience to the way of life defined by His commandments. Many of the chapters in the book of Psalms were written by David and reflect his respect for God; Psalm 51, in particular, expresses David’s deep repentance after grievously sinning.

It was David’s desire to build God a permanent dwelling place—a temple—in Jerusalem, a city he had taken from the Jebusites. But because of his war-making lifestyle, God declined, choosing instead to allow David’s son, Solomon, to build Him a temple. However, as will be brought out in a later chapter, God had something even greater in store for David—the promise of an unbroken lineage that would culminate with the eternal rule of the Messiah Himself!

The Golden Age of Israel—Cut Short by Idolatry

Upon David’s death, his son, Solomon, reigned in his place. Initially, Solomon was a promising ruler, asking of God only wisdom and knowledge (I Kings 3:7-12); moreover, he succeeded in building God a magnificent temple (I Kings 6). Eventually, however, Solomon succumbed to idolatry and debauchery (I Kings 11:3-8).

Solomon inherited a wealthy, powerful empire from David—a vast territory stretching from Egypt to the Euphrates River (I Kings 4:24). His kingdom boasted of massive international trade, much of it by well-established maritime trade routes (I Kings 10:14-23). Such was Israel’s might and influence that surrounding nations chose to become allies with Solomon rather than risk certain defeat in war. Both the Phoenician Empire (often referred to as Tyre in the Old Testament) and Egypt entered into longstanding alliances with Solomon. I Kings 10:24 indicates the immense impact Solomon had around the then-known world: “And all the [land] sought Solomon to hear his wisdom, which God had put in his heart.”

The reigns of David and Solomon (both 40 years each) fulfilled God’s promises that Abraham’s descendants would, as a great nation, inherit the land of Canaan. But even during its “Golden Age” under Solomon, Israel never came close to fulfilling the divine purpose God had intended for the nation. First, from a material, physical perspective, the birthright promises previously described were realized only in a limited fashion—far from what was originally promised. Israel never became the prophesied “great nation” and a “company of nations” wielding worldwide superpower status (the birthright promises would be fulfilled, however, in due time). Second, except for a few years during the early part of Solomon’s reign, Israel never became the premier model nation God had intended (Ex. 19:5-6; Deut 4:6). (This purpose will be fully realized in the age to come— Zechariah 8:23.) God had wanted to show the world that obedience to His way of life would result in great blessings and great peace. Indeed, Israel had been given an unprecedented opportunity to be a blessing to all the families of the earth, just as was promised to Abraham. Solomon’s God-given wisdom was, briefly, the envy of the nations—but it was cut short by his rapid decline into sin and idolatry.

God was initially pleased with Solomon, conditionally promising that He would establish his kingdom forever (I Kings 9). But Solomon succumbed to his own weaknesses and gave in to carnal pulls of the flesh— choosing to take pagan wives and become involved with the worship of false gods (I Kings 11:1-10).

Thus, the kingdom would be rent from Solomon—and ultimately divided into two competing nations.

“And the LORD said to Solomon, ‘Since this has been done by you, and since you have not kept My covenant and My statutes which I have commanded you, I will surely tear the kingdom from you and will give it to your servant. But I will not do it in your days, for David your father’s sake, but I will tear it out of the hand of your son. Only, I will not tear away all the kingdom, but I will give one tribe to your son for David My servant’s sake, and for Jerusalem’s sake which I have chosen’ ” (verses 11-13).

Because of His promise to David, God would spare one tribe, Judah, so that David’s lineage could be preserved (as we will see, Judah was joined by the tribe of Benjamin and most of the Levites). The remaining ten tribes would become a separate nation altogether. This proposition was made clear in a prophecy given by the prophet Ahijah to one of Solomon’s captains of war, Jeroboam.

“Now it came to pass at that time, when Jeroboam went out of Jerusalem, the prophet Ahijah from Shiloh found him on the way. And he had clothed himself with a new garment. And the two of them were alone in the field. And Ahijah caught hold of the new garment that was on him, and tore it in twelve pieces. And he said to Jeroboam, ‘Take ten pieces for yourself. For thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, “Behold, I will tear the kingdom out of the hand of Solomon and will give ten tribes to you, but he shall have one tribe for My servant David’s sake and for Jerusalem’s sake, the city which I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel, because they have forsaken Me, and have worshiped Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, Chemosh the god of the Moabites, and Milcom the goddess of the children of Ammon, and have not walked in My ways, to do what is right in My eyes, and to keep My statutes and My judgments, as David his father did. But I will not take the whole kingdom out of his hand, but I will make him ruler all the days of his life for the sake of David My servant, whom I chose because he kept My commandments and My statutes. But I will take the kingdom out of his son’s hand and will give it to you, ten tribes. And to his son I will give one tribe, so that David My servant may have a light always before me in Jerusalem, the city which I have chosen for Me to put My name there. And I will take you, and you shall reign according to all that your soul desires, and shall be king over Israel” ’ ” (I Kings 11:29-37).

After Solomon’s death, his son, Rehoboam, was set to be named as king over the entire kingdom. The northern part of the nation, represented by Jeroboam, expressed their discontentment with Solomon’s heavy taxation and forced labor practices. Rehoboam foolishly ignored their concerns and actually threatened to increase the burden (I Kings 12). In the end, the northern tribes, led by the tribe of Ephraim, separated themselves from the tribe of Judah—creating two distinct nations.

“And all [of the northern tribes of] Israel saw that the king did not hearken to them, and the people answered the king, saying, ‘What part do we have in David [i.e., Judah, David’s tribe]? Yea, there is no inheritance in the son of Jesse. To your tents, O Israel! Now see to your own house, O [house of] David!’ And [northern] Israel went to its tents” (I Kings 12:16).

Thus, in 928 BC, the former Kingdom of Israel was divided—the ten tribes of the north, led by Ephraim, separated themselves and would continue as a distinct nation, the House of Israel. The southern portion would continue as the House of Judah, led by the tribe of Judah. Thus, David’s dynasty would remain intact. As brought out in Chapter 1, Joseph’s sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, were each counted as a distinct tribe; thus, the northern kingdom, while appearing to include only nine tribes, was actually composed of ten tribes (just as Ahijah’s prophecy indicated). The southern kingdom was made up of Judah, the tiny tribe of Benjamin, and virtually all of the priestly tribe of Levi (Ezra 1:5).

A Kingdom Divided

Rehoboam reacted to the secession of Jeroboam and the ten tribes by attacking the northern tribes in an effort to force them back into a united kingdom. God intervened through the prophet Shemaiah:

“And when Rehoboam came to Jerusalem, then he gathered all the house of Judah with the tribe of Benjamin, a hundred and eighty thousand warriors to fight against the house of Israel, to bring [restore] the [full] kingdom again to Rehoboam the son of Solomon. But the word of God came to Shemaiah the man of God, saying, ‘Speak to Rehoboam the son of Solomon, king of Judah, and to all the house of Judah and Benjamin, and to the rest of the people, saying, “Thus says the LORD, ‘You shall not go up, nor fight against your brothers the children of Israel. Each man return to his house, for this thing is from Me.’ ” ’ And they hearkened therefore to the word of the LORD and returned, according to the word of the LORD” (I Kings 12:21-24).

Note carefully that there are now two distinct nations: 1) the House of Judah, composed of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, including the Levites (this southern kingdom later became known as the Jews); and 2) the House of Israel—composed of the ten northern tribes, led by the dominant tribe of Ephraim. They carried the name Jacob or Israel—which, as we have seen, prophetically belongs today to Joseph’s sons, Ephraim and Manasseh.

The two kingdoms quickly became rivals, often going to war with one another (II Chron. 12:15). In fact, the first time we see the term “Jew” used in the Bible, Israel is at war with them! In II Kings 16, Pekah, the king of Israel, is allied with the king of Syria against Jerusalem and the Jews (verses 5-6).

Note this vital fact: the House of Israel is never referred to as “Jews.” Only those of the House of Judah are Jews (Ezra 5:1). Yes, Jews are Israelites—as Judah and Benjamin are tribes of Israel. But, from a biblical perspective, the Jews are not “Israel.” That designation, from the time of the divided kingdom, belonged to the northern kingdom of ten tribes. Today, everyone assumes the tiny Middle Eastern “State of Israel” is biblical Israel. Technically, this is not so—the Jews represent Judah only. The name Israel, from a latter-day prophetic perspective, belongs to Ephraim and Manasseh (Gen. 48:16).

The tiny tribe of Benjamin became incorporated into Judah, while the Levites overwhelmingly settled in Judah after Jeroboam, king over the northern tribes, instituted a false national religion. A number of God-fearing Israelites from among the ten tribes settled in Judah as well, hoping to maintain the proper worship of God (II Chron. 11:16). Moreover, as we will see later, the House of Judah maintained the “scepter promise” (Gen. 49:10) through the lineage of David—which would culminate in the Messiah.

Meanwhile, the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh—the leading tribes of the House of Israel—continued as possessors of the birthright promises. In time, the Abrahamic promises of national greatness, wealth, and influence would reach their intended fulfillment through these sons of Joseph—but not before the entire northern kingdom was removed from their lands and “sifted among the nations” for their idolatry. Some 200 years would yet pass before the ten tribes disappeared from biblical history—taken captive by the Assyrians. During that time, ten dynasties would come and go involving 19 monarchs (from about 930 to 722 BC). Without exception, every king of the House of Israel practiced wickedness before God, leading the entire nation further and further into gross sin and idolatry.

Israel—An Apostate Nation

From the beginning, God offered Jeroboam an enduring dynasty, much like He had promised David (I Kings 11:37-38). But unlike David, Jeroboam was bent on doing what seemed right in his own eyes (I Kings 14:8; Prov. 14:12) and plunged the nation further into paganism. In the end, Israel would never be able to recover from the abject idolatry begun under the leadership of Jeroboam.

Fearful the people would eventually realign themselves with Judah if they continued to participate in the temple sacrificial system and observe God’s annual festivals as taught under Moses, Jeroboam cleverly instituted a new national religion. Almost immediately he set up two golden calves, proclaiming them to be Israel’s gods (I Kings 12:26-30). As a part of his new religion, Jeroboam set up false “priests” who were not of the tribe of Levi. The Levitical priesthood inherited their office, placing them outside the king’s control. Perceiving them to be an independent threat to his authority, Jeroboam’s solution was to replace the Levites with the “lowest” of the people (verse 31)—those easily controlled. This prompted virtually all of the Levites to relocate to Judah (II Chron. 11:13-14). Thus, Jeroboam had complete monarchial control over his new religion. In addition, Jeroboam ordained a “feast” in the eighth month—a deliberate counterfeit to the God-ordained festival of the seventh month (I Kings 12:32-33).

Ultimately, Jeroboam’s religion was a mixture of Mosaic teachings and outright paganism. Having adopted the religious customs of the nations around them, the northern tribes quickly began to blend in with the peoples of the region. They looked and lived just like pagans! In fact, Israel blended so well with the nations that they have been largely mistaken by historians as an extension of the Phoenician Empire to their north (see Chapter 9).

Meanwhile, in the southern nation of Judah, Rehoboam did nothing to stop the growing idolatry that resulted from Solomon’s wicked lifestyle. Eventually, the entire nation became entangled in sin and false worship (I Kings 14:22-24). As a means of correction, God removed His protection and allowed Egypt to turn on her former ally (verses 25-26). In response, Rehoboam and the people humbled themselves before God, and Egypt was allowed to only plunder Jerusalem, taking virtually all of the golden treasures Solomon had amassed for the temple. For a time, Judah was delivered; but they would remain at least partially subservient to Egypt (II Chron. 12:1-12).

In the northern Kingdom of Israel, God sent Ahijah the prophet to warn Jeroboam concerning his and the nation’s sins (I Kings 14:7-10). The prophet also warned of certain national captivity:

“For the LORD shall strike Israel as the reed is shaken in the water, and He shall root up Israel out of this good land which He gave to their fathers, and shall scatter them beyond the [Euphrates] River because they have made their [idolatrous] Asherim, provoking the LORD to anger. And He shall give Israel up [to captivity] because of the sins of Jeroboam who sinned, and because he made Israel to sin” (verses 15-16).

Unlike Rehoboam, however, Jeroboam was unrepentant. Still, in His patience and mercy, God gave Israel numerous opportunities to repent over some 200 years. But as history would record, the northern ten tribes continued in their downward slide into paganism and sin. In stages, God began to withdraw His blessings and protection, gradually reducing the geographic size of Israel (II Kings 10:32-33). He allowed Israel to be oppressed on all sides—yet, in His mercy, God was reluctant to send them into exile: “And the LORD was gracious to them, and had pity on them, and had respect to them because of His covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. And He would not destroy them, nor cast them from His presence as yet” (II Kings 13:23).

Soon, however, time would no longer be on Israel’s side. The rapidly growing Assyrian Empire was beginning to expand to the west and the south, encroaching on the territories still held by the northern tribes. The Assyrians were powerful militarily, and bent on conquest. Indeed, they would make the perfect “rod of correction” (see Isaiah 10:5) in God’s hand as He prepared to carry out His ominous warning of complete national captivity for the House of Israel.

CHAPTER 5 NOTES

1. God had much earlier promised Jacob that his descendants would include kings (Gen. 35:11), and the tribe of Judah was promised the scepter (Gen. 49:10). Thus, it was apparently God’s intent all along for Israel to eventually have a human king—but in His way and time. The problem here in I Samuel was that Israel lacked faith in God; their demand for a king—someone they could physically look to—was essentially idolatrous.

CHAPTER SIX

Israel Goes into Captivity—Becomes the “Lost” Ten Tribes

Without exception, every succeeding king of Israel followed in the evil ways of Jeroboam (II Kings 17:21-23). Approximately 175 years from the division of the kingdom, the northern ten tribes fell into widespread political division and unrest. Soon the nation found itself paying an enormous amount of “tribute” money to the Assyrian monarch Tiglath-pileser III (II Kings 15:19-20). A later rebellion by King Pekah around 735 BC led the Assyrians to turn Israel into a vassal state. The prophet Jeremiah wrote concerning Israel’s impending captivity:[1]

“ ‘For the house of Israel and the house of Judah have dealt very deceitfully [treacherously] against Me,’ says the LORD. ‘They have lied against the LORD and said, “It is not He [i.e., God is not punishing us]; neither shall evil come on us; nor shall we see sword nor famine. And the prophets [are but] wind, for the word [of God] is not in them; thus [what the prophets have spoken] shall be done to them.” ’

“Therefore thus says the LORD God of hosts, ‘Because you have [deceptively] spoken this word, behold, I will make My words in your mouth [like] fire, and this people [like] wood, and it shall devour them. Lo, I will bring a nation upon you from afar, O house of Israel,’ says the LORD. ‘It is a mighty nation, it is an ancient nation, a nation whose language you do not know, nor understand what they say. Their quiver is as an open grave; they are all mighty men [of war]. And they shall eat up your harvest and your bread, your sons and your daughters they shall eat up. They shall eat up your flocks and your herds; they shall eat up your vines and your fig trees. They shall beat down your fortified cities with the sword.

“ ‘But even in those days,’ says the LORD, ‘I will not make a complete end [of] you. And it will be, when they shall ask, “Why does the LORD our God do all these things to us?” Then you shall answer them, “Just as you have forsaken Me and served strange gods in your land, so you shall serve strangers in a land that is not yours” ’ ” (Jer. 5:11-19).

According to the prophet Hosea, the root cause of Israel’s demise was their rejection of the true knowledge of God. “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. Because you have rejected [true] knowledge, I will also reject you…. Since you have forgotten the law of your God, I will also forget your children” (Hosea 4:6).

Like Jeremiah, the prophet Amos warned of God’s intent to “sift” the Israelites among the heathen.

“ ‘Behold, the eyes of the Lord GOD are on the sinful [northern] kingdom, and I will destroy it from the face of the earth; except that I will not completely destroy the house of Jacob,’ says the LORD. ‘For lo, I will command, and I will shake [sift] the house of Israel among all the nations, as one shakes [grain] with a sieve, yet not a grain shall fall to the earth’ ” (Amos 9:8-9).

In corrective punishment, the northern ten tribes would be scattered among Gentile nations—yet not completely destroyed. The phrase “yet not a grain shall fall to the earth” shows that God, in His abundant mercy, would not allow Israel to utterly perish from the earth. Because of His immutable promises to Abraham, God was bound to bring Joseph’s sons—Ephraim and Manasseh—into the fullness of the birthright blessings. Israel’s captivity was never “overturned”—that is, they never returned to the land of Canaan. As we will see, however, a substantial remnant of Israelites did survive in order to ultimately fulfill the Abrahamic promises.

National Captivity—In Two Stages

As Israel’s next-to-last king, Pekah formed an alliance with Syria and attacked Judah (II Kings 16:5-6). (This is the first instance the term Jew is used in the Bible, as the two Israelite kingdoms are at war. Again, this demonstrates that the Jewish nation of Judah was by this time completely separate from the northern Kingdom of Israel. Thus, the term Jew does not refer to all of Israel.) At Judah’s request the Assyrians intervened (verses 7-9), adding to the tension that already existed between the northern tribes and Tiglath-pileser. Foolishly, Pekah deepened his alliance with Damascus, a move the Assyrian king interpreted as further rebellion. In response, the Assyrians came against Israel, taking significant numbers into captivity. This deportation took place from 735-732 BC, and is sometimes referred to as the “Galilean captivity” as it primarily involved the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and a portion of Manasseh—all east of the Jordon River (I Chron. 5:26). To the north, Naphtali was taken captive (II Kings 15:29). Because of their close proximity to Naphtali, it is likely that Asher, Issachar, and Zebulun were at least partially taken as well. The tribe of Dan was divided into two parts: the northern Danite area adjacent to Naphtali, which included the city of Dan, was almost certainly taken captive, but the Danites living southward along the shores of the Mediterranean were not involved in this first invasion. As a later chapter will bring out, these seafaring Danites were able to largely escape captivity by sailing west.

With this invasion, Tiglath-pileser now occupied the greater part of Galilee and Gilead—some 75 percent of the territory of the Kingdom of Israel. Only a relatively small state situated around Samaria remained— mostly involving the remains of Manasseh and the tribe of Ephraim.

Circumstances quickly worsened under Pekah’s successor, Hoshea, who betrayed Assyrian trust by turning to Egypt for support. The new Assyrian king, Shalmaneser V, reacted decisively, ordering the complete removal of the remaining Israelites from the land. The Assyrian army “went through all the land” (II Kings 17:5), meaning they took captive all who had not fled the region or taken refuge inside Samaria. As recorded by history, the population of Jerusalem swelled at this time as a number of northern refugees fled captivity.[2] Finally, after a three-year siege, Samaria fell in 722 BC (under Assyria’s Sargon II).[3]

As a nation, Israel ceased to exist; its entire population was deported and relocated in distant lands—in Halah, Habor, Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes (II Kings 17:5-6). Verse 18 says: “So the LORD was very angry with Israel and removed them out of His sight; not one [tribe] was left, only the tribe of Judah by itself” (in a political sense, Judah—which incorporated Benjamin and the Levites—was the only complete tribe left in the land).

In short order, the lands formerly occupied by the northern tribes were repopulated with Gentiles. “And the king of Assyria brought men from Babylon and from Cuthah and from Ava and from Hamath and from Sepharvaim and placed them in the cities of Samaria [Israel] instead of the children of Israel. And they possessed Samaria [Israel] and lived in its cities” (II Kings 17:24). These newcomers became known as Samaritans, taking their name from Israel’s capital city (Matt. 10:5).

Meanwhile, in the southern Kingdom of Judah, the tragic fate of the northern tribes helped to inspire national repentance under King Hezekiah. But the Assyrians, having now entered into the Promised Land, had their eye on Judah as well. In fact, within just a few years of the fall of Samaria, many of Judah’s fortified cities had been temporarily overcome by Assyria (II Kings 18:13-16). By 700 BC, the Assyrians had exiled many Jews to the same areas the northern tribes had been sent. In his book The Tribes, researcher and writer Yair Davidy notes that Sennacherib, king of Assyria, exiled up to 200,000 Jews from the southern Kingdom of Judah.[4]

Still, because of God’s great mercy—and because of Hezekiah’s far-reaching reforms (II Kings 18-19; II Chron. 29-32)—the nation of Judah never fell to the Assyrian army. Some 135 years were yet to go by before Judah would face her final captors, the Babylonians.

The Ten Tribes of Israel Become “Lost”

As a political entity, the northern Kingdom of Israel was now extinct. Its people had been scattered across the Euphrates, resettled in such areas as Habor, Hara, Halah, and Gozan—all located along the northern fringes of the Assyrian Empire in what today would roughly be southeastern Turkey. Some were exiled as far east as Media, to the area south of the Caspian Sea, where they were placed in cities the Assyrians had taken from the Medes (II Kings 17:6). It is logical that the Assyrians would resettle the Israelites in several areas in order to prevent them from consolidating their strength for the purpose of a rebellion.

Archaeological finds confirm the presence of Israelite settlers in these areas of exile. Harper’s Bible Dictionary, for example, notes that ancient texts discovered at Gozan mention some of the exiles’ descendants by name.[5] Davidy writes: “According to local tradition, the eastern part of Hara (Ghor), where the Hari River rises, was once settled by a people referred to as Assakan and Bnei Yisral, or children of Israel. Assakan was shortened to Sak or Sok and local Muslim lore equated the term with the name Isaac, father of Israel…. The existence of these names is evidence that a section of the Israelite nation had once been in that area, and these are apparently to be identified with the historical Sok or Sakae (meaning Scythians) who were in the Hara region … [and] had been settled there by the Assyrians.”[6]

From these locations, many of the children of Israel were no doubt further scattered through human trafficking—sold as slaves in faraway lands (Deut. 28:64-66). But God had only begun to “sift” the ten tribes among the nations. As we will see, God preserved a sizeable remnant of the northern tribes intact so they might later migrate to new areas where they could grow into independent peoples—and ultimately fulfill the Abrahamic birthright promises.

At this time, the northern ten tribes of Israel seemingly disappeared from history. Starting with Jeroboam, Israel had begun adopting the religions of the nations around them, becoming steeped in the worship of foreign gods. Many of the customs Israel carried into captivity were borrowed from the nations around them. Thus, in captivity, the Israelites easily blended in with the pagan cultures they had come to prefer. They no longer possessed outward characteristics that easily distinguished them from the nations among which they had been scattered. Most importantly, the House of Israel had long abandoned the very practice that would have set it apart from all other nations—the seventh-day Sabbath.

Through Moses, God had instructed Israel that His Sabbaths were to be a sign between Him and the nation (Ex. 31:13, 16-17; Ezek. 20:12, 20). A sign serves to identify something or someone. Israel’s observance of the Sabbath was to perpetually remind them of who God is—as well as identify them as uniquely belonging to God. And, as long as Israel kept the Sabbath, they maintained their identity.

The Jews maintained their identity even after going into captivity in Babylon. Moreover, after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD (and in 135 AD), the Jews were again widely scattered. Yet the Jews were able to maintain their identity—how? By holding on to God’s identifying sign, the seventh-day Sabbath. Even to this day, the Jews—who are largely descendants of the southern Kingdom of Judah—have maintained their identity through keeping the Sabbath. Scattered as they may be, they have retained the identifying sign God gave to His people.

The northern tribes, however, from the time of Jeroboam, abandoned God’s Sabbaths and substituted false days of worship. They lost the very sign that would have identified them as God’s nation. Thus, as Israel lived as captives among the Gentiles, they did not stand out as different—they simply blended in as if they were pagans.

Throughout their exile and migrations, the captive Israelites were never associated with the Jews—because their religious practices were so dissimilar. The Jews maintained the Sabbath and, for the most part, God’s annual festivals; Israel did not. Eventually, as the Israelites forgot God, they largely forgot their true origin!

History says the ten tribes were totally assimilated into the cultures of the nations among which they were scattered. But, as brought out in Chapter 1, such an idea is impossible. Numerous prophecies speak of the full restoration of the ten tribes (along with Judah) in the age to come. But one cannot restore what no longer exists. Jesus Himself had Israel’s future in mind when He sent the apostles out to preach the Gospel to the “lost” tribes of Israel (Matt. 10:5-7). Moreover, numerous prophecies speak of the Abrahamic birthright promises being brought to fruition in Ephraim and Manasseh.

In their ignorance of the Scriptures, scholars and historians deny the existence of the so-called “lost” tribes of Israel—and thus deny the covenant promises God made to Abraham, vainly attempting to apply them to the Jews or to the church. Though the exiled tribes were mistaken for Gentiles, Israel was clearly not assimilated into the cultures of the nations among which they were scattered. Rather, they survived captivity, with a sizable remnant going on to reestablish themselves as independent peoples. The fact that Israel lost its identity makes identifying their descendants today quite challenging—but not impossible.

CHAPTER 6 NOTES

1. Jeremiah began to prophesy in Judah in about 626 BC—almost a hundred years after the House of Israel had been exiled. Interestingly, in this passage Jeremiah foretells of Israel’s captivity as if it had not yet happened. As with Ezekiel—who also warned of Israel’s demise after the fact—Jeremiah’s warnings to Israel might appear to be ill-timed. But, in reality, they were written as advance warnings for modern Israel—America and Britain. See Chapter 16 for more on Ezekiel’s and Jeremiah’s prophecies for Israel.

2. Yair Davidy, The Tribes—The Israelite Origins of Western Peoples, p. 35

3. Other sources say two years: “For over two years, from 724 to 722 [BC], Samaria was blockaded and finally closely besieged. The whole land was laid waste” (The Ancient History of the Near East, p. 472). In this final invasion, the Assyrians took only 27,290 Israelites into captivity (p. 474). The number seems rather small, but well over half of Israel had been taken captive in earlier expeditions. Moreover, many Israelites no doubt fled the region just prior to or during the 2-3 year siege of Samaria—such as seagoing Danites who fled by ship (see Chapter 9). This number probably reflects only those barricaded inside the capital city.

4. Davidy, pp. 5-6

5. Harper’s Bible Dictionary; “Gozan”

6. Davidy, pp. 21-22

CHAPTER SEVEN

The Tribes of Israel Reemerge Under New Names

The God of Jacob had shown the utmost in mercy and patience to the stubborn and rebellious tribes of the House of Israel. He had warned them again and again of the certainty of national captivity if they persisted in sin. From the very beginning, even before they entered the Promised Land, God gave this warning:

“Take heed to yourselves, lest you forget the covenant of the LORD your God, which He made with you…. For the LORD your God is a consuming fire, a jealous God. When you shall beget children and grandchildren, and when you shall have remained long in the land and have dealt corruptly by making a graven image, the likeness of anything [to worship], and shall do evil in the sight of the LORD your God to provoke Him to anger, I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day that you shall soon utterly perish from off the land which you are crossing over Jordan to possess. You shall not prolong your days upon it, but shall utterly be destroyed. And the LORD shall scatter you among the nations, and you shall be left few in number among the nations where the LORD shall drive you. And there you shall serve gods, the work of men’s hands, wood and stone, which neither see nor hear nor eat nor smell” (Deut. 4:23-28).

The exiled tribes of Israel would be scattered “among the nations”— “throughout the land” (Ezek. 36:19). But, as noted earlier from Amos 9:8-9, God would not allow Israel to be fully destroyed. He would preserve a remnant—the “outcasts of Israel” (Isa. 11:12), “wanderers among the nations” (Hosea 9:17).[1] Indeed, Israel would begin to coalesce again into tribes and groups of tribes, migrating to various lands over a period of many centuries in an effort to reestablish themselves. Unknown to these exiles was the “unseen hand of God”—guiding and protecting, assuring that they would in time be resettled in new lands. The birthright promises to Ephraim and Manasseh would be fulfilled in spite of Israel’s long history of sin.

As noted, Israel lost its key identifying sign long before captivity— God’s Sabbath day. However, a few cultural identifying signs did survive the Assyrian captivity, and these signs can be helpful in determining the early migrations of Israel. Keep in mind that as Israel lost the knowledge of God and the Sabbath, they also began to lose an understanding of their unique identity as God’s chosen nation. Over time, tribal identity largely superseded national identity. We should therefore not be surprised to find that, throughout their migrations, the “lost” tribes where not known among the nations as Israel—but were known by other names.

A Vital Key—The Notorious House of Omri

One of Israel’s preeminent kings was Omri, noted for his conquests and for building the fortress-capital city of Samaria. Reigning for 12 years— from about 887 to 876 BC—Omri was exceedingly wicked before God (I Kings 16:25). Yet his son, Ahab, who succeeded him, “did more to provoke the LORD God of Israel to anger than all the kings of Israel who were before him” (verse 33).

Omri established a dynasty that lasted only 50 years, but it was one that achieved internal stability and relative peace with Israel’s neighbors. New and far-reaching strategic-economic alliances were formed under Omri, who was widely known for his shrewd political maneuverings. Long after his dynasty died out, the prophet Micah gave this warning from God concerning certain “statutes” of Omri: “For the statutes of Omri are [still] kept [followed], and all the [idolatrous] works of the [evil] house of Ahab [are maintained], and you [continue to] walk in their counsels, so that I should make you [as a nation] a desolation…” (Micah 6:16).

While it is uncertain as to the exact nature of Omri’s “statutes,” most scholars agree that they were not directly religious; rather, they were most likely politically oriented principles designed to guide leaders in matters of foreign policy. Omri was a master strategist, bent on establishing peace and prosperity his way—without relying on God’s intervention or blessing. Thus, his materialistic, humanistic “statutes” represented man’s best efforts at dominance and preservation—even if it required religiously prostituting the nation before the world.

Why is this important in locating the tribes of Israel? As shrewd and evil as he was, Omri earned the respect of the surrounding nations— especially Assyria. Because of his various military and economic exploits, Omri was regarded as the founder of the “kingdom of Samaria.” As a result, the surrounding nations often referred to Israel as Beth Khumri—the House of Omri. The Ancient History of the Near East records: “Omri was one of the most important of the kings of Israel, and may be regarded as the founder of the power of the kingdom. To the Assyrians, he was a sort of eponymous hero of his country, for they called it Bit Humri, ‘House of Omri.’ ”[2] Concerning Omri, Langer’s Encyclopedia of World History notes: “The Assyrians called Israel after his name, Bit Omri (Khumri).”[3] The History Department of the University College of London gives this confirmation: “The Kingdom of Israel was known to the Assyrians after its [assumed] founder, as Bit Humri, House of Omri.”[4] Bit or Beth Omri both mean “House of Omri.”

Over time, “House of Omri” became synonymous with “House of Israel.” When other nations referred to Israel’s kings, they called them sons of Omri. Among Assyrian kings the name Omri was consistently used for Israel, starting with Shalmaneser III (who ruled during the time of Ahab) and extending some 100 years (and beyond) to Sargon II, who oversaw the fall of Samaria.[5] As we will see, the Persians and Babylonians also had alternative names for Israel.

Under Shalmaneser III, Israel’s King Jehu (841–814 BC) was forced to pay tribute. Shalmaneser recorded this fact on a black limestone sculpture known as the “Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III.” The obelisk depicts five different subdued kings, including Jehu, prostrate before the Assyrian king. The inscription reads: Ia-u-a mar Hu-um-ri-i or “Jehu of the House of Omri.”[6] Importantly, the terms Khumri or Humri (variants of Omri) prove to be a vital key in locating the “lost” tribes of ancient Israel.

From this time Omri appears in numerous archaeological finds, spanning well over a century, identifying Israel as the House of Omri, while the name Israel gradually fell into disuse. For example, following the fall of Samaria in 722 BC—some 150 years from Omri’s time—Sargon II recorded his triumph in a paving. According to Expedition Magazine, the inscription reads: “Property of Sargon, conqueror of Samaria and the entire country of Bit Omri.”[7]

The Mysterious Origins of the Cimmerians

The variants of the name Omri—Khumri, Humri, Chumri, Gimri, etc.—are but different spellings and pronunciations extant among the nations of the region. For example, Khumri was Assyrian for Omri, while Gimri was the Babylonian version (the kh was pronounced g).

Discovered in northwestern Iran, the “Behistun Rock” (dating from 515 BC) identifies a group of Israelite tribes by different names. On this rock, the Babylonian name for Israel is Gimri. As archeologists and linguistics experts have discovered, Gimri, over time, became Gimmira, from which comes the Hellenized version, Cimmerian. As one source notes, “Gimri comes from [the Assyrian] Khumri (out of the biblical name Omri) and goes through Gimmira and the Greek Kimmerioi to Cimmerian.”[8]

The Bible Research Handbook notes: “The [Behistun] rock carries on its face an important cuneiform inscription of Darius Hystaspes (Darius the Great). This inscription, which was cut circa 516 BC, records in three languages—Persian, Susian (Median), and Babylonian—the names of twenty-three provinces subject to him. In the Persian and Susian versions, one of these provinces is called Scythia, the root of which is, phonetically, Sak. In the Babylonian text, this [same] province is called ‘(matu) Gimiri,’ translated, ‘land of the Cimmerians.’ ”[9]

Not only does the Behistun inscription identify the Gimiri with the Cimmerians, it also links Scythians to the Cimmerians. Thus, as we will see, Cimmerians and Scythians are both of the same stock—Israelite.

Key historical sources describe the Cimmerians—who seemingly appeared out of nowhere—as a nomadic people originating from areas south of the Caucasus Mountains, in what would today be southern Armenia, eastern Turkey, and northwest Iran. This is exactly where the Assyrians had placed most of the exiled Israelites. Moreover, the earliest historical records noting the appearance of the Cimmerians identify them as the Gimri—the House of Omri. “The first historical record of the Cimmerians appears in Assyrian annals in the year 714 BC [a mere eight years after the fall of Samaria]. These [records] describe how a people termed the Gimirri [a variant of Gimri or Omri] helped the forces of Sargon II to defeat the kingdom of Urartu [an old name for Armenia].”[10]

Sargon reigned until 705 BC. Like all Assyrian kings, he kept records of the political and military activities of the day. Thousands of clay tablets have been discovered in the ancient Assyrian capital city of Nineveh, which appear to be official military records. In some of these records, dating from 707 BC, the Gimirri are said to be in alliance with the Assyrians, serving as mercenaries (at other times they fought against the Assyrians). Because of their positions along the northern-northeastern frontier of the Assyrian Empire, the relocated tribes served as a “buffer state” for the Assyrians against their enemies. A large group of Gimirri (Cimmerian Israelites) were specifically settled in an area called Mannae to function as a buffer between Assyria and Media.[11]

The Greek astronomer-geographer Ptolemy (2nd century AD) placed the Cimmerians in the area roughly defined by modern-day Georgia—the southernmost area between the Black and Caspian Seas. According to local history, the Cimmerians were highly influential in the development of the culture of that region. In fact, in Georgian, the Cimmerians were known as the Gimirri. Notice: “The modern-day Georgian word for hero, gmiri, is derived from the word Gimirri. This refers to the Cimmerians who settled in the area after [their] initial conquests. Some modern authors assert that the Cimmerians included mercenaries, whom the Assyrians knew as Khumri, who had been resettled there by Sargon.”[12]

Yair Davidy writes: “The Cimmerians had first appeared on the [northern] fringes of the Assyrian Empire shortly after the majority of northern Israelites had been exiled…. In about 707 BC, a people named ‘Gimirae’ [a variation of Gimri, or Omri] were reported from the region of Mannae. These are the Cimmerians. They were referred to as ‘outcasts’ by the Assyrians.”[13] Davidy adds that the area of Mannae is referred to in Amos 4:3—“you [the tribes of Israel] shall be cast off to Harmon” (see NKJV, etc.) Accordingly, Harmon (or Harmonah) is derived from Har-Mannae— the Mountain of Mannae. This area, he writes, became a Cimmerian stronghold shortly after Israel’s exile.[14]

The Scythian Connection

As previously noted, the Behistun Rock identifies the Israelites by different names. The inscriptions on this unique monument tell a distinct narrative in three languages—Babylonian, Persian, and Median. References in the Babylonian tongue to the Gimri are well established as pointing to the Israelites. In the Persian narrative, Israelite tribes are called the Sakka. Moreover, trilingual inscriptions found on the tomb of Darius I also connect the Gimir with the Sakka, proving that they are related peoples. Recall that Sargon had resettled some of the Israelite tribes among the “cities of the Medes” (II Kings 17:6)—further east of where most of the tribes had been taken. It was in this area of Media—then under Assyrian control—that a portion of the “lost” tribes became known as the Sakka (or Saka).

But what is the origin of the term Sakka?

God had indicated that the name Isaac would always be used to identify Israel as a people: “For in Isaac your seed shall be called”—or named (Gen. 21:12). A better translation would be, “It is from Isaac that your seed will take its name.” Did the tribes of Israel ever refer to themselves as “sons of Isaac”? Indeed, the prophet Amos notes that the Israelite tribes were sometimes called the “House of Isaac.” About 750 BC, some 30 years before the fall of Samaria, Amos wrote: “And the high places [idolatrous shrines] of Isaac shall be desolate, and the holy places of Israel [built at Dan and Bethel] shall be laid waste…” (Amos 7:9). Using a common literary technique called “parallelism,” Isaac is here equated with Israel. God told Amos, “Go, prophesy to My people [the northern tribes of] Israel” (verse 15). Yet Amaziah, a priest of Bethel (verse 10), had chided Amos: “Do not prophesy against Israel, and do not drop words against the house of Isaac” (verse 16)—again, showing that the phrase “House [sons] of Isaac” was used to identify Israel.

As we will see, the name Isaac would be indelibly imprinted on a major portion of the Israelite peoples, uniquely identifying them as they migrated from one area to another in search of a new home.

With the accent on the last syllable (as is typical in Hebrew), Isaac is pronounced Yit-zak (or ee-sahk). Typically, the first syllable would have been dropped or ignored in other languages, leading simply to zak or sahk. Hence, the name Isaac becomes Saac or Saccae (plural). Remember, biblical Hebrew was written without vowels. Using English equivalents, this means Isaac would be spelled Sk or Sc—without the vowels. Thus, it is not surprising that shortly after the exile the Persians referred to the sons of Isaac as Saka—or the Sacae (the ae being the Latin plural ending, added later). Consequently, numerous historians are convinced that Sakka was derived phonetically from ee-sahk, and that certain Israelite tribes became known among the Persians as the Sakka (also Sacae and Iskuza) because of their claim to be sons of Isaac.[15]

Among the Greeks, the Sakka were typically called Scythians. As the Encyclopedia Britannica states, the terms “Saka (Sacae) … and Scyths [Scythians] … were regarded as synonymous.”[16] History records that the Scythians appeared suddenly along the northern border of Media—about the same time the Gimri appeared further to the west. “Within half a century of the House of Israel going into exile, the Scythians were mentioned for the first time in … documents which date from the reign of Esarhaddon, King of Assyria (681-669 BC).” The documents “reveal that the Scythians were then located among the Medes where the Bible tells us that some of the Israelites had been placed in captivity (II Kings 18: 11)…. The same documents also prove that another new people called Gimiri were also located in the same area at that time…. [Thus,] we may conclude that [both tribal groups] were actually the same people under different names.”[17]

The following gives support to the close association between the Gimri (Cimmerians) and the Sakka (Scythians): “About 707 BC, a people going by the name of Gimera or Gamera [Gimri] are recorded living among the Mannai in a territory close to Media. This is where the Israelites had been placed about 15 years earlier. Another people to suddenly appear in the land of Mannai were the Iskuza. Modern historians tell us that the Iskuza were called Skuthai [Scythians] by the Greeks and Sacae by the Persians. Sir Henry Rawlinson [a renowned historian and researcher] regarded the Gimiri or Cimmerians and the Sacae as the same people and said they were Israelites. Rawlinson’s statement is as follows: ‘We have reasonable grounds for regarding the Gimiri, or Cimmerians, who first appeared on the [northern] confines of Assyria and Media in the seventh century (BC), and the Sacae … as identical with [exiled] Israel.’ ”[18]

Many researchers, such as Davidy, consider the two groups to be practically identical: “[The] mountain of Mannae [associated with the Gimri] … shortly after the exile became a Cimmerian and Scythian center, the Cimmerians and Scythians being in effect one people.” He continues: “In about 676 BC, a new element, known as [the] Ishkuza, emerged from the Cimmerian ranks; these are identified with the Scythians who the Persians and Babylonians referred to as the Saka. Both names, Ishkuza and Saka, may be understood as forms of the name Isaac.”[19]

The Greek historian Herodotus, writing in the fifth century BC, also links the Sacae with the Scythians; likewise, Ptolemy refers to the Sacae as Saxons—literally “Isaac’s sons.” In The History of the Anglo-Saxons, historian Sharon Turner writes: “The Saxons [who historically settled in the British Isles] were a … Scythian tribe.” Moreover, “the Sakai, or Sacae, are the people from whom the descent of the Saxons may be inferred…. Sakai-Suna, or the sons of the Sakai, abbreviated into Saksun, which is the same sound as Saxon, seems a reasonable etymology of the word Saxon.”[20] Again, Davidy notes: “Saccae was the contemporary Middle Eastern term [associated with] Scyth, and the name is believed to be a derivative of Isaac.”[21]

In Hebrew, those who “dwell in tents” are Scuthi—or, as we could say, Succothites (from succoth, booths; see Genesis 33:17). Hence, Scythian (or Skuthai) suggests a nomadic lifestyle. In fact, God had said Israel would become “wanderers among the nations” (Hosea 9:17).[22]

Israel—Set to be Sifted Among the Nations

The evidence is quite clear. While the exiled Israelite tribes along the northern border of Assyria were reemerging as the Cimmerians, those tribes toward the east in Media were reemerging as the Scythians.[23] To the world, the exiled Israelites seemed to have vanished as a people. But they did not vanish at all—nor were they “lost.” They simply reappeared in history under new names—as nomadic peoples, separated into semi-independent tribes or groupings of tribes. As the evidence indicates, the groups interacted freely— marrying, trading, warring together—as they were all of Israelite blood!

As was foretold by Amos, God would sift the Israelite tribes among the nations—a fate made possible only by the fact that a sizable remnant of those tribes had become well established (even feared) in the regions of their exile. Indeed, the Cimmerians and the Scythians had become forces of influence in the areas just south of the Black and Caspian Seas. Soon, these reestablished tribes would begin major migrations to the north and the west. Such migrations would take the Israelites into numerous new areas— effectively sifting them still further among the nations—yet, as Amos writes, “not one kernel of grain would fall to the ground.” This means the Israelite tribes would not die out or become extinct, but would continue migrating until God fully reestablished them in new homelands in accordance with the promises made to Abraham—specifically those birthright promises made to Ephraim and Manasseh.

Once we realize that the Cimmerians and the Scythians were actually regrouped Israelites, we can trace their migrations by these (and other) “transitional names”—names which have left their mark on history as the “lost” tribes moved to eventually overspread much of Europe.

CHAPTER 7 NOTES

1. Each of these chapters—Ezekiel 36, Isaiah 11, and Hosea 9—describes aspects of Israel’s original destruction and captivity at the hands of the Assyrians. But, along with other passages, they also clearly indicate a full restoration to God’s favor as Israel is reestablished in the Promised Land. Since the “lost” tribes of Israel have had no such restoration—unlike the Jews who were restored to Palestine after 70 years in Babylon—this can only mean that these (and similar) passages are dual in nature and point to a second national captivity. This future captivity—from which they will be delivered and restored—will be fulfilled in the modern-day descendant nations of Israel. This topic is covered thoroughly in Chapter 16.

2. H. R. Hall, The Ancient History of the Near East, footnote, p. 449

3. Langer’s Encyclopedia of World History (1968); “Moabite Stone”

4. University College of London; www.ucl.ac.uk/sargon/essentials/countries/israel

5. The Cambridge Ancient History adds that “for a century and a half, the Assyrians continued to call Ephraim [as the leading tribe] the land of Beth (the house of) Omri” (p. 361). In keeping with this usage, the Cambridge also refers to Israel as the “land of Omri” (p. 376) and “Omri-land” (p. 29).

6. www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Obelisk_of_Shalmaneser_III

7. “Through Assyria’s Eyes,” Expedition Magazine, vol. 44, no. 3

8. www.asis.com/users/stag/behistun.html

The Greek’s Cimmerian name for the Israelites—stemming from Kimmerii or Kimmerioi—may have been partly based on the fact that they were identified with their capital, Samaria. Notice the striking phonetic similarity between Samarian and Cimmerian (the C is pronounced like an S). According to author Steven Collins, Cimmerian is pronounced Si-mer-e-en, and the consonants of SaMaRiaN and SiMeReeN are a perfect match (www.stevenmcollins.com/html/ILE-excerpt.html).

9. Bible Research Handbook, vol. 2, Covenant Publishing (1972)

10. www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cimmerians

11. www.asis.com/users/stag/tablets.html

12. www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cimmerians

13. Yair Davidy, The Tribes—The Israelite Origins of Western Peoples, pp. 16, 27

14. Davidy, p. 24

15. In his book The Story of Celto-Saxon Israel, the late British historian and scholar W. H. Bennett notes that “leading vowels were often dropped in Semitic languages. As an example, the city of Istanbul is also known as Stambole…. Conversely, at the end of words, Semitic speech frequently added an aleph [letter a] to words which in Hebrew terminated with a consonant.” As a result, Isaac became Saca, Saka, or Sacae. See www.israelite.info/bookexcerpts/storyofceltosaxonisrael.html.

16. The Encyclopedia Britannica, vol. 20; “Scythia”

17. Edmund Filmer, “Our Scythian Ancestors,” www.ensignmessage.com/archives/scythianancestors.html

18. The Origin of Our Western Heritage, ch. 5: The Captivity and Deportation of Israel; www.bethelcog.org/church/the-origin-of-our-western-heritage/thecaptivity-and-deportation-of-israel

19. Davidy, pp. 24, 28. It is most likely that the Scythian Israelites did not “emerge from the Cimmerian ranks,” but were placed by their Assyrian captors just to the east of the Cimmerians. Because both groups were of Israelite descent and no doubt frequently interacted, they are often confused as identical.

20. Sharon Turner, The History of the Anglo-Saxons, p. 59. A prominent London attorney, Turner (1768-1847) was an English historian who dedicated much of his life to the study of the origins of the Anglo-Saxon peoples. His book was first published in 1805.

21. Davidy, p. 128

22. Colonel John C. Gawler, Dan: The Pioneer of Israel, ch. 4: “Dan Among the Scythians,” www.nordiskisrael.dk/artikler/jcgawler_dan_the_ pioneer_of_israel_chap4.html.

A former keeper of the British monarch’s crown jewels, Gawler (1830–1882) conducted extensive research on the history of the British peoples. In 1875 he wrote Our Scythian Ancestors, and in 1880 he published the aforementioned book on Dan.

23. While these two groupings—Cimmerian and Scythian—represented the

vast majority of the “lost” tribes, there apparently were smaller groups such as the Mannai and the Goths (though this may be a later name). But given the considerable “overlap” between the Cimmerians and Scythians, these smaller groups may have actually been subgroups of the larger bodies.

CHAPTER EIGHT

Israel Migrates to the North and West

The ten tribes of the northern House of Israel had been fully uprooted and taken captive at the hands of the Assyrians—God’s “rod of correction” (see Isa. 10:5-6) for Israel’s continued violation of His covenant (Lev. 26:25). Just as foretold by the prophet Ahijah, they had been taken “beyond the [Euphrates] river” (I Kings 14:15), with the majority relocated along the northern border of Assyria in what today would be southeastern Turkey—just south of the headwaters of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. In a later invasion, which included the fall of Samaria, the remainder had been taken further east to the area of Media, south and just west of the Caspian Sea (roughly northwest Iran today).

Backtracking to their homeland was impossible. Many captives no doubt perished during the arduous forced relocation, and any attempt to return to Palestine would be equally disastrous. Besides, the land of promise was destined to be completely repopulated by peoples from the surrounding nations (II Kings 17:24).

As previously noted, tens of thousands of Jews from the southern kingdom were also taken captive along with the northern tribes; still, a sizable number of scattered Israelites no doubt found refuge in Judah. And, as Chapter 9 brings out, a significant number of Israelites with maritime skills escaped captivity altogether by fleeing to the west on ships. But as both Scripture and history show, no tribe of the House of Israel ever returned to Palestine. The Jewish historian Josephus verifies this fact: “[There] are but two tribes [Judah and Benjamin, plus the Levites] in Asia … subject to the Romans, while the ten tribes are [to be found] beyond the [headwaters of the] Euphrates [even] now, and are an immense multitude, and not to be estimated by numbers.”[1] Josephus wrote in the late first century AD, when the “lost” tribes of Israel were well established in great numbers in eastern Europe and already beginning to make their way further northwest to their permanent homes. Thus, according to Josephus, the so-called “lost” tribes of Israel had not vanished and their whereabouts were clearly known.

Some Jewish scholars hold to the flawed idea that the northern tribes eventually found their way back to Palestine when the Jews were restored to the land following their captivity to the Babylonians. Besides the fact that secular history does not support this idea, numerous biblical passages show that only the Jews resettled Palestine after their exile was overturned (Ezra 1:5; 4:1; Neh. 11:4; etc.). When Ezra uses the term “children of Israel” (Ezra 3:1; 6:16; etc.) in describing those who had returned from exile in Babylon, he was speaking of those Jews of the House of Judah who were, in fact, sons of Israel. Like all Jews, they were descendants of Israel. Nehemiah likewise broadly lists the returning Jews as being “of Israel” (Neh. 7:7; etc.).

Remember, Israel’s captivity occurred some 130 years prior to the fall of Jerusalem. By the time the Jews returned to Palestine after 70 years of captivity, the bulk of the northern tribes had already moved into southern Russia and areas around the Black Sea. Moreover, as we will see in a later chapter, numerous biblical passages speak of a future restoration for the House of Israel, which clearly indicates that their original captivity was never overturned. The Jewish scholar Isaac Lesser agrees that Israel never returned to the land: “Let us observe that by this return of the [Jewish] captives [from Babylon], the Israelite nation was not restored, since the ten tribes, who had formerly composed the kingdom of Israel, were left in banishment. [And] to this day, researchers … and wise men have not been able to trace their fate.”[2] Lesser acknowledges the fact that the northern tribes never returned from their exile, but he is in error when he says that their fate is unknown.

Overwhelmingly, scholars and researchers insist that the deported tribes of Israel vanished soon after exile, having been absorbed into the lands of their captors. For example, the highly reputable Cambridge Ancient History notes, “All the northern tribes … had been carried off … [and] enquiry into their fate has been one of the curiosities of learned and other research; [yet they] were probably soon swallowed up in their new [exilic] homes.”[3] A primary reason for this fallacy is that such scholars simply do not understand (or believe) the clear promises God made to Abraham— promises concerning the birthright nations of Ephraim and Manasseh. Those birthright promises had not been fulfilled at the time of Israel’s captivity; thus, Israel must have survived its exile intact in order for those very specific blessings to be granted to their descendants at a later date. Recall that Amos wrote that while Israel would be “sifted” among the nations, “not one kernel of grain would fall to the ground”—that is, Israel would not die out or cease to exist (Amos 9:9). In verse eight, God plainly says, “I will not completely destroy the house of Jacob.”

Operating from the faulty premise that the deported Israelites either became extinct or were absorbed by other peoples, researchers have shown little interest in connecting their post-exilic descendants with the recognized ancient clans of the region. Hence, historians are at a loss to explain the origins of the Cimmerians and the Scythians of the Middle East. It is well established that both groups mysteriously and suddenly appeared along the fringes of the Assyrian Empire at about the same time—shortly after the tribes of Israel were relocated to those same areas. Lacking the imagination to link these nomadic peoples to the exiled Israelites, scholars assume that they originated elsewhere: The Cimmerians are thought to have moved into Asia from areas northwest of the Black Sea, and the Scythians are said to have originated among the barbaric hordes of the Far East. However, both of these conclusions—which are based heavily on erroneous assumptions made by Herodotus—are wrong.[4]

Indeed, millions of people do not just disappear. As Josephus noted, the ten tribes had become an immense multitude by the first century AD. Jesus sent His apostles out to proclaim the good news of the Kingdom of God to the “lost house of Israel” (Matt. 10:5-6). Thus, the northern tribes had not become extinct and their whereabouts were well known. Over time the exiled tribes of Israel had become known by other names: the House of Omri; the Gimri, or Cimmerians; the Sakka, or Scythians. Contrary to Lesser and other misguided scholars, researchers have been able to trace the migrations of the Cimmerians and the Scythians from their original exilic settlements north and east of Assyria. Under these new names, the tribes of Israel began to move northward and westward along three major land routes: 1) westward across Asia Minor; 2) northward across the Caucasus Mountains; and 3) northward around the eastern side of the Caspian Sea. These migrations would occur in several stages over many decades; but ultimately, the bulk of the tribes of Israel would coalesce, settling for well over a century in areas north and west of the Black Sea, as well as in parts of southern Russia.

Circumstances Leading to Israel’s Migrations

When the Assyrians relocated the Israelites “across the Euphrates,” they did so as a military strategy. The Cambridge notes: “[Deportation] was a deliberate policy for the purpose of breaking up old alliances … and of inaugurating new conditions more favorable to Assyrian ambitions of empire.” Moreover, “wholesale deportation” led to the “disruption of the [natural] ties of patriotism and religion.”[5]

Perhaps more significantly, it was Assyrian policy to use relocated peoples in the creation of “buffer states” between themselves and their enemies. In his Ancient History of the Near East, H. R. Hall writes that the Assyrians worked to establish “dependant” mini-states “largely composed of conquered and deported tribes from other parts of western Asia.” He specifically mentions “imported Semites” in association with the area of Mannae.[6] As noted in the previous chapter, Mannae was a Cimmerian stronghold used as an Assyrian buffer state. Apparently, deported Israelites were used to form several buffer zones in the long-standing conflict between Assyria and Urartu (an old name for Armenia) to their north.[7]

Naturally, these “buffer states” were “caught in the middle” of numerous conflicts, essentially becoming war zones. As might be expected, those tribal clans making up such buffer states were called on at times to fight on behalf of their captors. As it turned out, Cimmerian and Scythian Israelites fought both alongside and against the Assyrians. The Cimmerians in particular were often allied as mercenaries with the Assyrians (and others) in various military campaigns. For example, the Cimmerians helped to briefly supplant the Urartean Empire,[8] and Scythian Israelites to the east once fought against Jerusalem as Babylonian mercenaries.[9]

In time, the Cimmerian and Scythian Israelites became a force to be reckoned with. But even with their war-like nature, geopolitical conflict taking place in the Middle East eventually caused these Israelite bands to move on—to seek a better home for themselves. The primary reason for their migration to the north and west was to avoid being caught up in a protracted war between Assyria and a resurgent Babylon (which involved the Medes and Persians as well). While the majority of Israelites remained in the areas of their initial exile for about a hundred years, some Cimmerian groups began migrating to the northwest relatively early. Conversely, a significant number of Scythian bands left the region much later—which allowed them to play a key role in the overthrow of the Assyrian Empire.

By the mid-600s BC, as Babylon began to make an unexpected comeback, Assyria found itself under pressure on several fronts. In fact, unrest along Assyria’s northern border was one of the foremost reasons the Cimmerians began migrating directly west across Asia Minor as early as about 680 BC—a mere fifty years from their initial exile.[10] Much later, by about 600 BC, other Cimmerian clans began moving northward, crossing the Caucasus mountains by way of the Dariel Pass. “It is believed that an attack upon Sakland [land of the Saka Israelites, roughly the area south of Georgia] by the Assyrians, who [in a reversal of their previous policies] had made an alliance with the kings of Urartu, precipitated [the Cimmerian] exodus. This was about the time the Assyrian Empire was crumbling before the Babylonians.”[11]

Their Scythian brothers to the east would soon find themselves on the move as well—following the same path across the Caucasus, as well as going north around the east side of the Caspian Sea—spurred on by a Babylon bent on conquest. Edmund Filmer writes: “Following the fall of Nineveh in 612 BC and the subsequent collapse of Assyrian power in 609, the Scythians were deprived of their most powerful ally and consequently came under increasing pressure from the Medes [allied with Babylon]…. As a result, all Scythians west [and south] of the Caspian Sea would have been forced to retreat northwards into south Russia through the Dariel Pass in the Caucasus. Clearly, this migration must have begun about 600 BC, and this agrees with the fact that the earliest Scythian tombs [found] in [southern] Russia have been dated to about 580 BC.”[12]

Over time, Cimmerian clans found their way along the shores of the Black Sea to resettle in the Crimean region and in an area anciently called Arsareth, just north and west of the Black Sea. Scythian Israelites also moved to the north, spreading out over a considerable part of the Russian steppes.

Northwestward Movement

In our search for the “lost” tribes of Israel, we must look first for biblical clues. As we will see, these clues indicate that it was God’s plan for Israel to migrate to the northwest. In biblical Hebrew, there is no word for northwest; rather, the terms north and west are used together—or in separate but related passages—to indicate a northwesterly direction.

As the leading tribe of the northern kingdom, Ephraim is typically named in the Old Testament as representative of the entire nation (see Hosea 5:12, etc.). Moreover, Ephraim is said to represent the tribe of Joseph (Psa. 78:67; Ezek. 37:16). In Hosea 12:1, we read that Ephraim “follows after an east wind”—and an east wind blows toward the west. Ephraim is also said to “tremble from the west” (Hosea 11:10). (In the Bible, geographical locations are generally given from the vantage point of Jerusalem.) These passages clearly suggest a western location for Ephraim—i.e., Joseph. Could these passages be an indication that Ephraim—birthright Israel—was to one day migrate toward the west?[13]

But Israel was to also migrate to the north. Through the prophet Jeremiah, God said: “The backsliding Israel has justified herself more than treacherous Judah. Go and cry these words toward the north, and say, ‘Return, O backsliding Israel,’ says the LORD; ‘and I will not cause My anger to fall on you; for I am merciful,’ says the LORD, ‘and I will not keep My anger forever’ ” (Jer. 3:11-12). This key passage—which reaffirms that the people of Israel were split into two nations, Israel and Judah—was written about 620 BC, some one hundred years after the fall of Samaria. Jeremiah knew the northern tribes had been initially taken north to the borders of Assyria. But by the early 600s BC, large numbers of Israelites had already migrated to the north and to the west from their areas of exile. It is likely that Jeremiah was to proclaim his message of repentance “toward the north” among those Israelites who had already resettled in areas north and west of the Black Sea—areas that would become home to the “lost” tribes for well over a century.

In addition to these important biblical clues, sufficient historical evidence exists to show that the Cimmerian and Scythian Israelites migrated in stages from their locations of exile in Asia in a northwesterly direction— around both sides of the Black Sea—to reemerge in southeastern Europe and along the steppe regions of southern Russia.

Cimmerian Migration

As we saw in the previous chapter, Assyrian archeological evidence and military archives place the Cimmerians along the northern border of Assyria in approximately 714 BC—in exactly the areas to which most of the Israelite tribes had been exiled. This information reflects the earliest historical records of Cimmerian activity. Other military archives reveal that Cimmerian clans were engaged in war against Assyria in 705 BC. The Cambridge reports: “The appearance of Gimirrai (Cimmerians) south of the Caucasus [Mountains] can be dated by letters of Assyrian governors at the end of Sargon’s reign (722-705 BC).”[14] (Sargon, as brought out below, died defeating the Cimmerians in 705 BC.) These records (among others) clearly place the Cimmerians in the Middle East in the early 700s BC.

However, Herodotus—writing in the fifth century BC—traces the Cimmerians to regions north of the Caucasus and the Black Sea during the early 600s.[15] Reflecting the broad acceptance of Herodotus’ opinion, the Britannica Online Encyclopedia defines the Cimmerians as “an ancient people living north of the Caucasus.”[16]

Herodotus correctly linked the Cimmerians with areas north of the Black Sea, as it is well established that many of their clans were settled in areas of southeast Europe after the mid-600s BC. Assuming this was the land of their origin, he proposed that their sudden appearance along the northern borders of Assyria was the result of their being driven southward by barbarians into Asia. (Other historians define this theoretical Cimmerian move as a deliberate invasion). This idea, however, fails to account for the Cimmerian’s presence in the Middle East some 70-80 years earlier, when they were known to have roamed areas of the Assyrian Empire.

It is difficult to explain Herodotus’ flawed perspective. Nevertheless, he misread the Cimmerian’s long and prosperous history in southeastern Europe and southern Russia as pointing to their origin—while at the same time underestimating the significance of their relatively shorter stay in the Mideast as exiles. It is unfortunate that he failed to look further back to the final decades of the eighth century where we find the Cimmerians interacting with their Assyrian captors. A few modern scholars have cast doubt on Herodotus’ reliability in this regard.[17]

Ultimately, the facts only support a migration from south to north— not vice versa. As previously brought out, the Cimmerians were of Israelite origin, exiles reorganized into significant groups of nomadic clans. Leaving the lands of their exile in stages, they first moved westward across Asia Minor, then turned north to settle along the southwestern shores of the Black Sea. Decades later, the remaining Cimmerian clans moved northward through the Caucasus to settle in areas north and west of the Black Sea—the area roughly defined today by Crimea, the Ukraine, Romania, and parts of Southern Russia.

The Cimmerian migration out of the Middle East may be linked to the protracted demise of the Assyrian Empire. A resurgent Babylon (allied with the Medes) was bent on the total destruction of Assyria. As the empire began to crumble under constant attack from without, the exiled Israelite tribes were enabled to assume independent action—which, of course, meant attacking their captors. Yair Davidy writes that “a major factor undermining the Assyrian Empire was [ongoing] attacks by the Cimmerians.”[18] However, Cimmerian participation in the fall of Assyria would prove costly, resulting in many of their clans being forced out of the Middle East.

According to Assyrian military archives, Argistis of Urartu amassed a great army in 708 BC with which to attack Assyria. A year later, a people called the Gimirrai (Cimmerians) defended the Assyrians by soundly defeating the Urarteans. The defeat suffered by Argistis “warned the Assyrian king [Sargon] of the danger of the hordes of Cimmerians on his northern border.” At the cost of his own life, Sargon attacked and defeated the Cimmerians in 705 BC. Thus, there was “no important aggression of the Cimmerians during the reign of Sennacherib [Sargon’s successor].”[19]

Defeated, the Cimmerians spent the next two decades regrouping. In time, “the Gimirrai with whom Sargon had fought reappeared in the northwest provinces [during] Esarhaddon’s reign.” In about 679 BC, in what was probably the last major encounter between Assyria and the Gimirrai, Esarhaddon drove the Cimmerians westward. As a result, “the Cimmerians flooded all Asia Minor … and were a great power [throughout the region] for thirty years or more.”[20] Britannica states that the Cimmerians were, as a result of Assyrian conflict, forced “into Anatolia [Asia Minor] toward the end of the 8th century BC [or, more accurately, early 7th century].”[21]

That the Cimmerians actually migrated westward across Asia Minor is attested by their military exploits along the way. For example, Kimmerioi (Cimmerian) warriors were known to have destroyed Phrygia and invaded Paphlagonia (676-674 BC); attacked Lydia and plundered Ionian [Greek] colonies (654-652); and sacked and briefly occupied Sardis (644).[22] These areas were anciently located in west or west central Asia Minor. In its article on the “Cimmerii,” the 1911 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica notes that “in the middle of the 7th century BC, Asia Minor was ravaged by northern nomads … one body of whom is called in Assyrian sources Gimirrai”—the Cimmerians.[23] One researcher writes that the Cimmerians “established a reign of terror in Asia Minor. They finally migrated to [southeastern] Europe, to a place which they called Arsareth.”[24]

As Davidy notes, “The Cimmerians were forced out of Anatolia [Asia Minor] and, via the Bosporus, entered the Balkans [southeastern Europe] whence they continued [over a century later] into north and western Europe.”[25] Leaving Asia Minor the Cimmerians turned north, crossed the Bosporus Pass, and migrated to the western shores of the Black Sea. As we will see, this location—Arsareth—would become home to Cimmerian (and Scythian) Israelites for well over a hundred years.

Near the end of the seventh century BC, as the Assyrian Empire was collapsing, the remaining Cimmerian Israelites moved north of the Caucasus Mountain region via the Dariel Pass. Because numerous Israelite groups migrated through this region—with many no doubt settling there—the area came to be called Iberia, clearly a Hebrew name.[26] As the Cimmerians came up around the east side of the Black Sea, many of them moved south of the Sea of Azov to settle in Crimea, a peninsula on the north side of the Black Sea. The Encyclopedia Britannica notes that the earliest Crimean settlers were “Celtic Cimmerians.”[27] Furthermore, according to some scholars, the word Crimea is derived from the base form of Cimmerian.[28] Herodotus records that the Khumri (Cimmerians) who settled in the Crimean Peninsula had come from Media, but that even Media was not their original home.[29] Herodotus, as noted earlier, wrongly assumed that the Cimmerians had originated in the Balkans. At least he is correct in noting that these particular Crimean settlers came from the Middle East, for the Assyrians had relocated some of the exiled Israelites to various “cities of the Medes.”[30]

Meanwhile, from the late 600s BC “the Scythians were a great power farther east.” In the struggle between Assyria and Babylon (allied with the Medes), “Scythian help was decisive.”[31]

Evidence From the Book of Esdras

The apocryphal book of Esdras (allegedly written by Ezra, of the restoration period) contains an interesting passage about the northwesterly migration of some of the exiled tribes of Israel. While this book is non-canonical, it does appear to be a reliable historical record. What follows is the interpretation of a vision given to Ezra:

“And as for your seeing him gather to himself another multitude that was peaceable, these are the [ten] tribes that were taken away from their own land into exile in the days of King Hoshea, whom Shalmaneser, king of the Assyrians, made captives; he took them across the [Euphrates] river, and they were taken into another land. But they formed this plan for themselves, that they would leave the multitude of the nations and go to a more distant region, where no human beings had ever lived, so that there at least they might keep their statutes that they had not kept in their own land. And they went in by the narrow passages of the Euphrates river. For at that time the Most High performed signs for them, and stopped the channels of the river until they had crossed over. Through that region there was a long way to go, a journey of a year and a half; and that country is called Arzareth” (II Esdras 13:39-45).[32]

The captive Israelite tribes had already been relocated “beyond the Euphrates” (I Kings 14:15). To say that they followed the “narrow passages of the Euphrates river” simply means they went northward through the narrow mountainous passes and gorges leading to the headwaters of the upper Euphrates. Subsequently, the migrating Israelites moved north through the Caucasus Mountains and on to the Crimean region and the shores of the Black Sea—exactly where history places the Cimmerians.

Apparently, the Cimmerians made it to Arzareth within the time frame of “a journey of a year and a half.” Perhaps this includes their settling for brief periods in Iberia and Crimea. Of this time, Dr. J. L. Thomas writes: “This migration [to areas north and west of the Black Sea] took place about a century after their main deportation [into exile]. Let it be noted that it commenced before the destruction and carrying away of [the nation of] Judah by Nebuchadnezzar. Israel had started on their migration out of the land of their captivity into the southeast of Europe before Judah ceased to be a kingdom.” By the time of the Jews’ return from exile, “the main body of the Israelites was in Arsareth, over a thousand miles from Babylon.”[33]

Arsareth (or Arzareth) refers to a broad area west of the Black Sea roughly defined by the Danube River valley, which today would primarily include Bulgaria and Romania. Bear in mind that other Cimmerian clans— those that had earlier migrated through Asia Minor—had already settled in this same area. With the later addition of Scythians, the area of Israelite settlement extend well into the Ukraine and southern Russia. The name is derived from Ar, meaning river, and Sereth, a tributary of the Danube. The Ar Sereth (known today as the Siret River) flows from the mountains into the Danube near the western edge of the Black Sea.[34] As we will see, it was from this region that groups of the “lost” tribes of Israel—by then known as Celts—eventually traveled up the Danube and Rhine River basins into northwestern Europe.

Meanwhile, Scythian Israelites from the eastern part of the Assyrian Empire were beginning to migrate, with some following their Cimmerian brothers across the Caucasus and some going around the eastern side of the Caspian Sea. But before the Scythians could fully leave the Middle East, they would be compelled to help bring about the demise of Assyria.

Scythian Migration

You will recall that a portion of the captive Israelites were relocated to the southern region of the Caspian Sea, in areas the Assyrians had taken from the Medes. These were primarily the Scythian Israelites.[35]

Scythians are typically defined as a broad range of nomadic tribes that roamed the Russian-Mongolian steppes from the 8th to the 4th centuries BC. Thus, many historians have carelessly assumed that the Saka Scythians known to have inhabited areas south of the Caspian Sea originated from among these Asiatic hordes. But the Scythians-proper of Assyria-Media were not of the Mongol races of the Far East; rather, their facial features and culture were distinctly Indo-European. In fact, archaeological discoveries plainly and consistently portray the Saka Scythians as physically like the present-day people of Europe. Davidy writes: “Many of the early Scythians were described as fair and of an apparent Nordic-type appearance.”[36]

The Greeks and Romans used the term Scythic indiscriminately of both Indo-European and Central Asian nomads—essentially of any nomadic peoples. This broad usage has caused considerable confusion. Originally, the term was coined to describe a particular culture rather than a specific ethnic or racial line.[37] In other words, the term Scythian came to represent a lifestyle more than a racial group—and it pointed particularly to the Saka- Scythian lifestyle of Israelite origin.

A vast area of what is today the Eurasian plain of Russia was anciently called Scythia—stretching from the Danube River in Europe to the western edge of China.[38] Various peoples inhabited this huge area, including nomadic tribes that had no connection to Israel. Such mounted tribes came from the Far East and were known to be barbaric and uncivilized.

The Israelite Scythians of the Middle East were not nomads in the classic sense—though they did tend livestock and were highly skilled at mounted warfare (horsemanship was a prominent feature of many Scythic clans). Rather, Saka Scythians preferred, if possible, to live in cities. They built and sailed ships, conducted wide-ranging commerce, were skilled in a number of trades, and enjoyed various arts.[39] From the 7th century BC, these Scythians-proper—the Saka (or Sacae) of ancient Assyrian and Babylonian writings—largely defined what it meant to be “Scythian” in areas stretching from the Balkans to Mongolia.

Thus, while there were barbaric tribes inhabiting the Scythian lands along the north of the Black Sea, they were not Saka Scythians. Rather, the Israelite Scythians were Indo-European—cultured, civilized, and enjoyed certain refined tastes. The idea that the Scythians were a horde of wild horsemen out of Siberia or Mongolia only applies to the Turanian Scythians from central and east Asia. Although they did have a warlike nature when provoked, the Saka Scythians of Israelite descent were of a completely opposite culture. Collins notes: “The Sacae Scythians had nothing in common with the wild, uncouth nomads of the northern steppes, but had very much in common with the civilized cultures to their south.” In short, “these Scythians moved into [southern] Russia from the south, not from the north. The entire spectrum of their culture argues for this conclusion.”[40]

It should be noted that the term Scythian was typically used inclusive of their Cimmerian brothers. The Encyclopedia Iranica observes: “As the Cimmerians cannot be differentiated archeologically from the Scythians, it is possible to speculate about their Iranian [i.e., exilic] origins. In the Neo- Babylonian texts … Gimirri and similar forms [from which is derived the term Cimmerian] designate the Scythians and Central Asian Saka, reflecting the perception among inhabitants of Mesopotamia that Cimmerians and Scythians represented a single cultural and economic group.”[41] Researcher Boris Piotrovsky writes: “Two groups, Cimmerians and Scythians, seem to be referred to in Urartean and Assyrian texts, but it is not always clear whether the terms indicate two distinct peoples….”[42] In other words, they were often assumed to be the same peoples—because they were both of Israelite origin and enjoyed considerable social interaction.

Like the Cimmerians, Scythian migration out of the Middle East was prompted by ongoing war between Assyria and Babylon. By the latter half of the 7th century BC, the Assyrian Empire was rapidly disintegrating. The Medes and Babylonians were openly attacking Assyria on numerous fronts, and the Scythian Israelites were emboldened to side with the aggressors. Meanwhile, a prolonged conflict with Elam had “left Assyria maimed and exhausted … drained of both wealth and fighting population.” Thus, Assyria was “ill prepared to face the hordes of Scythians … who now began to harass the frontiers…. A Scythian power had grown up … to the east of Assyria [south of the Caspian Sea]; [in addition] Asia Minor was infested by the Scythian tribe of Cimmerian [origin].”[43] With the empire “impoverished and tottering,” the Medes and the “confederated tribes of the Umman-manda, as the mixed hordes of [Saka] Scythians, Mannai, and Kimmerians [Cimmerians] in Armenia were called, were fast gathering … like vultures awaiting the last moments of their victim.”[44]

Indeed, “a blow had been struck between 628 and 626 [BC] which brought Assyria to her knees.” Scythian armies “poured over the empire in resistless swarms, ravaging it even to the borders of Egypt.”[45] By 614 BC, the Medes and Babylonians had begun to besiege Nineveh, the Assyrian capital. The Scythians were quick to join the foray: “Nineveh was captured and destroyed [in 612] by the Scythian army … and the Assyrian Empire was at an end.”[46]

But the Medes and Babylonians divided the former Assyrian Empire between themselves—leaving no room for the Scythians. The Cambridge states that “after the ruin of Assyria, the Medes turned upon the Scythians, slew the greater part of them, and drove the rest” northward.[47] Davidy adds: “The Medes, Persians, and Babylonians progressively drove the Scythians out of the Middle East area to the north [across the Caucasus and around the eastern side of the Caspian]. From the north [of the Mideast], the Scythians were eventually to continue westward into Europe.”[48]

Thus, Scythian Israelites began migrating to the north and the west, essentially following the Cimmerians. In spite of both groups being of Israelite origin, they sometimes found themselves at war over land and resources—with the fiercer Scythians typically dominating, often pushing the Cimmerians further west. At other times the groups merged as if one. As noted previously, this blending has caused some historians—Herodotus, in particular—to refer to Cimmerian groups as Scythian.

It is important to establish the Scythians’ northwestward migration. The Encyclopedia Britannica describes the Scythians as a “nomadic people [supposedly] originally of Iranian stock…. The Scythians founded a rich, powerful empire centered on what is now the Crimea.”[49] Note the clear movement to the northwest—from areas of Persia in the Mideast to areas north of the Black Sea. Of course, the Crimean area was quite central to the greater Scythia region.

As brought out earlier, Cimmerian Israelites had already migrated to the Crimean region. Researchers believe the Scythian Israelites expelled their Cimmerian brothers from Crimea, pushing them toward the western shores of the Black Sea. The reference above to “Iranian stock” is not to be taken to mean that Scythians were ethnically or racially Iranian, but reflects the mistaken assumption that the Scythian Israelites actually originated in the lands of their exile. Historians are well aware of their sudden appearance along the Assyrian-Persian borders; yet, as we have seen, their true origin was toward the south, in the land of Israel. An Iranian encyclopedia notes: “The [Scythian] region from the Ukraine to the Aral Sea was the home of north Iranian tribes known collectively as Saka (Greek, Scythians).”[50] Northern Iran would include the “cities of the Medes” to which many of the Israelites had been exiled.

According to the Anchor Bible Dictionary, the term Scythian, from the Greek Skythes, is used to “describe specific tribes which inhabited the north and east of the Black Sea beginning in the [latter decades of the] seventh century BC….” This fits perfectly with the historical evidence we have seen. The Scythians “first appear in written history in the annals of Esarhaddon [king of Assyria, 681-669 BC], and seem to be centered at that time in what is today northwest Iran”—one of the key areas of Israelite exile. This was in the “seventh or sixth century BC…. By the third century BC, the Scythian presence in the Near East is restricted to the Crimea and the shores of the Black Sea.”[51] (As we will see later, this reduced Scythian presence by the 200s BC was due to their being pushed further west by invading barbarians.)

In The History of the Anglo-Saxons, historian Sharon Turner adds: “The emigrating Scythians crossed the Araxes [River, in Armenia], passed out of Asia … [and] suddenly appeared in [central] Europe” in the early 600s BC.[52] The Araxes River runs from the area just below the Caucasus into the Caspian Sea; the river would have been crossed by Saka Scythians migrating northward from the “cities of the Medes.”

Note this additional evidence from The Origin of Our Western Heritage: “The first instance of Scythian tribes appearing in Europe can be placed in the [latter part of the] seventh century BC, when they crossed the Araxes River and passed out of Asia. The Araxes is the ancient name of the Aras River in Armenia. The area around the Araxes River is where the Israelites were last known before departing for Europe…. Scythians originally came from the region of the Araxes, had multiplied into a great people, and had extended their territory. In the fifth century BC, Herodotus placed the Scythians in southern Russia, stating that their territory extended for 500 miles….”[53]

John C. Gawler, a colonel with the British government during Queen Victoria’s reign in the 19th century, researched the fate of the northern tribes following the fall of Samaria. Citing Jewish and Armenian historical sources, Gawler wrote that “a mass of refugees from the ten tribes of Israel migrated through Armenia into the region north of the Black Sea.”[54] In her book The Scythians, Tamara T. Rice writes: “The Scythians did not become a recognizable national entity much before the eighth century BC…. [They did not go into captivity until the end of that century.] By the [latter part of the] seventh century BC, they had established themselves firmly in southern Russia [stretching from modern Georgia to the Ukraine].”[55]

The vast Scythian-Cimmerian empire—incorporating the lands of Arsareth and Scythia—survived for almost two centuries. In fact, their military might was sufficient to repel an invasion by the Persian king Darius I in the early 500s BC. Scythians “were in the fifth century BC the paramount power from the Danube to the Don…. To the west and north the natural limit of Scythian domination was formed by … a line running east-northeast from the Carpathians to the Volga [River].”[56]

“During the 5th to 3rd centuries BC, the Scythians evidently prospered. When Herodotus wrote his Histories in the 5th century BC, Greeks distinguished Scythia Minor in present-day Romania and Bulgaria [Arsareth] from a Greater Scythia that extended eastwards for a 20-day ride from the Danube River, across the steppes of today’s East Ukraine to the lower Don [River] basin.”[57] The Don runs into the Sea of Azov just north of Crimea. Thus, “Greater Scythia” extended from modern Bulgaria to the Crimean region—and perhaps past the Volga to the Ural Mountains.

This is not to say that Israelite clans actually inhabited the entirety of Scythia—but they were scattered across the most vital areas and dominated the region culturally, economically, and militarily.

Israel Poised to Migrate Further Northwest

The mysterious and sudden emergence of the Cimmerians (Celts) in areas of greater Armenia and their Scythian (Saka or Saxon) brothers in northern Persia took place in the late 700s BC. However, these locations do not reflect the true origins of these peoples. Rather, these locations are the areas of Israel’s initial exile. Their subsequent migrations—which occurred in several stages throughout most of the seventh century BC—took them in a northwesterly direction through Asia Minor, across the Caucasus region, and around the eastern side of the Caspian Sea. Their primary motive was to avoid being drawn into the conflicts developing between Assyria, Babylon, and Medo-Persia. Each group of migrating Israelites settled in relatively close proximity—in a broad area that, today, would be roughly defined by Bulgaria, Romania, Ukraine, and parts of southern Russia northeast of the Black Sea. Even parts of Hungary, Slovakia, and southern Poland could be included.

The Israelite-Scythian “empire” established control of the plains north of the Black Sea for a period of at least two centuries. But a series of invasions of barbarians from the east—first the Sarmatians, then groups of Huns—forced the Cimmerian and Scythian Israelites to begin migrating further north and west. Climate changes affecting their agrarian lifestyle also played a part in their need to relocate.

As the prophet Ezekiel notes, God had been “a little sanctuary” to the Israelites in all the lands to which they had been scattered (Ezek. 11:16). Indeed, God was watching over the “lost” tribes of Israel, working out His plan to ultimately fulfill the Abrahamic promises. As Chapter 10 will bring out, these “wanderers among the nations” (Hosea 9:17) eventually found themselves resettling in northwestern Europe and the British Isles—their migrations nearing an end. But before we continue with Israel’s westward migration, we must investigate the role of the Israelite tribe of Dan—the seafaring tribe that blazed a vital trail for their brothers to follow.

CHAPTER 8 NOTES

1. Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, bk. 11, ch. 5, sec. 2

2. Isaac Lesser, The Jewish Religion, vol. 1, p. 256

3. Cambridge Ancient History, vol. 3, “The Assyrian Empire,” pp. 385-386

4. Known as the “Father of History,” the Greek historian Herodotus (5th century BC) is often credited as being the first ancient historian to collect his materials systematically, test their accuracy, and arrange them in a wellconstructed narrative. Still, when studying the writings of ancient historians, including Herodotus, one will find that they often contradict one another, and sometimes contradict themselves.

5. Cambridge, pp. 385, 41. Des Thomas adds: “The Assyrians used these large-scale enforced migrations as a means of preventing possible resurgence on the part of the captive nations. Uprooted from their homelands, the patriotic urge was weakened…” (America—The Last Frontier for Manasseh, p. 82).

6. H. R. Hall, The Ancient History of the Near East, p. 477

7. Yair Davidy, www.britam.org/cimmerians-scythians.html

8. www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cimmerians

9. “Migrations of the House of Israel,” www.asis.com/users/stag/migratio.html

10. www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cimmerians

11. The Origin of Our Western Heritage, ch. 5: The Captivity and Deportation of Israel; www.bethelcog.org/church/the-origin-of-our-western-heritage/thecaptivity-and-deportation-of-israel

12. Edmund Filmer, “Our Scythian Ancestors,” www.ensignmessage.com/archives/scythianancestors.html

13. Those who write on the subject of Israel’s northwestern migration often cite Isaiah 49:12 as evidence: “Behold, these shall come from far; and, lo, these from the north and from the west….” This particular application, however, misrepresents the passage. Based on its context, the verse speaks of a future restoration of modern Israel from lands north and west (of Jerusalem). Note that Israel is not migrating to these lands, but returning to Palestine from these lands. (Compare Jeremiah 3:18—“In those days the house of Judah shall walk with the house of Israel, and they shall come together out of the land of the north to the land that I have given for an inheritance to your fathers.”)

Thus, in this future restoration, Israelite refugees—those of modern Joseph—will come to Palestine from an area northwest of Jerusalem, i.e., Europe. As Chapter 16 brings out, a revitalized European super-state will play a central role in Anglo-America’s final collapse and prophesied captivity.

14. Cambridge, p. 188

15. www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cimmerians

16. Britannica Online Encyclopedia, www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/117922/Cimmerian. Numerous other sources erroneously suggest that the Cimmerians originated north of the Caucasus.

17. The Encyclopedia Iranica, for example, disputes the “classical tradition”— that the Cimmerians originated in areas north and east of the Black Sea and were later driven into the Middle East—which was greatly influenced by Herodotus. Contending that this conventional view is “imaginary” because it was based on “glaring errors in Herodotus’s narrative,” later scholars have accepted the idea that the Cimmerians could have actually originated in the Middle East and later migrated to the Black Sea area. See www.iranicaonline.org/articles/cimmerians-nomads.

18. Yair Davidy, The Tribes—The Israelite Origins of Western Peoples, pp. 49-50

19. Cambridge, pp. 53, 59

20. Cambridge, pp. 83, 189

21. www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/117922/Cimmerian

22. www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cimmerians. These dates vary among different sources.

23. The Encyclopedia Britannica (1911); www.1911encyclopedia.org/Cimmerii. In calling the Gimirrai “northern nomads,” this article reflects the common error of assuming that the Cimmerians originated outside of the Middle East.

24. “Migrations of the House of Israel,” www.asis.com/users/stag/migratio.html

25. Davidy, p. 41

26. According to Steven Collins, the area northeast of the Black Sea, across the Caucasus, “came to be known as Iberia, confirming the presence of Hebrews from the ten tribes in that region.” As Chapter 9 brings out, the Israelites had long before given the name Iberia to an old Phoenician- Israelite colony in Spain—hence, the Iberian Peninsula. Collins adds: “The appearance of the same Hebrew name (Iberia) in the region north of Armenia verifies that this region became an area of Israelite resettlement” (The “Lost” Ten Tribes of Israel—Found!, p. 129). Iberia means “land of the Hebrews” and comes from the word Hebrew itself, Ibriy, which stems from Eber, progenitor of Abraham (see Chapter 9).

27. Britannica, www.1911encyclopedia.org/Crimea

28. www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cimmerians

29. “Are the Welsh CYMRY From the Crimea?” www.british-israel.us/27.html

30. Herodotus is probably confusing the Cimmerians with the Scythians; the latter were Israelite exiles relocated to Media.

31. Cambridge, p. 189

32. New Revised Standard Version—with Apocrypha, Oxford University Press, 2009

33. Thomas, p. 107; quoting Dr. J. L. Thomas, The Assyrian Invasions and Deportations of Israel (1940).

34. www.jewsandjoes.com/where-is-arzareth.html

35. Davidy notes that “the term Scythian may generally be considered to encompass the Scyths-proper, the Cimmerians, and the Goths. These peoples had been associated in the Assyrian-ruled Middle East area. The Scyths-proper had been called Arami, Ishkuzi, Sacae [Saka], and other appellations. The Cimmerians had been known as Gimirrae or Gamera, and the Goths were recalled as Guti” (p. 53).

36. Davidy, p. 43. Nordic refers primarily to those of Scandinavian descent. As you will see, the Scythians were the progenitors of the Scandinavian peoples.

37. “The term Scythic is not, strictly speaking, ethnical. It designates a life [style] rather than a [genetic] descent, habits [and customs] rather than blood [lines]. [The term was] applied by the Greeks and Romans to Indo-European … races indifferently, provided they [were] nomads, dwelling in tents … [and] living on the produce of their flocks and herds…” (Collins, p. 175; quoting George Rawlinson’s The Sixth Oriental Monarchy).

On the same page, Collins himself notes: “There were two races called Scythians: the Indo-Europeans (the Sacae) and the Turanian [of central and east Asia] (who were not Sacae). So, the term Sacae (or Saka) does represent an Israelite ethnicity, but the term Scythian can sometimes include non-Israelites as well.”

38. The Columbia Encyclopedia (6th edition, 2011); “Scythia.” Also note this: “During the time of Herodotus (484-425 BC), Scythia proper was described as the land between the Don and Danube Rivers.” This would incorporate vast areas north and west of the Black Sea. (The Origin of Our Western Heritage, ch. 6: The Westward Movement; www.bethelcog.org/church/theorigin-of-our-western-heritage/the-westward-movement.)

39. Fred Hamori, “The Real Scythians of Mesopotamia,” www.archive.worldhistoria.com/scythians-hatti-and-ural-altay_topic3956.html

40. Collins, p. 180

41. Encyclopedia Iranica, www.iranicaonline.org/articles/cimmeriansnomads. The phrase “Iranian origins” refers to Israelite areas of exile, not to ethnicity.

42. Boris Piotrovsky, From the Lands of the Scythians (1975), p. 15. The Cambridge adds that among historians there is a “tendency to confuse Scythians and Cimmerians” (p. 194).

43. Britannica, www.1911encyclopedia.org/Babylonia_and_Assyria

44. Hall, p. 511. The Cambridge also refers to the northern Umman-manda as a general term for Saka Scythians (p. 190).

45. Hall, p. 512. These Scythian armies must have passed through Palestine on their way to the “borders of Egypt,” but obviously spared their Jewish brothers (Collins, p. 188).

46. Britannica, www.1911encyclopedia.org/Babylonia_and_Assyria

47. Cambridge, p. 190

48. Davidy, p. 30. Davidy adds: “Unlike the Cimmerians, the bulk of the Scythian host remained in the Middle East area and overpowered the Assyrian Empire, but afterwards lost power to the Medes, Babylonians, and Persians. Consequently, the Scythians too were to be pushed northward” (p. 42).

49. www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/530361/Scythian

50. Encyclopedia Iranica, www.iranicaonline.org/articles/darius-iii

51. Anchor Bible Dictionary; “Scythians”

52. Sharon Turner, The History of the Anglo-Saxons, p. 85

53. The Origin of Our Western Heritage, ch. 5: The Captivity and Deportation of Israel; www.bethelcog.org/church/the-origin-of-our-westernheritage/the-captivity-and-deportation-of-israel

54. Collins, p. 125; quoting John C. Gawler, Our Scythia Ancestors, p. 9

55. Tamara T. Rice, The Scythians, pp. 19-20

56. Cambridge, p. 192

57. www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythians

CHAPTER NINE

The Tribe of Dan—Trailblazing Pioneer of Israel

History demonstrates that the Israelite tribe of Dan played a key role in the establishment of the birthright tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh in their new homelands in the British Isles. As we will see, seafaring Danites established colonies in the Isles long before Israel’s fall to the Assyrians, thus paving the way for later migrating Israelites to follow. Moreover, the Danites’ proclivity for leaving “way marks”—wherein they would rename various geographical areas based on their tribal name, Dan—has proven useful in identifying areas relevant to “lost” Israel’s migrations.

In its article on “Celtiberia”—referring to the Celtic colonization of Iberia (modern Spain and Portugal)—the Encyclopedia Americana informs us that “Celtic migrations [to Iberia] occurred as early as 1000 BC and as late as 600 BC.”[1] Both time frames accurately reflect biblical history. It was during the golden age of Solomon’s rule—about 970 to 930 BC—when Danite and Phoenician ships widely explored the Mediterranean, colonizing areas such as Iberia (and beyond). Centuries later, Danites fled Palestine on ships just prior to the fall of Samaria—probably around 726 BC—no doubt seeking refuge at one of their pre-established trading posts or colonies. This sudden and sizable influx of fleeing Israelites bearing proto-Celtic traits would not have gone unnoticed in Iberian history.

As the children of Israel began to claim their tribal inheritances, the tribe of Dan was given a rather modest coastal lot west of Jerusalem spanning from Gaza to Joppa. Proving too small for the tribe, a contingent of Danites set out to claim an additional area along the northern fringes of Israel, near Mount Hermon. The key city they took was Laish, which they renamed Dan in honor of their father (Joshua 19:47; Judges 18). Thus, the tribe of Dan was divided geographically between their main homeland on the Mediterranean coast and a landlocked area in the north.

As indicated by Judges 5:17, Dan had a strong seafaring heritage. In this particular passage, the Danites are criticized for being “away at sea” during a protracted local crisis.[2] Other biblical passages show that Israel as a whole—and no doubt the Danites in particular—benefited greatly from a close relationship with the peoples of Phoenicia, who were renowned for their maritime exploits.

The Phoenician Connection

As Israel began to settle the Promised Land, Egypt was no longer the dominant maritime power in the Mediterranean—and it would be centuries before the Greeks or Romans began to demonstrate such prowess. Indeed, from about 1200 BC, the greatest seafaring peoples of the region were the Phoenicians. Originally a loose federation of city-states, Phoenicia was situated on the eastern Mediterranean coast in an area corresponding to modern Lebanon and the coastal plains of Syria. Its key seaport city-states were Tyre and Sidon. Others included Byblos, Akko, and Berytus (the predecessor of modern-day Beirut).

As a flourishing center of trade and colonization, the Phoenician maritime empire included nearly every port city of the Mediterranean, as well as up the Atlantic coast to Iberia and beyond. Possessing advanced sailing and navigational skills, Phoenician explorers apparently visited far-flung areas of the known (and unknown) world: parts of Africa, the Baltic coast and North Sea, the British Isles—even America![3]

Describing Phoenicia, the historian George Rawlinson wrote that “for a thousand years—from the fourteenth century to the fourth century BC—a great and remarkable nation, separate from all others, with striking and peculiar characteristics … drew upon itself the eyes of the whole civilized world, and played a most important part in history. Egypt, Judea, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece, [and] Rome came successively into contact with the country and its settled inhabitants, while almost the whole known world made acquaintance with its hardy mariners who explored almost all seas, visited almost all shores, and linked together the peoples from Spain [Iberia], Britain, and the Fortunate Islands in the West to India, Taprobane, and the Golden Chersonese in the East in the silken bonds of a mutually advantageous commerce.”[4]

British historian John C. Gawler has made a career of researching the history of Israel. Quoting the Manual of Ancient History, he writes: “It is known that the Phoenicians preceded the Greeks in forming commercial establishments along the coasts of Asia Minor and the shores of the Black Sea…. In the Eastern seas they had establishments on the Persian and Arabian Gulfs…. The Spanish [Iberian] peninsula—called in Scripture Tarshish[5]—was the country with which the Tyrians [Phoenicians] had the most lucrative trade; and the colonies they established soon became independent states. Colonies were also planted beyond the Straits of Gibraltar. Trade was extended to the British Islands and to the coasts of the North Sea.”[6]

Of utmost importance, however, was Israel’s close relationship with the Phoenician people. Under King David, Israel enjoyed a particularly beneficial association with the Phoenician king of Tyre, Hiram. After David’s death, we read that Hiram “sent his servants to Solomon, since he had heard that they had anointed him king [in place] of his father, for Hiram was always a friend of David” (I Kings 5:1). Rawlinson notes, “With the Hebrews [the Phoenicians] were always on the most friendly terms….”[7]

Consequently, Solomon invited Hiram to assist in the building of the temple David had planned. Steven Collins writes: “Kings Solomon and Hiram pooled their natural resources on the temple construction project…. In fact, the temple construction project led to intimate cooperation between Israel and the Phoenician city-states as armies of workmen from each country worked in the other’s territory…. The temple project served as a unifying force to cement the alliance between Israel’s tribes and the Phoenician citystates…. This extraordinarily close working relationship was greatly facilitated by the two nations sharing [a common] linguistic heritage.”[8] (The Phoenicians were predominantly of Canaanite origin, but their “Semitic” language was almost identical to Hebrew.)

With their northern settlement in close proximity to Phoenicia—as well as the fact that they shared a common seafaring interest—the Danites benefited most from this alliance. Gawler notes: “The Danites and the men of Tyre were naturally on very intimate terms. It was a very remarkable privilege to be accorded to a foreign nation … to be allowed to help in building Solomon’s Temple. [Moreover,] the Danites and the people of Tyre intermarried; the cunning craftsman especially sent by Hiram to superintend the work of the temple was the son of a man of Tyre, and his mother was of the daughters of Dan.”[9] (See II Chronicles 2:13-14.)

According to Collins, the Israelite-Phoenician alliance became the world’s dominant military power of that time. “Israel’s military might, combined with the naval and commercial power of the Phoenician citystates, created an alliance that was both militarily and economically superior to the remainder of the world.”[10] But Solomon was not content to be a land power alone; he wanted to make Israel a major international maritime force around the world. For this, he turned to the Phoenicians. Over time, “even as the Israelite and Phoenician populations were melded on land due to the vast building projects of Solomon, they also coalesced into one unit at sea.”[11]

In I Kings 9:26 we see that King Solomon built a “navy of ships.” Moreover, the passage describes a joint trade expedition from a Red Sea port of Israelite ships manned by both Israelite and Phoenician sailors. “And Hiram sent with the [fleet] his servants, shipmen who had knowledge of the sea with the servants of Solomon” (verse 27). This expedition, which went to Ophir and brought back gold, was the first of many joint maritime trade expeditions between Israel and the Phoenicians. In fact, a fleet of the “ships of Tarshish”—an Iberian seaport city along the western coast of Spain or Portugal—manned by Phoenician and Israelite sailors made a worldwide voyage every three years, bringing back an assortment of exotic cargo (II Chron. 9:21).

Since the Bible records that Phoenicians and Israelites jointly crewed Israelite ships, it is likely that Israelite sailors also served aboard Phoenician ships. Thus, Israelite sailors—who were no doubt primarily Danites—would have quickly acquired the Phoenicians’ navigational skills. It appears that Solomon’s maritime exploits eventually exceeded that of the Phoenicians— at least in some respects. Gawler, quoting the Jewish Chronicle, writes that “in the golden age of [Israel’s] glory, [Solomon’s ships] were indeed the public carriers of their day, [transporting] travelers for commercial enterprise to all the then-known countries near and far. The ships of Solomon rivaled the Phoenician navy.”[12]

Most historians have overlooked or minimized the implications of Israel’s close seafaring relationship with Phoenicia. Clearly, Phoenician ships gave Israelite sailors and explorers access to many far-flung areas of the then-known world. Wherever the Phoenicians went, Israelites almost certainly accompanied them in significant numbers. But most importantly, the tribe of Dan was inspired to do their own exploring—establishing trade routes and colonizing new lands as they chose.

Because of the extraordinary close association between Israel and Phoenicia, Israelite colonization endeavors have frequently been wrongly attributed to the Phoenicians. Gawler contends that historians often confuse Phoenician exploits with those of Danite explorers. But this is a logical mistake, given the close working relationship between the two peoples. He writes that “we find Grecian, Irish, Scandinavian, and English histories teeming with notices of a certain race called Danai, or Dannaans, or Dannonii, who are either [mistakenly] called Phoenicians, or mentioned in company with Phoenicians. Almost wherever Phoenicians are said to have traded, there we either hear of these Danai [as the Greeks called them], or we find a river or district stamped with the name of Dan according to the early custom recorded of that tribe in the Scriptures.”[13] (Later we will look at numerous examples of how the Danites left their tribal name as “way marks” on their travels and migrations.) Likewise, modern archeologist and scholar Cyrus Gordon relates that historians often use the term Phoenician in the “wider sense of Semitic peoples in general, including the Hebrews.” Concerning Israelite colonization exploits, Gordon contends that although such accomplishments are frequently labeled Phoenician or Syrian, the evidence indicates that ancient Israel deserves credit for much of what has been attributed to Phoenicia.[14]

The Danites’ Early Colonization of Ireland

Just before Moses died, he gave specific prophecies concerning each of the tribes of Israel. Of Dan, he said: “Dan is a young lion, springing forth from Bashan” (Deut. 33:22; author’s translation). The northern city of Dan was actually within the region known as Bashan. With youthful vigor, the Danites were to “spring forth” from that area—which they did by sea. As we will see, this was by divine providence, for the Danites were used by God to establish advance Israelite colonies that would, in time, become new homelands for portions of the “lost” ten tribes—particularly the birthright tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh.

It is apparent that Danite explorers were familiar with the British Isles through long-time marine-based trade relationships dating back as early as 1000 BC (or earlier). In fact, Britain had long been a Phoenician colony and port-of-call centuries before the fall of Israel. Of this, Collins writes: “[It] is well known that the Phoenicians traded throughout the Mediterranean [region] as well as [up] the Atlantic Ocean [coast] to western Spain and [on to] the tin mines of the ancient British Isles…. [Indeed, the] Phoenician alliance of Israel, Tyre, and Sidon had established many colonies in North Africa, Spain, other Mediterranean locations, the British Isles, and even as far as North America.”[15]

Rawlinson hints at the Israelite’s early presence in Britain: “The Phoenicians had one more colony towards the [north]west, which has a peculiar interest for all English-speaking peoples. Phoenician ships from Gadeira [Cadiz, Spain] braved the perils of the open ocean, and coasting along the western shores of Spain and Gaul [France], without (apparently) making settlements, crossed the mouth of the English Channel from Ushant to the Scilly Isles, and conveyed thither a body of colonists who established an emporium [center of commerce]. The attraction which drew them was the mineral wealth of the islands and of the neighboring Cornish coast, which may have become known to them through the Gauls of the opposite continent. It is reasonable to suppose that the Phoenicians both worked the mines and smelted the ores. They certainly drew from this quarter those copious supplies of tin and lead which they imported into Greece and Asia, and from which they derived so large a profit.”[16]

Since Israelite crewmen frequently served aboard Phoenician ships, it is logical that significant numbers of Israelites would have resettled in Phoenician colonies to work. It is likewise plausible that Danite pioneers would have been among the “colonists” Rawlinson says came to Britain to work the tin and lead mines.

According to The Origin of Our Western Heritage, the renowned archaeologist E. Raymond Capt wrote that Irish historians trace part of the tribe of Dan to Ireland as early as about the 12th century BC—during the time judges governed Israel. Moreover, “the Irish historian Keating related that the Danaan, who had been in Greece, settled in Ireland and Denmark because they did not want to fall into the hands of the Assyrians.”[17] Thus, by the time the House of Israel fell to Assyria, it is probable that large numbers of Israelite settlers were already well established on the coasts of Britain (if not further inland) and parts of Ireland. Rather than assume that indigenous Europeans had been colonizing Britain between 1000 and 600 BC, it is more likely that Israelite emigrants who lived and worked in Iberian colonies eventually moved on and joined their fellow Israelites in the British Isles. J. H. Allen suggests that this was likely the case: “Just how long the ships of Palestinian [and Iberian] seaports had been replenishing or colonizing the Isles, even before the Assyrian captivity of the ten tribes, is not known, but historians place the time [of their earliest colonization of Ireland] as early as [about] 900 BC.”[18]

The fact that Danite explorers were from a very early date familiar with the British Isles—and most likely established at least a few colonies among the Isles—would prove vital to Israel’s long-term survival after the Assyrian captivity. As a key element in the fulfillment of the Abrahamic promises, these Danite pioneers opened the way for later exilic Israelites to follow to the northwest. Just as significant, however, was the fact that both Iberia and the British Isles received a major influx of Israelites—mostly from Dan and Simeon—just prior to the fall of Samaria. Collins notes that by the time of Samaria’s fall in approximately 722 BC, many Israelites had voluntarily migrated out of Palestine in an effort to avoid captivity. He writes: “Much of the tribe of Dan apparently sailed as far as Hibernia (modern Ireland) in their effort to [avoid Assyrian captivity]. Their arrival in considerable force in Hibernia as the Tuatha de Danaans is recorded in the early histories of Ireland.” (Note the similarity between Hibernia and Iberia, which both originate from the Hebrew Eber or Iber; Tuatha de Danaans means literally the “tribe of Dan.”) He adds that “large contingents of the Israelite tribes of Dan and Simeon (the Danaan and the Simonii) sought refuge in Ireland and Britain after abandoning their old homelands [in Palestine] to the Assyrians…. [Consequently,] many of the succeeding waves of Celtic [overland] migrations to Britain … were also Israelites in search of a permanent homeland.”[19] Indeed, for Israelites seeking refuge following the Assyrian captivity, any Phoenician or Israelite colony could have served as a new homeland. It is only logical to conclude that Israelites migrating out of the Middle East would have been well aware of these preexisting Israelite colonies in the British Isles.

A number of scholars note that the arrival of the Tuatha de Danaans in Ireland is recorded in the early histories of that land. Collins contends that, as a maritime tribe, it would have been easy for many Danites to escape the advancing Assyrians by sailing west. “Ancient [Irish] records indicate that … the tribe of Dan arrived in Ireland at [about] the time of the fall of Samaria…. [Also,] the Simonii [from the tribe of Simeon] landed in Wales and southern England around the same time.”[20] Allen similarly notes: “It is … unmistakably recorded in British history that the earliest settlers in Wales and southern England were called Simonii. They came by way of the sea in the year 720 BC. At this time there was the greatest influx of the Tuatha de Danaan to Ireland, and this synchronizes with the deportation of the Israelites … to Assyria, and the flight of Dan and [neighboring] Simeon from the seaports and coast country of Palestine.”[21]

While a sizable contingent of Israelites from the tribes of Dan and Simeon fled by sea to Iberia and the British Isles, those tribes actually taken captive by Assyria later migrated, over hundreds of years, into northwest Europe—and many moved on to the Isles. But how did those Israelites know about Britain—or even know enough to migrate in that particular direction? Could it be that they were aware of certain Israelite “colonies” in Britain— trade-post settlements established at least as far back as the time of Solomon and subsequently greatly reinforced just prior to the fall of Samaria?

Dan’s “Way Marks”

You will recall that a portion of the tribe of Dan lay in the northern region of Israel. It is certain that these Danites would have been taken captive in the initial Assyrian invasion, which involved the northern areas of Palestine. As a result, these Danites would have been among the Israelites migrating via overland routes out of the Middle East and into Europe—and later on to the Baltic region and the British Isles. Like their brothers who left ahead of them by sea, these Danites would leave a scattering of telltale “way marks” bearing the name Dan. These “way marks”—almost inestimable in number—provide important evidence of Israel’s journey from the Promised Land to their new homes in northwest Europe and the British Isles.

Interestingly, in Jacob’s final address to the twelve tribes of Israel— dealing with the “latter days”—he said: “Dan shall judge his people, as one of the tribes of Israel. Dan shall be a serpent by the way, an adder in the path, that bites the horse’s heels, so that its rider shall fall backward” (Gen. 49:16-17). There are two vital aspects to this prophecy, both relating to the Danites’ proclivity to name or rename geographical areas according to their tribal name, Dan. Commentaries point out that the serpent motif is apt for the Danites, as it points not only to the tribe’s warlike nature but also to their ability to exploit others through craftiness and subtlety—as opposed to sheer strength or numbers. However, serpents also leave a distinctive trail as they move across sandy ground—showing exactly where they have been.

Look again at verse 16. It is quite apparent that Dan never judged (or ruled) the other tribes of Israel in the common sense of the term. Those key responsibilities were expressly given to Judah and the Levites. But the Hebrew word used here for judge has other meanings. In fact, we might paraphrase verse 16 thus: “As one of the tribes of Israel, Dan shall plead the cause of his people” (for this usage, see Proverbs 31:9 and Jeremiah 30:13). In other words, Dan—whose name actually means judge or one who pleads a cause—was to plead the cause of the “lost” tribes of Israel.

How? By using their tribal name, Dan would leave a migratory trail all over Europe, witnessing to the world—particularly in the “latter days” (Gen. 49:1)—that the so-called “lost” ten tribes of Israel did in fact survive their Assyrian captivity. Moreover, having found new homelands in areas of northwest Europe and the British Isles (and, subsequently, in America), Dan’s “way marks” provide living proof that God has kept His promise to Abraham that the patriarch’s offspring would become a great “company of nations” and a single “great nation.”

As pointed out earlier, the tribe of Dan expanded its inheritance by taking the northern city of Laish—renaming it Dan (Judges 18:29). But prior to their arrival at Laish, the Danites established an encampment in Judah which they subsequently named Mahaneh-dan, “camp of Dan” (verse 12). Ancient Hebrew had no written vowels; a word’s vowel sounds (and, thus, its exact pronunciation) were supplied from memory, preserved by tradition and subject to local dialect. Dan, therefore, would be written Dn, but pronounced Dan. Over centuries of migration, countless linguistic and cultural influences would often result in other vowels being substituted. Thus, Dan’s “way marks” include scores of cities, lands, rivers, etc. bearing, in one form or another, the names Dan, Den, Din, Don, and Dun.

For example, an early name for southwest England corresponding to modern Cornwall and Devon—where the Phoenician-Danite tin mines were located—was Danmoni. The British historian William Camden explains that the name is a composite of monia, which means tin mine, and the name Dan—meaning Dan’s tin mines. He notes that the area was inhabited by a group of Britons called the Danmonii or Dunmonii (the name could suggest Danish miners).[22] Collins notes that two old Irish forts still bear the name of these early Danite settlers—Dun-Aonghasa and Dun-Chonchuir.[23]

As brought out previously, a large body of “lost” Israelites settled for a time in the area known as Arsareth, west of the Black Sea (modern Bulgaria and Romania). This region was bordered on the south by the Dardanelles and Macedonia, and to the north was split by the Danube River—all three names showing the presence of Danites. The Dardanelle Strait probably initially received its name by maritime Danites exploring the Aegean Sea, and Celtic Israelites no doubt named the Danube centuries later as they used it to migrate further into Europe.

While the Saxons bore the name of Isaac, the Danes bore the name of the tribe of Dan, which had apparently attached its name to the major rivers entering the Black Sea when the region was dominated by Celts (Cimmerians) and Scythians. Thus, we have the Don, Donets, Danube, Dniester (formerly Danastris), and Dnieper (formerly Danapris).

In the mountains of Switzerland is the river Rhone, formerly the Rhodan. As well, the Po River, running from the Alps, was once called the Eridan. The port city of Dunkirk in northern France may well have been a Danite maritime trading post.

The island country off the coast of Italy, Sardinia, was doubtless so named by seafaring Danites—as was Cyprus, which was at one time called Ia-Dnan, the “Island of Dan.”[24]

Various ancient maps label the North Sea as Danicarum Mare or “Sea of the Tribe of Dan.” Similar maps mark the modern state of Denmark as Danos. Denmark, whose inhabitants even today refer to themselves as Danes, is derived from Danemerke, meaning “Dan’s mark.” To their north is Sweden, also bearing Dan’s name. In fact, all of the region known as Scandinavia bears Dan’s “way mark”—Scan-din-avia.[25]

Throughout Ireland there are scores of places bearing Dan’s name: Danslough, Dansower, Dundalke, Dundrum, Donegal Bay (and city), Dunglow, Dungarven, Londonderry, and Dunsmore (which means “more Dans”). Not only is there a River Don north of the Black Sea, there is a Don River in both England and Scotland. In England there is Doncaster, Dundee, Dunkirk, Dunbar, Dunraven—and scores more of Dans, Dons, Dins, and Duns. Of course, there is the capital of England, London; and the capital of Scotland, Edinburgh. The Latin name for northern Britain is Caledonia, the area today associated with the Scottish Highlands.[26]

Gawler has aptly noted, “The tribe of Dan by its enterprise and vigor has made itself one of the most conspicuous branches of Jacob’s family.”[27] Indeed, as the pioneer of his nation, Dan has well “pled the cause” of “lost” Israel by providing an unmistakable trail of “way marks” that demonstrate a clear migratory path from the Mideast to the British Isles—proof positive that the peoples of the Isles (and, thus, America) are of Hebrew origin.

The Danites’ Pre-Exodus Migrations

There is one additional aspect of Dan’s travels—one of profound importance. As will be brought out in a later chapter, the ruling line of King David was never to end—and his “throne” was to exercise rule throughout all generations until the Messiah, son of David, should come and assume that “throne” (Luke 1:32). But as the southern Kingdom of Judah was going into captivity to the Babylonians, it seemed that David’s line—and his “throne”—was about to end with the demise of Judah’s last king, Zedekiah.

What was needed was a way to reestablish David’s “throne”—via someone of Solomon’s royal dynasty—in another location, where a Davidic descendant could legitimately continue to rule over some portion of Israel.

But where?

It is clear that Danite explorers established colonies in Ireland as early as Solomon’s time—or even a bit earlier. Some of these colonies would in time become home to certain “royal” members of the line of Judah who would sit as monarchs over the Israelite settlements. As we will see, God used the prophet Jeremiah to reestablish the royal line of David in Ireland—to be coupled with the area’s already-established Judaic “royalty.” Thus, the “throne” of David would be restored, actually ruling over a part of Israel. This amazing turn of events was made possible, in part, because of Dan’s extraordinary zeal to explore and settle new lands—by sea!

As explained fully in Chapter 12, after Joseph’s passing in Egypt, there eventually arose a Pharaoh who did not know Joseph (Ex. 1:8). What is implied by this passage is that animosity and conflict gradually developed between Egypt and Israel. The result, ultimately, was slavery for the children of Israel. But before the conflict reached that critical point, some of the Jewish ruling nobility—those of Judah’s Zarahite line—abandoned Egypt aboard ships (most likely Danite). Sailing directly northwest across the Mediterranean Sea to what would become Greece, they established several notable cities—Argos, Athens, Miletus, etc. They spread inland as well, settling areas such as Macedonia (which retains Dan’s name).

Centuries later, during Solomon’s golden reign, Danite explorers began colonizing Ireland. Soon thereafter, Israelites from Greece known as the Tuatha de Danann (the tribe of Dan) also began visiting Ireland— bringing Zarahite nobles by way of Miletus. In time, these Milesian Jews— traveling aboard Danite ships—became established as a ruling class over the developing Israelite colonies.

Ultimately, it was to these Jewish nobles in Ireland that the prophet Jeremiah came, seeking to join the royal line of David—in a period of extended “exile” from Palestine—to a long-established ruling line of the tribe of Judah. Thus, the pioneering tribe of Dan played a key role in the preservation of the throne of David!

CHAPTER 9 NOTES

1. Encyclopedia Americana, “Celtiberia,” vol. 6, p. 143. These proto-Celtic settlers were Israelite in origin, probably Danite. They are identified as being “Celtic” because of their cultural traits. As Chapter 10 brings out, Cimmerian Israelites, migrating centuries later along the Danube River, were also identified as being Celtic. Indeed, the entire Celtic culture seems to have originated with migrating Israelites.

As noted in Chapter 8, Iberia was the name of an ancient Israelite- Phoenician colony in Spain—hence, the Iberian Peninsula. Centuries later, the Caucasus region between the Caspian and Black Seas came to be known as Iberia, confirming it as an area of Israelite resettlement.

Iberia—“Iber’s land” or “land of the Hebrews”—comes from the word Hebrew itself, Ibriy, which stems from Eber, progenitor of Abraham (Gen. 11). According to Jory Brooks, numerous ancient maps mark the Caucasus region as Iveria, an alternate spelling of Iberia (in Hebrew transliteration, the b and v are frequently interchanged). See “Mapping Israel’s Migrations—Israel’s Ancient Highways into Europe” at www.ensignmessage.com/IsraelsMigrations.html.

2. This probably took place when Deborah judged Israel, about 1280 BC— over 200 years before Solomon. It is likely that Danite explorers had already discovered the British Isles by this time.

3. The Web site www.lost-civilizations.net gives this summary concerning the Phoenicians: “The Mediterranean Sea allowed the Phoenicians to wander, to explore, and to discover. It was their link to a world that awaited their skill and their art. These fine merchants brought their dye, fabric, ceramics, glass, metals, wine, crops, and oil from port to port. They became the world’s finest maritime nation. The Phoenicians were not only adventurous merchants, [they were] expert sailors and navigators as well. They colonized parts of Cyprus, Rhodes, and the Aegean Islands. Phoenician sailors journeyed east to the Black Sea and west to places such as Corinth, Thebes, Sardinia, Palermo, Marseille, Corsica, and Malta. They were known to have gone as far as Gibraltar and Cadiz in Spain.

“By about 1000 BC, they had finally reached the Atlantic Ocean. The Greeks were influenced in their navigation by the Phoenicians, who taught them to sail by the North star…. Due to their sailing skills, the Phoenicians served as missionaries of civilization, bringing eastern Mediterranean products and culture to less advanced peoples. A few Phoenician traders braved the stormy Atlantic and sailed as far as England” (www.lost-civilizations.net/phoenicians-overview.html).

4. George Rawlinson, Phoenicia, History of a Civilization, pp. 22-23. Rawlinson wrote in the middle 1800s.

5. Tarshish was a Phoenician colony on the coast of what is now Spain; the name may correspond to the ancient city of Tartessus on the Iberian Peninsula. Tarshish served as a major sea port from which the noted “ships of Tarshish” operated. Because the “ships of Tarshish” were the largest and most magnificent seagoing vessels known to the Mediterranean world, the name eventually became applied to any comparable seafaring vessel and may have been used as an expression of naval power (Barry Fell, America B.C., p. 93; see II Chron. 9:21; Jonah 1:3; Psa. 48:7; Isa. 23:14; Ezek. 27:25; etc.).

6. John C. Gawler, Dan: The Pioneer of Israel, ch. 1; www.nordiskisrael.dk/artikler/jcgawler_dan_the_pioneer_of_israel_chap1.html.

7. Rawlinson, p. 26

8. Steven Collins, The “Lost” Ten Tribes of Israel—Found!, pp. 36-37. On Solomon’s relationship with Hiram, see I Kings 5:2-18. Besides joint trade expeditions abroad, Israelite-Phoenician trade was extensive: Israel supplied vital foodstuffs needed by the Phoenician coastal cities in exchange for a variety of goods their ships brought from abroad. The long and prosperous relationship between these two peoples certainly explains why the Phoenician “golden age” under Hiram historically paralleled the biblical “golden age” of Israel under Solomon. Moreover, the Hebrews and Phoenicians spoke virtually the same language, with only minor differences. The Phoenicians, in fact, were Semitic distant relatives of the Hebrews, tracing their origin back to ancient Chaldea, the home of Abraham.

Over a century after Solomon’s death, King Ahab of Israel married Jezebel, the daughter of the Phoenician king of Sidon, no doubt further cementing Israel’s ongoing alliance with the Phoenicians (I Kings 16:31).

9. Gawler, ch. 1

10. Collins, p. 21

11. Collins, p. 39

12. Gawler, ch. 1, here quoting the May 28, 1875, Jewish Chronicle. In this regard, note Psalm 89:25, where God said of David (and thus Solomon): “I will set his hand”—symbolic of authority, rulership—“also in the sea, and his right hand in the rivers” This indicates a significant naval influence.

13. Gawler, ch. 1

14. Gordon adds that “we have good reason for suspecting that much of the so-called ‘Phoenician’ trade and colonization was, in reality, Israelite.” See www.israelite.ca/research/specialstudiesfiles/ancmigr_files/ancient_hebrew_migrations.html.

Having written over 20 books, Dr. Cyrus Gordon is considered one of the leading American archaeologists of the 20th century. Much of his extensive research has been published in Biblical Archaeologist magazine.

15. Collins, pp. 41, 121. Relatively new research by scholars such as Barry Fell reveals that both the Phoenicians and the Israelites anciently colonized pockets of North America. In his groundbreaking book America B.C., Fell references numerous archeological finds that prove the presence of “Phoenician” explorers in North America. According to Fell, a great number of such finds bear Celtic-Iberian inscriptions. This means the explorers and settlers came from the Iberian Peninsula—which was known to be inhabited by Phoenician and Israelite colonists. As we have seen, much of what has been attributed to Phoenician explorers should more accurately be attributed to Israelite explorers. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that 1) Israelite colonists came to America aboard Phoenician ships, and 2) Danite seamen also likely explored the New World on their own.

Fell documents the existence of ancient Phoenician inscriptions at a site known as Mystery Hill in New Hampshire. Carbon dating traces the writings to the second millennium BC. In one of the chambers is an inscription dedicating it to the Phoenician god Baal (pp. 85, 90). Burial mounds have been found in Rhode Island, Ohio, and West Virginia that reveal a Celtic- Iberian origin (pp. 163-167). In fact, Celtic art on walls, pottery and burial urns found in America is virtually identical to Celtic art found in Iberia. Hundreds of stone grave markers—written in Phoenician and Celtiberian scripts and dated to 800-600 BC—have been found in the Susquehanna Valley of Pennsylvania (p. 169). Fell also cites evidence that the Phoenicians had a regular port-of-call off the coast of Maine. He writes: “The periodic arrival of Phoenician ships on the New England coast is attested by the Ogham [an ancient Irish script] inscription on Monhegan Island, off the coast of Maine. It is obvious that the flat-topped rocky islet would not have been set aside for the loading and unloading of Phoenician ships were they not regular visitors to America with a predictable timetable of ports of arrival and departure at expected dates.” Fell concludes that the whole island was a “Phoenician trading station,” and that the facts indicate a highly organized system of maritime commerce stretching from the Iberian region to North America (pp. 100-101). According to Fell, the Celtic-Iberian traders came not just from Iberia, but from Ireland as well.

16. Rawlinson, pp. 69-70

17. The Origin of Our Western Heritage, ch. 5: The Captivity and Deportation of Israel; www.bethelcog.org/church/the-origin-of-our-western-heritage/thecaptivity-and-deportation-of-israel

18. J. H. Allen, Judah’s Sceptre and Joseph’s Birthright, p. 267

19. Collins, pp. 122, 125. According to Fell, “the oldest Gaelic name for Ireland is Ibheriu”—which clearly resembles Iberia and Hibernia. He adds that migrant peoples commonly carried the name of their former homeland to a new homeland (p. 63). Thus, we can see why Iberia (“land of the Hebrews”) was anciently attached first to the Iberian Peninsula and later to Ireland—as well as to the Caucasus region, which migrating Israelites briefly settled.

20. Collins, p. 123

21. Allen, p. 275

22. See www.israelite.ca/research/specialstudiesfiles/hebrew_celtic_connection.html. According to this Web site, the area labeled Danmoni is shown on an ancient map in Celtic scholar John Rhys’ book, Early Celtic Britain.

23. Collins, p. 122

24. www.israelite.ca/research/source_documents/dan_in_europe.html

25. www.ensignmessage.com/IsraelsMigrations.html

26. Most of these examples are taken from Gawler (ch. 1) and Allen (pp. 263, 266-267.)

27. Gawler, ch. 1

CHAPTER TEN

Celtic-Saxon Israel Moves into Northwest Europe, British Isles

Historically, numerous clans and tribes of diverse peoples converged on Europe over a period of several centuries. Those groups finally settling in northwest Europe and the British Isles appear both to be related and to have largely shared a common culture. However, what is not widely understood is the homogeneous origin of such peoples—that they were, in fact, Israelite.

But can we actually trace the migrations of the “lost” tribes of Israel to northwest Europe and the British Isles?

If historians have found no mention of the exiled tribes of Israel in ancient records, it is simply because the Assyrians and other peoples did not call them by their original, ancestral names. As we have already seen, Israel was recognized in captivity—and for over a century thereafter—as primarily Cimmerians and Saka-Scythians. Thus, it should come as no surprise that the tribes of Israel were subsequently identified in Europe by still later names—names given to them by the nations among which they sojourned. As this chapter will bring out, the Cimmerian Israelites became known largely as Celts as they moved further to the west; similarly, the Scythians became known primarily as Saxons as they too migrated to the northwest. This, of course, is a broad generalization, as other names were also assigned to migrating groups of Israelites—Gauls, Goths, Galatians, Scandinavians, Angles, Jutes, etc. Moreover, there was clearly a certain level of integration between some of these groups.

Another reason researchers have been unable to locate the so-called “lost” tribes of Israel in history is that they wrongly assume that the tribes could only exist (if at all) as small, isolated groups characterized by their observance of Jewish-like customs. But as indicated by the Abrahamic promises we have examined, the birthright nations of Israel were to grow into wealthy, powerful, well populated nations. In fact, the birthright nations of Ephraim and Manasseh would become the most powerful and influential nations in all of history. But they would in no way be “Jewish.”

As Hosea 1:10 brings out, God would greatly multiply “lost” Israel so that their population could not be measured. Indeed, the Jewish historian Josephus verifies that the tribes had, by the first century AD, grown into a multitude “not to be estimated by numbers.”[1] By Jesus’ day the tribes of Israel had already begun migrating again, leaving areas around the Black Sea and moving further to the northwest. When Jesus spoke about the “lost sheep of the house of Israel,” He was speaking of lands outside of Palestine where the ten tribes had become “lost” from view while migrating through other nations. But clearly, they did exist and their whereabouts were known.

It is readily acknowledged by historians that the Celtic and Anglo-Saxon peoples in particular provided the racial stock from which several modern western nations have developed—including Great Britain and the United States. As Yair Davidy notes, “The Scyths, Goths, and Cimmerians and related groups of Scythia were all one people, from one original stock, which was Israelite. From these nations emerged those of northwest Europe [and, thus, the British Isles and America].”[2] Accordingly, establishing the identity of the ancient Celtic-Saxon peoples is the key to connecting the “lost” tribes of Israel to the nations destined to inherit the birthright blessings promised to Abraham.

Israelite Cultural Developments

By the late sixth century and on through the fifth century BC, the areas of Arsareth and Scythia were well populated with Cimmerians and Saka-Scythians. It was here—along the shores of the Black Sea and in the south Russian steppes—that the Israelites’ culture rapidly developed as a part of the European middle Iron Age.[3]

Historians and archaeologists note that from roughly the 500s BC the region of Europe north of the Mediterranean shared two related cultures. First, spreading westward from southeast Europe along the Danube River basin existed what historians label the Hallstatt and La Tene cultures. These names are based on important archeological finds discovered at Hallstatt and La Tene, Austria. The finds are considered textbook examples of central European Celtic culture, which is generally defined by such discoveries. The Hallstatt culture developed first (c. 600-450 BC), setting the stage for the later La Tene culture (c. 450-50 BC). As the evidence indicates, Celtic culture as a whole originated with the Cimmerians who settled these areas of Europe as they moved west along the Danube from the Black Sea region.

Further east was a second, related culture—that of the Scythians. Occupying a vast area of eastern Europe and the Russian steppes, the Saka-Scythians preferred grasslands over mountains and forests. While each culture adapted to the geography of its own region, the Scythian and Celtic clans interacted like peoples sharing a common ancestry—freely conducting trade, intermarrying, and exchanging cultural ideas. Archaeologically, the two groups were almost identical, particularly in the area of burial rites (see below). As the Encyclopedia Iranica states, “the [Celtic] Cimmerians cannot be differentiated archeologically from the Scythians.”[4] Back in Palestine, the tribes of Israel each exhibited distinct cultural differences within the greater culture of the kingdom. These distinctions—having survived the Assyrian captivity and subsequent migrations—help explain the cultural differences between the Celts and the Scythians as a whole, as well as the cultural variations between the clans making up these groups.[5]

Davidy notes these two related cultures: “After being expelled from the Middle East, the Scyths, Cimmerians, and Goths split into several bodies of which two main groups may be roughly identified. One group [the Cimmerians] went west [from the Black Sea region] at an early date and became associated with the Cimbrians, Galatians, Celts, Getae, and Dacae of Europe. Remaining in Scythia longer, the second group [the Sacae] became the Jutes, Saxons, Angles, Franks, Scandinavians, Goths” as well as others.[6]

The Hallstatt and La Tene archeological finds are central in defining the “heartland” or origin of the Celtic peoples. Essentially, this “heartland” appears as a broad swath across central Europe, bordering the western edge of the Cimmerian Arsareth.[7] When properly interpreted, these finds help establish the fact that the Celtic peoples were actually of Cimmerian origin. As will be shown, history reveals a definite link between the Cimmerians and the Celts.[8] By about the middle of the sixth century BC, steady Cimmerian growth and Scythian migration into areas west of the Black Sea caused a significant number of Cimmerians to begin moving further to the west— leaving Arsareth. Following the agriculturally rich Danube River basin, these pioneering Cimmerians eventually emerged in central Europe as a peoples the Greeks called Keltoi—Celts. This period represents the Celtic Hallstatt culture (approximately 600-450 BC).

Due to growing migratory pressure, the Celts greatly expanded their sphere of influence from the fifth century to the first century BC to become the dominant cultural force throughout central and parts of southern Europe—their La Tene period. Britannica states: “The oldest archaeological evidence of the Celts comes from Hallstatt, Austria. By the mid-5th century BC, the La Tene culture, with its distinctive art style of abstract geometric designs and stylized bird and animal forms, had begun to emerge among the Celts centered [as far as] the middle Rhine.”[9]

Some Celtic Israelites did migrate as far as the northwestern shores of Europe and beyond, but the Baltic areas became primarily the domain of their Scythian (Anglo-Saxon) brothers.

Celtic Expansion in Europe

By about 450 BC, most of the Cimmerian Israelites had moved up the Danube and settled as Celts in central Europe. Their La Tene culture would gradually evolve over the next few centuries. But due to migratory pressure, the Celts would again find themselves being pushed further to the west—and even to the south. Barbaric tribes invading from the Far East pushed the Scythian Israelites westward, which in turn put pressure on the Celtic Israelites. In fact, two Asiatic groups began to aggressively invade Scythia from the East—first the Sarmatians, from about 300 BC, then the Huns, beginning around 200 BC. Noted archeologist E. Raymond Capt writes: “Like a domino effect, as Sarmatian pressure forced the Scythians toward the west, the Cimmerians were forced into the more remote regions of Europe where they became known as the Celts and Gauls.”[10]

Over time these forced migrations would take the Celts into parts of northwestern Europe—even as far as the coastal areas of France, Belgium, and the Netherlands—and southward into northern Italy and the Iberian Peninsula (what is today Spain and Portugal). “The center of Celtic expansion … was Gaul, which lay north of the Alps in the region now within the borders of France and Belgium and part of Spain…. The earliest Celts who were major players in the classical world were the Gauls, who controlled an area extending from France to Switzerland. It was the Gauls who sacked Rome and later invaded Greece; it was also the Gauls [who] migrated to Asia Minor to found their own, independent culture there, that of the Galatians.”[11] (The area known historically as Gaul is generally inclusive of modern France, Belgium, Switzerland, Holland, northwest Germany, and northern Italy. Many writers define Gaul-proper as lands extending from the Rhine and the Alps westward to the Atlantic.)

A considerable number of Celts later migrated further westward into Britain and Ireland. “By the later La Tene period … this Celtic culture had expanded over a wide range of regions, whether by diffusion [i.e., forced migration] or [voluntary] migration: to the British Isles (Insular [island] Celts), France and the Low Countries (Gauls), much of Central Europe, the Iberian Peninsula (Celtiberians, Celtici and Gallaeci), northern Italy (Gauls), and … as far east as central Anatolia [Asia Minor] (Galatians).”[12]

The Galatians—to whom the apostle Paul addressed his New Testament epistle by the same name—were essentially an “eastern branch” of the Celts. Concerning their connection to ancient Israel, Davidy writes: “According to conventional history, the British Isles, Gaul (France and Belgium), and the northwest European coastline in ancient times were settled by peoples of Celtic culture. A predominant element among the Celts were the Galatians [who were] ascribed Cimmerian origin by classical writers…. The Cimmerians had first appeared on the fringes of the Assyrian Empire shortly after the majority of northern Israelites had been exiled.”[13]

Des Thomas notes that in addition to settling the “low countries” of France, Belgium, Holland, and northwest Germany, the Celts also settled the Jutland Peninsula (primarily the mainland of Denmark). Importantly, the area was once called the Chersonesus Cimbrica, the “peninsula of the Cimbri.” Cimbri is a key name for the Celts, as it links them back to the Cimmerians. Numerous historians and early writers held that the Cimbri and the Cimmerians were the same peoples. Quoting the Greek philosopher Plutarch (46-120 AD), Thomas writes, “They [the Celts] were called at first Cimmerians and then, not inappropriately, Cimbri.” The philosopher Poseidonius (130-50 BC) also wrote that the Cimbri originated on the shores of the Black Sea where they had been known to the Greeks as the Cimmerians. As the Cimmerians moved to the northwest they became known to the Greeks as Celts, but to the Romans as Gauls. It appears that by about the first century BC, the general term Celt was used collectively for the Cimmerians (Cimbri, Cimmerii, Cymry), the Gauls, the Belgae, and other Israelite clans.[14]

The 1911 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica notes that “the Cimbri [were] universally held to be Celts,” and that “ancient writers spoke of all these Gauls [the southern branch of Celts] as Cimbri, and identified them with the Cimmerians of earlier date.”[15] The same encyclopedia, in its article on the Cimmerii, asserts that later writers (Strabo, Pliny, Plutarch) “identified [the Cimmerii or Cimmerians] with the Cimbri of Jutland, who were probably Teutonic Celts.”[16] Historically, the Teutons were known to have inhabited Jutland (Denmark) in the fourth to second centuries BC. Apparently, the Teutons, Cimbri, and Celts are all the same peoples— Cimmerian Israelites.

It is apparent that the term Cimbri finds its roots in the ancient Assyrian name given to the Israelites, Khumri. In his book Early Celtic Britain, scholar John Rhys writes that “the Celtic Kymry were for some time indifferently called Cambria or Cumbria, the Welsh word on which [the term Kymry is] based.” Moreover, he notes that Kymry (or Cymry)—a name the Welsh commonly go by—is even today “pronounced nearly as an Englishman would treat it if spelled Kumry or Kumri.”[17]

As we have seen proven from ancient artifacts of the Middle East, Kumri or Khumri was the Assyrian name for the “house of Omri”—Israel— and was particularly associated with the Gimri or Cimmerians.[18] Indeed, the similar spelling and almost identical pronunciation of the Israelite-Assyrian Khumri and the Celtic Kymry (Cimbri) can be no coincidence—and this connection between the ancient Hebrews and the Cimbri-Celts is too strong to be ignored.

The Celts Move into the British Isles

Throughout the development of the La Tene cultural period, the Celts’ Scythian brothers were also moving westward, pushed on by the invading Sarmatians and Huns. The primary region to which they migrated was the northwest reaches of Europe—Scandinavia and the Baltic areas. According to Davidy, many Celtic clans also found their way to the Baltic region were they “joined the Anglo-Saxon invaders of England.”[19] But long before the Saxons began to show an interest in Britain, the Celts were already moving across the English Channel. As one researcher puts it: “When pressed by the Saghs [or Saks, another name for the Saka-Scythians], the Cimmerians divided into two groups—one group [went] into western Europe [as Celts] by way of the Danube basin, the other [primarily Gauls] [migrated] into Asia Minor [becoming the Galatians]. The western Cimmerians [Celts] were identified with the first race of the Kymry, and came into Britain…. They occupied northern France under the name Belgae and invaded the British Isles as the Brythons.”[20]

According to the Web site lost-civilizations.net, “the period of Celtic dominance in Europe began to unravel in the first centuries AD with the expansion of Rome … [and] the [ongoing] influx of an Asian immigrant population, the Huns. By the time Rome fell [in 476 AD] … the Celts had been pushed west and north to England, Wales and Ireland, and later to Scotland….”[21] Similarly, the Encyclopedia Britannica notes: “The Celts moved westwards … [eventually reaching] the British Isles … [and went by the names] Brythons and the Goidels. The Brythons crossed the channel and established themselves in England and Wales, but the Goidels, probably in the fourth century BC, passed directly … to Ireland.”[22] (The name Brython, an early form of Briton, is discussed in detail below.)

Quoting largely from research conducted by the renowned English physician Adam Rutherford, the Web book The Origin of Our Western Heritage summarizes the movement of the Cimmerian-Celtic Israelites from the Balkans to the British Isles. “The Cimmerii or Cymry [Cimbri] came into Britain from the area of the Black Sea after traveling toward the northwest, through the Low Countries, then across the North Sea…. The Celts who filtered into Britain from Gaul appear to have come from the area of the Danube [River basin]. The Celts and Belgae who settled in Britain were Nordic [in appearance] and their skulls scarcely differ from those of the Anglo-Saxons who [later] followed [from the east].” The book contends that “pre-Christian civilizations found in northern Gaul, Britain, and Ireland” originated with “Cimmerians from the Ukraine” (Black Sea area), and that such Celtic settlements began to be established in Britain as early as around 300 BC and continued for centuries.[23] Thus, just as Cimmerian Israelites from the western region of the Black Sea moved across Europe in stages to become the Celts, so the Celts moved in stages across the English Channel to settle the British Isles. Steven Collins writes that “Israelite immigrants furnished much of the racial stock of early Celtic Briton,” and that “waves of Celtic immigrants … arrived in Briton over [a period of] several centuries.”[24]

As brought out in the previous chapter, large groups of the Israelite tribes of Dan and Simeon—known historically as the Danaan and the Simonii—had sought refuge in Ireland and Britain centuries earlier after abandoning their homelands in Palestine to the Assyrians. Collins writes that “many of the succeeding waves of Celtic migrations to Briton … were also Israelites in search of a permanent homeland”—that they were intent on following the paths their kinsmen had followed centuries earlier.[25]

Scythian Clans Pushed to the Extreme Northwest

Because of its mostly arid climate, the Russian steppes had become the desired location for numerous dispossessed peoples of central Asia— including the dominant Saka-Scythians of Israelite origin. But according to researchers, Sarmatian (and subsequent Hunnish) advances caused the Scythians to fragment into smaller sub-clans as they were pushed out of Scythia toward the northwest. Edmund Filmer, for example, writes: “At first the Scythians dominated the whole of the steppe country between the Carpathians and the Sea of Azov [in the Crimean region]…. During the [latter part of the] fourth century [BC], however, the Sarmatians began to move westwards from the Don [River] as far as the bend in the Dnieper [River]…. [Later, when] the Sarmatians subsequently advanced from the Dnieper to the Carpathians during the last two centuries before the Christian era, and finally into Hungary, the Scythians became divided [into smaller sub-clans] ….”[26] The Encyclopedia Americana notes: “The Scythians … are those tribes that occupied [the] territory [north of the Black Sea] from about 700 BC, and formed a single cohesive political entity until the fourth century BC when the nation was splintered into several groups” by aggressive Sarmatian [and Hunnish] migration.[27]

Consequently, distinct Scythian bands migrated in numerous waves over several centuries into extreme northwest Europe. Reflecting this forced migration, the Greek historian and geographer Strabo (about 63 BC to 23 AD) wrote that the Scythians resettled in lands toward the north, near the ocean—that is, in the Baltic region, north of the encroaching Sarmatians. Pliny, the Roman scholar, mentions that the Scythians had settled on islands in the “Northern Ocean” off the coast of Europe—an obvious reference to the Scandinavian region.[28]

Thus, from approximately 50 BC, those Celtic Israelites who had earlier settled in the lower Baltic areas of Europe began to be overrun by Scythian newcomers such as the Saxons, Danes, Vandals, Goths, Angles, Jutes, and Franks—all of which shared a common heritage not only among themselves but also with their Celtic brothers.[29] Significant areas of the British Isles had by this time been settled by peoples of Celtic origin. But many of their Scythian kinsmen, who were rapidly moving to the west, would soon be looking as well to the Isles for a permanent homeland.

According to Davidy’s extensive research, Hunnish aggression beginning around 160 BC—as well as extreme climate changes in key areas of the steppes—forced the Scythians into northwestern Europe from which they attempted to reestablish themselves in Scandinavia. “At this very same time [of the Hunnish invasion of Europe], Scandinavia received an influx of population.” This “Scandinavian repopulation” would “continue in full force for at least two hundred years,” paralleling the struggle taking place in Scythia against eastern invaders. “The evacuation of Scythia [took place] in stages and was not always in one direction, though the overwhelming tendency was westward…. [But over time,] the [Scythian] incursions into Scandinavia [proved] too great to enable stabilized settlement”—thus, “there was an almost immediate continuation westward” into the British Isles.[30]

While Scandinavia became a permanent homeland for many of the Scythian peoples, it was an area-of-transit for others on their way further west. Interestingly, Scandinavian tradition traces its ancestry to the Don River region—exactly where Scythians had long been settled. Davidy notes that the region “originally was named Scathanavia or Scatenauge” in honor of invading “Royal Scyths.” Echoing other researchers, he writes that “the name Scandinavia probably was originally intended to denote the ‘Land of the Scyths.’ ”[31] Likewise, the online Wikipedia says the name means “island of the Scythian people.”[32] Indeed, archeologists have recovered numerous cultural items from Scandinavian lands that clearly originated along the northern coast of the Black Sea—the Scythians’ earlier home.[33] Davidy concludes that “Scandinavian mythology, art styles, and religion all recall their Scythian origin.”[34]

Archeological Evidence of Westward Movement

Scattered throughout southern Russia and parts of Europe are burial sites clearly identified as Saka-Scythian in origin. Archeologists have determined that the sites show a Scythian presence in these areas spanning several centuries. The geographical distribution of these burial sites is most revealing. As we will see, the earliest such sites are found in southern Russia and the Crimean region with subsequent sites scattered throughout the Ukraine. Even later sites have been located in central and northwestern Europe. This pattern demonstrates an unmistakable Scythian migration to the northwest.

In this part of Eurasia the dead had long been cremated, the ashes being buried in an urn. Over time, inhumation (bodily burial) became widespread; moreover, it became increasingly popular to include in the grave some of the deceased person’s most valued belongings.

Filmer notes that over time an increasing number of chieftains’ tombs began to be utilized. The striking feature of such burial sites was that the body was buried in a wooden chamber along with silver and gold ornaments—as well as various weapons. This configuration was unmistakably Scythian, as they were known for their timber tombs in which were placed a high quantity of quality weapons and personal ornaments. Archeologists are certain that these wooden tombs are evidence of the establishment of Scythians throughout the region.[35]

According to the online Wikipedia, the Cimmerian and Scythian societies were characterized by an advanced “timber grave culture” in which “elaborate royal kurgans” typically contained weapons, Scythian-style wild-animal art, gold, silk and even chariots—as “vehicle burials were also a distinctive trademark of the Scythian culture.”[36] Collins adds that royal Scythian graves often featured horses buried along with the deceased.[37]

Filmer writes: “The earliest tombs in [southern] Russia, such as that at Kelermes on the northern slopes of the Caucasus, and the Litoy barrow, contained weapons and other articles decorated with gold that show a close connection not only with the earliest Scythian designs … but also with Assyrian, Median, and Urartian art.” This suggests a broad range of influences, just as we might expect of the Israelites who had been subject to these same peoples. Filmer adds that “the earliest Scythian tombs [found] in [southern] Russia have been dated to about 580 BC.”[38] With similar dating, the Encyclopedia Iranica states: “It is in central Georgia that archeologists have found the greatest concentration of materials of the Scythian type … the earliest dating from about 700 BC.”[39] Comparable Cimmerian tombs in Crimea, dating from 650-600 BC, help to confirm this.[40] In fact, according to Thomas, thousands of tombstones have been found in Crimean graveyards bearing Hebrew inscriptions.[41] These are clearly Cimmerian or Scythian in origin.

By the early part of the sixth century BC, pioneering Scythians had gotten as far west as the Carpathian Mountains. Reflecting subsequent waves of migration, Scythian graves dating from the fourth century have been found on both sides of the Dnieper River as far north as Kiev (northern Ukraine). Even areas of Hungary and southern Poland feature numerous Scythian burial sites. Still later sites, however, have been found in upper northwest Europe. Filmer writes: “A significant fact, noted by Polish, Scandinavian and even German scholars, is that the chieftains’ graves in south Poland are at least a century older than the earliest ones on the Baltic coast [extreme northwest Europe]…. [In] the early centuries of the Christian era, these [Scythian] burial rites spread north into the Danish islands and Jutland [Denmark] peninsula.” Prior to 100 BC, the lands bordering the southern Baltic Sea—now Poland and the former East Germany—had been rather sparsely populated, but from that date onwards, “cemeteries increased in number with the introduction of new [Scythian] burial rites.” Filmer concludes that the chronological distribution pattern of Scythian burial sites indicates “a migration [of Scythians] from south to north.”[42]

Davidy’s research has led to a similar conclusion—that such burial site patterns show a definite, gradual Scythian migration from Scythia into Scandinavia and the Baltic area. He writes that wooden chamber graves found in southern Poland from before 200 BC suggest the presence of Scythian settlements and indicate a “movement of the Scythians to the north and west.” He adds: “After 100 BC the same type of grave is evident on the north Baltic coast”—and still later the same “Royal Scyth” grave “reappears in Jutland (Denmark) where it continued in use for several centuries.”[43]

Anglo-Saxons Dominate Baltic Region, British Isles

Although Scythian and Celtic clan designations cannot be correlated to the original Israelite tribal names, their number and variety suggest the migrating Israelites attempted to preserve at least some of their distinctions along tribal lines. The renowned British historian Sharon Turner wrote: “The different tribes of the Scythians, like those of the [Celtic] Kimmerians and Gauls, had their peculiar distinctive denominations.”[44] Scythian bands migrating into northwest Europe included the Saxons, Danes, Vandals, Goths, Angles, Jutes, Alans, Lombards, Franks, etc. Many of these settled in or moved through Scandinavia and the Baltic region.

Of great importance were the Saxons and Angles. The Saxons were a powerful Scythian clan in northwest Europe. According to research by Rutherford, the geographer Ptolemy (second century AD) referred to the Sacae as Saxones, and the historian Albinus (late 700s AD) said the Saxons were descended from the ancient Sacae from Asia.[45]

As we saw in Chapter 7, Saxons literally means sons of Isaac. Recall that God had told Abraham, “in Isaac shall your seed be named” (Gen. 21:12; RSV and others). Turner writes: “The Saxons were a German[ic] or Teutonic, that is, a Gothic or Scythian, tribe; and of the various Scythian nations [clans] which have been recorded, the Sakai, or Sacae, are the people from whom the descent of the Saxons may be inferred…. Sakai-Suna, or the sons of the Sakai, abbreviated into Saksun, which is the same sound as Saxon, seems a reasonable etymology of the word Saxon.”[46]

Ptolemy also informs us that the Saxons had settled “on the neck of the Cimbric Peninsula”—or Jutland (Denmark), which had previously been occupied by Celts. Yet history records little of the Saxons until the end of the third century AD, when they were described as “pirates” infesting the coasts of Gaul and branded as enemies of Rome.[47] In fact, “the nations [clans] that overthrew the Roman Empire [in 476 AD] came from central Asia [Scythia]. This mass of people included the Goths, Vandals, Angles, and Saxons….”[48]

According to Collins, the Saxons and other Scythian tribes jointly migrated into Europe from Asia. While “the Saxons bore the name of Isaac, the Danes bore the name of the Israelite tribe of Dan.”[49] By this time, however, the Romans had developed the practice of referring to Scythian tribes in general as Germanic—meaning they were genuine Scythians as opposed to Sarmatian transplants.[50]

Allied with the Angles (the Anglican peoples), the Saxons came to eventually dominate parts of England and Scotland. Davidy writes: “From the Saka were to emerge the Anglo-Saxon invaders of Britain.” Large formations of Saxons began arriving in northwest Europe between 200-300 AD. “The Angles … together with the Saxe-Saxons (Sakae) and Jutes (Latii) from Scythia were to be the dominant elements in the conquest of England…. From Jutland emerged many of the invaders of England.”[51]

From about 250 AD, Gothic bands, allied with their Celtic kinsmen, began harassing the western parts of the Roman Empire while Anglo-Saxon pirates, approaching from Scandinavia, began intermittently attacking the coasts of Britain. However, the Anglo-Saxon invasions of Britain would not commence for another 200 years due to resistance by Roman occupiers. Collins writes: “Saxons from the eastern shores of the North Sea ravaged the coasts of Britain and occasionally penetrated deep into the lowland zone. Until the end of the fourth century the [Roman] Empire was strong enough to repair the damage done by the [Anglo-Saxon] incursions.” However, Rome’s hold on Britain soon deteriorated, forcing them to abandon the Isles altogether. Ultimately, “the native British Celts … invited [the] Saxons from the European mainland to assist them as mercenaries, but the Saxons eventually occupied much of England, pushing the native Celts into Wales and Scotland.”[52]

In his book The Story of Celto-Saxon Israel, the late British historian and scholar W. H. Bennett writes that “the Romans invaded and occupied [only a] part of the country, but this was [strictly] a military occupation…. Few Romans settled in Britain, and all of the military forces were withdrawn [by] about 410 AD. The next permanent settlers to come into Britain were the Saxons, who began to arrive [in large numbers] from northwest Germany and southern Denmark [Jutland] and Scandinavia about the year 450 AD. They were divided into a number of tribes, one of which, the Angles, gave us the names England and English.”[53]

Who were the Angles? Many authorities contend that the Angles took their name from their ancestral home in Jutland, Angul (modern Angeln), which features an area shaped geographically like a hook (angul is Old English for fishhook). But according to Collins, Angle or Engle is likely based on the Hebrew word for bull—egel, pronounced ay-ghel.[54] Anciently, the bullock was an identifying sign of the tribe of Ephraim (Deut. 33:17). This suggests the Angli (as the Romans called them) were a dominant part of the birthright tribe of Ephraim. At any rate, it is obvious that the name England—from the Old English Engla-land or Ængla-land—originated with the Angles.

By most accounts, the “Anglo-Saxon era” covers early medieval England from the end of Roman rule and the establishment of numerous Anglo-Saxon kingdoms in the fifth century until the Norman conquest in 1066. Throughout the 600s AD, Scythian newcomers from the east continued migrating into Scandinavia; the resultant overpopulation led to the Viking overseas expeditions of the late 700s.[55] Migrating through Scandinavia, the Vikings included Danes, Norwegians, and other Scythian-Scandinavian clans. As explorers, merchants and pirates, the Vikings raided and colonized wide areas of northwest Europe and the North Atlantic islands from the 8th century. This period of Viking expansion—known as the Viking Age— forms a major part of the history of Scandinavia, Great Britain, and Ireland. The Danes came about 850 AD, and the Norwegians a little later, settling in the northern and western coasts of Scotland. The Normans were the last of the Germanic types to enter England.

Thus, the entire history of northwest Europe and the British Isles from the 4th century BC to at least the 800s AD revolved around these Scythian-Israelite clans migrating in stages in a northwesterly direction from their areas of settlement around the Black Sea and in central Asia.

Linguistic Evidence

Overall, the languages now prevailing in Europe show that there were three distinct and successive waves of peoples who entered Europe from Asia. The oldest ones are found in western Europe. “The first was the Cimmerians, followed by the Scythians, and finally the Sarmatians (Slavs). These three stocks make up the source of the native populations in Europe today.” The Cimmerian group is represented by the Celtic languages (Welsh, Scottish Gaelic, Irish Gaelic, Cornish, Manx, and Breton); the Scythian source is represented by English, Franco-German, Middle Gothic, Old Icelandic, Modern German, Swabian, Swiss, Dutch, Swedish, Danish, Norwegian, Orkneyan, and Lowland Scotch; the Slavic group, stemming from the Sarmatian invasion of Europe, is represented by modern Slavonic as it appears in Russia, the Ukraine, Bulgaria, Poland, etc.[56] This latter group has no connection to the tribes of Israel.

What is most interesting are the numerous commonalities between the Hebrew of ancient Israel and the languages spoken in the British Isles. Indeed, the first people to settle the Isles spoke Hebrew, a fact demonstrated by ancient Hebrew inscriptions found in many places in Britain and Ireland. Moreover, Rutherford confirmed that the early literature of Britain was largely a modified form of Hebrew.[57] After all, as brought out in Chapter 9, Israelites from the tribe of Dan actually settled in Ireland prior to the fall of Samaria.

Remarkably, the Welsh language today strongly resembles Hebrew. According to Rutherford, it is difficult to find a single article or form of construction in Hebrew grammar that cannot also be found in Welsh. Many sentences of the two languages have very similar wording, and almost every page of the Welsh translation of the Old Testament contains Hebraisms in the sense and spirit of the original language. Moreover, the Welsh is so close to Hebrew that the same syntax might serve both.[58]

According to Bennett, the early Saxon language included hundreds of Medo-Persian words, indicating that the Scythian ancestors of the Saxons had indeed resided (as captives) in Media for some time before migrating through the Caucasus Mountains into Europe.[59]

In the interest of providing linguistic evidence, it is worth repeating the origin of the term Iberia. As previously brought out, portions of the “lost” tribes of Israel migrated to the north from the areas of their initial exile—settling for a time in the region north of Armenia and the Caucasus Mountains (approximately modern Georgia). They subsequently named this area Iberia. Collins writes that this region between the Black and Caspian Seas “came to be known as Iberia, confirming the presence of Hebrews from the ten tribes in that region.” Seagoing explorers from the tribe of Dan had long before given the same name to an old Phoenician-Israelite colony in Spain—hence, the Iberian Peninsula. Collins adds: “The appearance of the same Hebrew name (Iberia) in the region north of Armenia verifies that this region became an area of Israelite resettlement.”[60] Iberia is clearly of Hebrew origin, being derived from the word eber, meaning “one from beyond”—or an outsider. (Eber was the ancestral patriarch of Abraham.) The word “Hebrew” itself is from the related term, Ibri. Davidy says Iberia means “land of the Hebrews.”[61] Rhys notes that Ireland was once known as Iberion.[62]

But the most striking linguistic connection between ancient Israel and those who ultimately settled the British Isles concerns the Hebrew word for covenant. If the Celtic and Anglo-Saxon peoples of the British Isles are indeed descendants of ancient Israel, it would be most appropriate that they bear in their very name some indication of their covenant relationship to the God of Israel. In Hebrew, the word for covenant is beriyth. In Judges 8:33 and 9:4, we see that the word can also be used as a proper name—here coupled with the name Baal, a false god. It is thus rendered Baal-berith, meaning “lord of the covenant.” Since vowels were not written in ancient Hebrew, the literal spelling of beriyth would be brth. Its anglicized form preserves the y sound by adding an i—thus, brith. However, since the Hebrews did not pronounce the h sound (as many Jews today do not), beriyth would be, in its anglicized form, pronounced brit.[63]

Collins notes that the early Celts described themselves as Brythonic, a reference to their being the “covenant people” of God. He writes: “The fact that these ‘Brythonic Celts’ who migrated to the British Isles bore the Hebrew B-R-T root word for ‘covenant’ confirms their Israelite origin…. It is significant that large masses of Celtic people still bore in their name the Hebrew word for ‘covenant’ (the B-R-T or B-R-TH root word of Briton and Brythonic) even after the fall of Samaria.”[64]

J. H. Allen writes: “[The] people of Waels [Wales] [still] call themselves, in ancient Welsh, ‘Bryth y Brithan’ or ‘Briths of Briton,’ which means ‘the covenanters’ of ‘the land of the covenant.’ The first form of this phrase is almost vernacular Hebrew.”[65] Collins notes that the name Briton originated “centuries before the fall of Israel” as the area had “long been a Phoenician [and Danite] colony and port-of-call” back during Solomon’s reign.[66] The name Briton—“covenant land”—was obviously given to the region as a reflection of these Israelites’ renewed regard for their covenant relationship with God.

Moreover, the Hebrew word for man is iysh, or ish. In English, the ish ending (which is said to be Germanic, or Scythian, in origin) means “of, belonging to, or relating to” a specific peoples or thing. When we join these two Hebrew words, we have Brit-ish—or British—“covenant man.”

Indeed, the British (along with their Irish, Welsh, and Scottish kin) and their American brothers are the modern-day “people of the covenant”— the modern-day descendants of “lost” Israel who were destined to inherit the Abrahamic birthright blessings promised to Ephraim and Manasseh.

CHAPTER 10 NOTES

1. Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, bk. 11, ch. 5, sec. 2

2. Yair Davidy, The Tribes—The Israelite Origins of Western Peoples, p. 101. Interestingly, the Scots preserve the story of their Scythian origins in the most famous document in Scottish history, the Declaration of Arbroath. Written in 1320 AD and signed by King Robert I (the Bruce) and his nobles, the declaration states that the Scots’ ancestors “journeyed from Greater Scythia by way of the Tyrrhenian [Mediterranean] Sea … [and] came twelve hundred years after the people of Israel crossed the Red Sea [250-290 BC] to their home in the west where they still live today.” Leaving Scythia, their journey took them around (or across) the Black Sea to the Mediterranean. From there they sailed to Spain and then Scotland. The original of this ancient document is on display at the Register House in Edinburgh (www.israelite.ca/research/source_documents/arbroath.html).

Irish tradition also claims a Scythian origin. According to several ancient folklore sources, such as The Book of the Taking of Ireland, the Irish “originated in Scythia and were descendants of Fénius Farsaid, a Scythian prince who created the Ogham alphabet and who was one of the principal architects of the Gaelic language” (www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythians).

3. Characterized as the period when weapons and tools came to be made of iron, the Iron Age presumably began in the early first millennium BC.

4. Encyclopedia Iranica, www.iranicaonline.org/articles/cimmeriansnomads

5. Anciently, the tribes of Israel were subdivided into clans and family units that tended to stay together (see Ex. 6:14-25).

6. Davidy, p. 53

7. Arsareth refers to a broad area west of the Black Sea, roughly defined today by Bulgaria, Romania, and southern Ukraine.

8. For example, as previously noted, the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica identifies the Cimmerian inhabitants of Crimea (north of the Black Sea) in the 600s BC as Celtic in culture (www.1911encyclopedia.org/Crimea).

9. www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/101704/Celt

10. The Origin of Our Western Heritage, ch. 6: The Westward Movement; www.bethelcog.org/church/the-origin-of-our-western-heritage/the-westwardmovement

11. www.lost-civilizations.net/celts-another-overview.html

12. www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celts

13. Davidy, p. 16

14. Des Thomas, America—the Last Frontier for Manasseh, p. 116. The Plutarch quote is from his Life of Marius. Plutarch added that “the Greeks gave them [the Cimmerians] the name Celt, [and] the Romans [gave them] the name Gauls.”

15. www.1911encyclopedia.org/Celt

16. www.1911encyclopedia.org/Cimmerii

17. Rhys’ book is quoted at www.israelite.ca/research/specialstudiesfiles/hebrew_celtic_connection.html.

18. As brought out in Chapter 7, “Gimri comes from [the Assyrian] Khumri (out of the biblical name Omri) and goes through Gimmira and the Greek Kimmerioi to Cimmerian” (www.asis.com/users/stag/behistun.html).

19. Davidy, p. 100

20. The Origin of Our Western Heritage, ch. 6

21. www.lost-civilizations.net/celts-another-overview.html

22. The Encyclopedia Britannica, vol. 5, pp. 102-103; “Celt”

23. The Origin of Our Western Heritage, ch. 6

24. Steven Collins, The Lost Ten Tribes of Israel—Found!, p. 123

25. Collins, p. 125. Because of pioneering Danites, Israelite colonies were well established in the British Isles when the prophet Jeremiah, in about 600 BC, wrote: “Hear the Word of the LORD, O nations, and declare it in the isles afar off. And say, ‘He who [has] scattered Israel will [ultimately] gather him and keep him, as a shepherd keeps his flock’ ” (Jer. 31:10). Context-wise, Jeremiah 31 deals with the restoration of latter-day Israel to a unified kingdom at Christ’s return to usher in the age to come.

26. Edmund Filmer, “Our Scythian Ancestors,” www.ensignmessage.com/archives/scythianancestors.html

27. The Encyclopedia Americana, vol. 24, p. 471; “Scythians”

28. The Origin of Our Western Heritage, ch. 6

29. Davidy, p. 17

30. Davidy, pp. 84-86

31. Davidy, pp. 42, 97

32. www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavia

33. The Origin of Our Western Heritage, ch. 6

34. Davidy, p. 42

35. Filmer, “Our Scythian Ancestors”

36. www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythians

37. Collins, p. 174

38. Filmer, “Our Scythian Ancestors.” Concerning Israelite-Scythian art, Filmer adds that it “in no way differs stylistically from similar Assyrian and Urartian designs.” Again, this is indicative of the influence Assyria had over captive Israel.

39. Encyclopedia Iranica, www.iranicaonline.org/articles/cimmeriansnomads

40. Filmer, “Our Scythian Ancestors”

41. Thomas, p. 111

42. Filmer, “Our Scythian Ancestors”

43. Davidy, p. 94

44. Sharon Turner, The History of the Anglo-Saxons; quoted here from www.israelite.info/research/sourcedocumentsfiles/anglosaxons.html.

45. The Origin of Our Western Heritage, ch. 6

46. Turner, www.israelite.info/research/sourcedocumentsfiles/anglosaxons.html

47. Collins; excerpt from his book Israel’s Tribes Today. See www.israelite.info/bookexcerpts/israelstribestoday.html.

48. The Origin of Our Western Heritage, ch. 6

49. Collins, www.israelite.info/bookexcerpts/israelstribestoday.html

50. According to Filmer, the Romans coined the terms Germanic or Germani in order to distinguish between the invading Sarmatians and the genuine Israelite Scythians. Thomas adds: “With the appearance of the non-Israelite Sarmatians in the region once occupied by the Scythians, the Romans deemed it necessary to introduce a new name for these [Saka] Scythians.” The change is well documented by such ancient historians as Pliny and Strabo. Strabo, for example, explains that germani was a Latin word meaning genuine or authentic in terms of race. The Romans were simply attempting to indicate that the Saka-Scythians were the genuine Scythians, not the Sarmatians. The terms should not be confused with the modern German race. See Filmer, “Our Scythian Ancestors” and Thomas, p. 117.

51. Davidy, pp. 22, 99, 87, 94. Jutland is a peninsular region that includes the mainland of modern Denmark and part of northern Germany. The Jutes, along with the Angles and the Saxons, invaded Britain from the late 4th century onwards.

52. Collins, www.israelite.info/bookexcerpts/israelstribestoday.html

53. W. H. Bennett, The Story of Celto-Saxon Israel; quoted from

www.israelite.info/bookexcerpts/storyofceltosaxonisrael.html.

54. Collins; see www.israelite.info/bookexcerpts/israelstribestoday.html.

55. Davidy, p. 94

56. The Origin of Our Western Heritage, ch. 6. “Today, the term Celtic is generally used to describe the languages and respective cultures of Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Cornwall, the Isle of Man, and Brittany, also known as the Six Celtic Nations. These are the regions where four Celtic languages are still spoken to some extent as mother tongues: Irish Gaelic, Scottish Gaelic, Welsh, and Breton—plus two recent revivals, Cornish (one of the Brythonic languages) and Manx (one of the Goidelic languages)” (www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celts).

57. The Origin of Our Western Heritage, ch. 6

58. The Origin of Our Western Heritage, ch. 6. This information by Rutherford is based on Jacob Tomlin’s work, “A Comparative Vocabulary of Forty-Eight Languages, Comprising One Hundred and Forty-Six Common English Words, with Their Cognates in Other Languages Showing Their Affinities with the English and Hebrew.”

59. Bennett, www.israelite.info/bookexcerpts/storyofceltosaxonisrael.html

60. Collins, p. 129

61. Davidy, pp. 7, 25

62. www.israelite.ca/research/specialstudiesfiles/hebrew_celtic_connection.html

63. J. H. Allen, Judah’s Sceptre and Joseph’s Birthright, p. 275. Even today there is a Jewish fraternity named B’nai-Brith, “Sons of the Covenant.”

64. Collins, pp. 123-124

65. Allen, p. 275

66. Collins, p. 123

CHAPTER ELEVEN

The Abrahamic Promise of Judah’s Scepter

As previously noted, the covenant promises God made to Abraham and his descendants included the promise of the Messiah, first mentioned in Genesis 12:3—“in you shall all the families of the earth be blessed.” After the patriarch demonstrated faithfulness and obedience in the critical test of being willing to sacrifice Isaac, the son of promise, the covenant promises became unconditional. God could now see that Abraham would always be faithful in his obedience to Him. In Genesis 22, we read:

“[For] now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me…. By Myself have I sworn … because you have done this thing, and have not withheld your son, your only son; that in blessing I will bless you, and in multiplying I will multiply your seed like the stars of the heavens, and as the sand which is upon the seashore. And your seed shall possess the gate of his enemies. And in your seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice” (verses 12, 16-18).

This passage repeats the promise made in Genesis 12, adding the word seed—“in your seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed.” The apostle Paul identifies this “seed” as Jesus the Messiah:

“Now in the Scriptures, God … preached the gospel [of God’s redemptive kingdom] beforehand to Abraham, saying, ‘In you shall all the nations be blessed.’… Now to Abraham and to his Seed were the promises spoken. He does not say, ‘and to your seeds,’ as of many; but as of one, ‘and to your Seed,’ which is [the] Christ” (Gal. 3:8, 16; also see Acts 3:25-26).

All nations have benefited materially from the abundance of physical blessings God has bestowed upon the birthright peoples of modern Ephraim and Manasseh—not to mention the invaluable global leadership provided by the Anglo-American nations. But the real significance of this statement—in your seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed—is that God would make salvation available to the human family through Jesus Christ, the one unique seed of Abraham.

Thus, there is a critical duality to the Abrahamic promises.

As we have seen, the contexts of the covenant passages throughout Genesis deal with material-centered national blessings on Abraham’s multiple seed, Israel. The birthright promises in particular were to reach their ultimate fulfillment in Joseph’s sons, Ephraim and Manasseh. At the same time, the Abrahamic promises also point to a singular seed—Jesus the Messiah. As such, the “one seed” prophecy refers not only to Jesus’ role as spiritual Savior, but also to His full messianic role as the living King and Lord of the kingdom age to come. This is why Paul wrote that the gospel of the kingdom had been preached to Abraham via the “one seed” promise (Gal. 3:8). Indeed, Jesus’ life’s work and sacrifice open the way for all of the families of the earth to ultimately enjoy a relationship with the God of Abraham. But for the overwhelming majority of mankind, this opportunity for salvation through Christ will come as a result of the establishment of the millennial Kingdom of God—when anyone of any nationality or ethnic background can, through Jesus, enter into the covenant of faith as a child of Abraham: “And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise” of eternal life (Gal. 3:29). It is apparent that, from the very beginning, God’s objective was to use His relationship with Abraham to bring salvation—via Christ and His kingdom—to all the world.

Importantly, this spiritual dimension to the Abrahamic promises is separate from the birthright promises maintained through Joseph’s sons. Unlike the physical, material blessings of the birthright promises, the salvation-bringing promise of the Messiah was bound to blessings of rulership—symbolized by a scepter—given to the tribe of Judah. Notice again this pivotal passage:

“And … Reuben, the firstborn of Israel—for he was the firstborn [by Leah]; but since he defiled his father’s bed, his birthright was given to the sons of Joseph, the son of Israel [by Rachel], and the genealogy is [therefore] not to be reckoned according to the [original] birthright. [Moreover,] Judah [has] prevailed among his brothers, and from him came [and will yet come] the chief ruler [kingly line], but the birthright was Joseph’s” (I Chron. 5:1-2).

This passage clearly shows the two-fold division of the Abrahamic covenant—the birthright promises going to Joseph’s sons, and the scepter promise going to Judah. Thus, Judah would be the tribe from which kings would arise, ruling over the people of Israel—culminating with the Messiah taking His place as the great and final King of Israel. When the aging patriarch Jacob blessed his twelve sons, notice what was said about Judah: “The scepter [symbolizing rulership and kingly authority—royalty] shall not depart from [the tribal line of] Judah, nor a lawgiver [king] from between his feet [a phrase referring to offspring], until Shiloh come. And to Him [the Messiah] shall be the obedience of the people [in the kingdom age]” (Gen. 49:10). The term Shiloh refers to one who has ownership or a natural right to something; some (RSV, etc.) translate the phrase “until Shiloh come” as “until He comes to whom it [the scepter or throne] belongs.”

Importantly, this messianic prophecy points to Davidic offspring ruling over Israel. Israel’s first king was Saul, a Benjamite, whose dynasty was cut off because of sin and rebellion. The scepter was removed from Saul—and thus “departed” from the tribe of Benjamin (see II Sam. 3:10). In Saul’s place, God chose a “man after His own heart” (I Sam. 13:14)— David, of the tribe of Judah. Because of David’s faithfulness, God promised unconditionally that He would establish his lineage forever (Psa. 89:3-4; 28-37) —which would culminate with the Messiah sitting on David’s throne.

Jesus to Inherit David’s “Throne”

As King David’s forty-year reign came to a close, he passed on the throne to Solomon, his son by Bathsheba. It is vital to understand the actual source of that throne. In I Chronicles 29:23, we read: “And Solomon sat upon the throne of the LORD as king in place of David his father. And he prospered, and all Israel obeyed him.”

The “throne” of David was established by God Himself. A throne is but a symbol of sovereign power, dominion, authority to rule; as such it points to an office or position. The physical throne-seat itself, usually made of wood or stone, is irrelevant. Thus, the “throne of David” derives its authority from God. Ultimately, Jesus is to inherit this very throne: “He [Jesus] shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God shall give Him the throne of David, His forefather; and He shall reign over the house of Jacob into the ages, and of His kingdom there shall be no end” (Luke 1:32-33).

David’s throne will be reestablished over the “House of Jacob”—a restored, reunited Kingdom of Israel—in the age to come as the Messiah rules from Jerusalem. In a passage dealing with the age to come, the prophet Isaiah foretold that the Messiah would sit “upon the throne of David” (Isa. 9:7). On the day of Pentecost, the apostle Peter said that “God had sworn to [David] in an oath that from the fruit of his loins, as concerning the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit upon [David’s] throne” (Acts 2:30). This is quoted from Psalm 132: “The LORD has sworn [an oath] to David in truth; He will not turn from it: ‘Of the fruit of your body will I set upon the throne for you’ ” (verse 11).

As we will see, the key aspect of God’s oath to David is that his lineage would never die out or be cut off—so that the Messiah could be born of the “fruit of David’s loins.” Indeed, Jesus could inherit David’s throne only if He was of David’s lineage. This Davidic-messianic covenant is first promised in II Samuel 7:

“And when your [David’s] days are fulfilled, and you shall sleep with your fathers, I will set up your seed [Solomon] after you who shall come forth from your loins. And I will make his kingdom sure. He shall build a house [temple] for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever.

“I will be to him for a father, and he shall be to Me for a son. If he commits iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the sons of men. But My mercy shall not leave him, as I took it from Saul whom I put away before you. And your house [David’s lineage] and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before you. Your throne shall be established forever” (II Sam. 7:12-16).[1]

This passage is dual in nature, applying initially to Solomon and, ultimately, to the Messiah. It is readily apparent that Solomon fulfilled this passage: 1) he was of David’s seed; 2) he built a house or temple for God; 3) because of sin, he was chastened with the “rod of men”; 4) his kingdom was not only established, it represented the “golden age” or zenith of the nation of Israel—as a type of the Kingdom of God.

With Jesus in mind, the writer of the book of Hebrews quotes part of II Samuel 7:14—showing that the passage is indeed also messianic. “For to which of the angels did He [God] ever say, ‘You are My Son; this day I have begotten You’? And again, ‘I will be a Father to Him, and He will be a Son to Me’?” (Heb. 1:5). The fact is, only Christ can ultimately fulfill what is described here in II Samuel 7. Notice: 1) Jesus is of the seed of David (Rom. 1:3); 2) Jesus built (and is building) a spiritual house, made of living stones (I Peter 2:5); 3) God is truly His father, and Jesus is God’s son; 4) Jesus was chastened with the “rod of men”—not for His sin, but for our sins; 5) in the Messiah, David’s throne and kingdom will literally be established forever.

Because of sin, Solomon’s kingdom came to a tragic end. But what of his lineage—the exclusive dynasty God Himself “set up” on David’s throne? Has it also come to an end?

Solomon’s Dynasty Not Perpetual

It was apparently God’s intent to establish a “royal dynasty” through Solomon—one that would ultimately fulfill God’s promise to David. But the promises made to Solomon were conditional—his dynasty could be cut off for sin and rebellion. “And of all my [David’s] sons (for the LORD has given me many sons), He has chosen Solomon my son to sit upon the throne of the kingdom of the LORD over Israel. And He said to me, ‘Solomon your son shall build My house and My courts, for I have chosen him to be My son, and I will be his Father. And I will establish his kingdom forever if he continues resolute in keeping My commandments and My ordinances, as he is today’ ” (I Chron. 28:5-7). Notice the conditional if.

Speaking directly to Solomon, God warned: “And you, if you will walk before me as David your father walked, and will do according to all that I have commanded you, and shall observe My statutes and My ordinances, then I will make the throne of your kingdom sure, as I have covenanted with David your father, saying, ‘There shall not fail you a man to be ruler in Israel’ ” (II Chron. 7:17-18).

This passage indicates that God had purposed to always maintain a Davidic ruling line—and God would do so through Solomon if he remained faithful. Thus, if Solomon turned from God, it would eventually mean an end to his dynasty. As the Bible records, Solomon’s heart was turned to following other gods (I Kings 11:4, 9). Looking again at II Samuel 7, God says that if Solomon fell into sin, “My mercy shall not leave him, as I took it from Saul” (verse 15). Unlike what God did to Saul—taking his throne and kingdom while he was still reigning—Solomon would go to his grave in peace, for David’s sake. Only then would God rend the kingdom from Solomon’s son (I Kings 11:11-12).

This promise of mercy applied to Solomon himself—not to his royal dynasty. Because of sin, his dynasty would ultimately fail; eventually, the royal authority invested in Solomon would be transferred to another Davidic line. Indeed, David had many sons—any one of which could have been used to preserve the throne via a new dynasty.[2] However, as long as God saw fit to prolong Solomon’s dynasty, no other “line” of David was entitled to the throne. All of the kings of Judah were of Solomon’s line—even up to the fall of the nation to Babylon—making it apparent that God has been willing to continue to use the Solomonic dynasty. As we will see, the Davidic throne has been preserved, active through all generations, even to today, occupied by a royal descendant of Solomon’s line.

But again, Solomon’s dynasty must eventually come to an end. At that time, God’s promise to David of a messianic heir to his throne will be fulfilled through the lineage of another of David’s sons—Nathan. Thus, the perpetuity of David’s throne does not depend on Solomon or his lineage. God’s unconditional promise to David is sure—“And your house [David’s lineage] and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before you. Your throne shall be established forever” (II Sam. 7:16).[3]

David’s Lineage Perpetually Established

Ultimately, these divine promises will find fulfillment in Jesus as the Messiah—born of Mary, a literal descendant of David, of the tribe of Judah—ruling over the Kingdom of God. It is in this key sense that David’s kingdom and throne are to be “made sure forever” and “established forever.” Anticipating the establishment of the messianic kingdom—when both Israel and Judah, facing utter destruction, will have again been scattered in national captivity—the prophet Jeremiah wrote:

“ ‘Behold, the days come,’ says the LORD, ‘that I will raise [up] to David a righteous Branch [Jesus the Messiah, as a descendant of David], and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall do justice and righteousness in the earth. In His days [Jesus’ millennial reign] Judah shall be saved [from end -time destruction], and [all] Israel shall dwell safely. And this is His name by which He shall be called: The LORD [is] Our Righteousness’ ” (Jer. 23:5-6).

Notice a similar prophecy in chapter 33:

“ ‘Behold, the days come,’ says the LORD, ‘that I will establish the good thing which I have promised to [both] the house of Israel and to the house of Judah. In those days, and at that time, I will cause the Branch of righteousness [Jesus] to grow up to David [to spring forth as David’s seed]. And He [as King over Israel and ultimately the entire world] shall execute judgment and righteousness in the land. In those days Judah shall be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely. And this is the name with which she shall be called: The LORD [is] Our Righteousness’ ” (Jer. 33:14-16).

Before going further in this passage, it is important to understand the context. Much of the nation of Judah had already succumbed to invasion by the Babylonians; now, Nebuchadnezzar was poised to destroy Jerusalem and the few cities remaining under Jewish control. Jeremiah was led of God to warn the Jews to not resist the Babylonians—or face total destruction. Either way, Jerusalem was going to be taken.

Facing exile, the Jews were gravely concerned about their link to the house of David and the Levitical priesthood. Should either of these key lineages be cut off, the nation of Judah would never be the same.[4] In His mercy, God inspired Jeremiah to encourage the Jews by foretelling of their glorious future under the Messiah—and by reaffirming His commitment to preserving both the line of David and the line of Aaron.

“For thus says the LORD, ‘David shall never lack [fail to have] a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel, nor shall the [Aaronic] priests, [who are of] the Levites, lack a man before Me to offer burnt offerings, and to kindle grain offerings, and to do sacrifice continually.’

“And the Word of the LORD came to Jeremiah, saying … ‘If you can break My covenant of the day and My covenant of the night [God’s promise that day and night would continue forever], and that there should not be day and night at their appointed time, then also My covenant with David My servant may be broken, that he shall not have a son to reign on his throne, and My covenant with the Levites, the priests, My ministers. As the host of the heavens cannot be numbered, nor the sand of the sea measured, so I will multiply [in order to preserve] the seed of David My servant and [will multiply in order to preserve] the Levites who minister to Me’ ” (Jer. 33:17-22).

Again, the Jews were quite despondent about the potential loss of their kingly Davidic line and the Aaronic priesthood. God said to Jeremiah, “Do you not consider what this people are saying, ‘The two families [Davidic and Aaronic] which the LORD has chosen, He has even cast them off’? [Thus,] they have despised My people, that they should be no more a nation before them” (verse 24).[5]

The people were fearful that God would cast off these two family lines. Indeed, if the Davidic and Aaronic lines were to fail, the very integrity of the nation would be in question. Thus, God reiterates His promise: “If My covenant is not with day and night, and if I have not [established] the ordinances [natural physical laws] of the heavens and the earth, then I will cast away the seed of Jacob, and David My servant, so that I will not [be able to] take any of his seed to be rulers over the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. But I will bring them [the nation of Judah] back from their captivity, and have mercy on them” (verses 25-26)—by restoring both the nation and the lines of David and Aaron.

Clearly, the entire context of Jeremiah 33 centers on God’s absolute promise of preserving the family lineages of David and Aaron—so that in a future restored nation, both the Davidic throne and the Levitical priesthood could resume to function. Judah was returned to Palestine after 70 years of captivity in Babylon—and the Levitical priesthood was, at least for a time, reestablished with a functioning “second” temple.

David’s throne, however, was not reestablished. No royal king of the Davidic line has since ruled in Judah. Why? Did God fail in His promise to preserve the line of David following Judah’s captivity?

Davidic Throne Established in All Generations

Admittedly, Jeremiah 33:17-18 has presented a problem for some— but only because the passage is misunderstood. It is important to understand what these verses actually say—and what they do not say. Many assume that in this passage God is promising that there will perpetually be a descendant of David ruling at all times from a literal throne. If that is true, we must ask, “Where are the Aaronic priests offering burnt offerings and sacrifices before God?” Clearly, no such temple or functioning priesthood exists—yet what is promised in this passage concerning the Davidic line is equally promised concerning the Aaronic line. If we are to be fair with the Scriptures, the two cannot be treated differently. Moreover, this passage cannot be conveniently “spiritualized away” when its context clearly argues for a literal fulfillment.

The problem is that many have “read into” this passage the idea of an actual functioning throne—with complete disregard for the fact that there is no corresponding functioning temple.[6] But the passage promises neither. Rather, as the context of Jeremiah 33 clearly shows, God was reassuring the Jews that both the Davidic and Aaronic lines would be preserved.

It is vital to understand what is actually promised in this passage. The Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh adds clarity: “There shall never be an end to men of David’s line who sit upon the throne of the House of Israel. Nor shall there ever be an end to the line of the Levitical priests before Me, of those who present burnt offerings and turn the meal offering to smoke and perform sacrifices” (verses 17-18).[7] As a more literal translation, Stern’s Complete Jewish Bible reads: “There will never be cut off from David [i.e., David’s lineage] a man to occupy the throne of the house of Israel. Nor will there ever be cut off from the cohanim [priests] who are L’vi’im [Levites] a man before me to offer burnt offerings, burn grain offerings and offer sacrifices every day” (verse 17-18).[8]

Again, this specific passage does not actually promise a perpetually functioning Davidic throne—because if it does, there must also exist a perpetually functioning temple and priesthood. However, as brought out below, other key biblical passages do promise a perpetually functioning Davidic throne.

Essentially, this passage in Jeremiah promises that David’s seed would not fail or be cut off—so that the “righteous Branch” could one day claim David’s throne (Luke 1:31-33). Likewise, God has promised to preserve the Aaronic line across all generations—but not necessarily a functioning temple. Thus, when the Temple of God is rebuilt in the future— whether in the final days or in the age to come—there will be those of the tribe of Levi qualified to administer the necessary rituals.

Concerning the Davidic-messianic line, the genealogies of Matthew and Luke show that this promise has been fulfilled in that Jesus’ blood line can be traced through Mary back to David; moreover, Jesus’ legal line can be traced through Joseph back to David (see Appendix 3.) All that remains is for the Messiah to return to claim David’s throne.

But what has become of David’s “throne”? Does it still exist? Who today possesses royal, Davidic authority? How can Jesus inherit David’s “throne” unless it has been preserved? Several passages (such as II Samuel 7:16) imply that the throne would in fact be preserved—forever. However, the pivotal passage in this regard is found in Psalm 89, where God promises that David’s throne—not just his lineage—would be actively established across all generations. Indeed, whereas Jeremiah 33 promises only a perpetual Davidic lineage, Psalm 89 promises both—a continuous lineage and a perpetually functioning Davidic throne:

“I have made a covenant with My chosen [one]; I have sworn to David My servant, ‘Your seed will I establish forever, and build up your throne to all generations.’…

“I will keep My steadfast love for him forever, and My covenant shall stand fast with him. Also will I make his seed to endure forever, and his throne as the days of heaven....

“I will not break My covenant, nor change the thing that has gone out of My lips. Once I have sworn by My holiness, I will not lie to David. His seed shall endure forever, and his throne as the sun before Me. It shall be established forever like the moon, and like a faithful witness in the heavens” (Psa. 89:3-4; 28-29; 34-37).[9]

The royal authority of the Davidic line through Solomon is ordained of God; moreover, God promises here that the Davidic throne will be active, ruling in all generations. In other words, not a single generation would go by during which a royal descendant of David failed to bear rule over some part of the people of Israel.

How long is a biblical generation? Perhaps thirty or forty years—and certainly not less than a few decades. This means that there could be a brief “gap” during which the Davidic throne was “idle”—where no Davidic king was actively ruling. In fact, this has happened three times—but in each case the “vacancy” was less than a generation. The first occurred when wicked Queen Athaliah—having no royal Davidic blood—usurped the throne and ruled over Judah for six years (about 841 to 835 BC). The daughter of evil King Ahab of Israel and Jezebel (a Gentile), Athaliah married Jehoram, who ruled as king of Judah for eight years. Their son, Ahaziah, was killed after reigning for only one year. Consequently, Athaliah seized power and had all of the remaining royal heirs put to death. Six years later, she discovered she had missed one of the heirs—Joash, who had been hidden as an infant. Ultimately, Joash was installed as king and Athaliah was executed (II Kings 11). But note that this interruption in the legitimate occupation of the throne was brief—and a rightful Davidic heir was returned to the throne that same generation. God’s promise to David remained true!

The second brief vacancy of David’s throne occurred after the fall of Jerusalem to Babylon (see below). Zedekiah, Judah’s last ruling king, was taken captive to Babylon where he died—after watching the execution of his sons. The only apparent royal heirs left alive were Jechoniah and his sons. Jechoniah lived out his life in captivity and his sons were under a divine curse that excluded them from the throne. This interruption probably lasted just over a decade. A third vacancy, lasting 11 years, occurred in 1649.[10]

These three “interruptions” fall within the limits of God’s promise that David would have an heir—for now, through Solomon’s line—ruling in every generation. Indeed, the Davidic “throne” has continued through the Solomonic dynasty, ruling in every generation over some part of Israel.

Ultimately, however, the perpetuity of David’s throne is bound up in the Messiah. Jesus, the singular “seed” of Genesis 22:18, is of the line of David, of the tribe of Judah, and is destined to eternally inherit David’s throne. As Luke wrote, “of this man’s [David’s] seed has God according to His promise [to both Abraham and David] raised up to Israel a Savior, Jesus” (Acts 13:23)—who will establish God’s kingdom at His second coming (Dan. 2:44; Rev. 11:15). Moreover, Jeremiah writes that God will raise up David himself to once again rule over Israel in the age to come (Jer. 30:9). In the end, this is how God will fulfill His promise to David that his throne and kingdom over Israel will be established forever.

But meanwhile, where is David’s throne? How has it been preserved, active in all generations? And why has no king ever reigned in Judah since the Jews’ return from Babylon?

The Davidic Throne Ends—in Judah

Just prior to the destruction of Jerusalem, the final Davidic king of the nation of Judah, Zedekiah, was taken captive by Nebuchadnezzar; his sons—and all the nobles and princes of Judah—were killed before his eyes. Zedekiah was then taken to Babylon where he died in captivity (Jer. 39:5-7; 52:10-11). His nephew, Jechoniah, who had been king earlier, was also taken to Babylon where he lived out his life in relative comfort. Jechoniah had several living sons—any one of whom could have been used to preserve the royal line. But Jechoniah was under a God-ordained curse stating that none of his seed would ever sit on David’s throne. “Thus says the LORD, ‘Write this man [Jechoniah] down as [if he were] childless, a man who will not be blessed in his days. For no man of his seed shall be blessed, sitting on the throne of David and ruling any more in Judah” (Jer. 22:30).

Thus, as the last surviving Davidic king, Jechoniah could provide no heir to the throne; and all of Zedekiah’s sons were dead—leaving no apparent heir to the throne. The royal line established through Solomon appeared to be cut off—and the “throne” thus brought to an end.[11]

But as we will see, God’s promises to both Abraham and David are sure, for the royal lineage and the throne have been preserved—but not in Judah! It is most interesting that following the Jews’ return from Babylon, no royal king has ruled in Judah—even to today. Zerubbabel, who was of Jechoniah’s “cursed” line, served only as governor—not king (Hag. 1:1).

Why was the Davidic royal lineage not restored in Judah? The Aaronic priesthood was restored with a new temple—but why not the kingly line, the throne?

The answer involves a key prophecy in the book of Ezekiel, chapter 21, where God warns of the protracted suspension of the Davidic throne in Judah. The prophecy also affirms that David’s throne will yet be fully restored in Judah when it is finally claimed by its rightful heir, the Messiah. The passage begins with God’s judgment on King Zedekiah:

“And you, O wicked and profane prince of Israel [Zedekiah], whose day has come, whose iniquity shall have an end. Thus says the Lord GOD, ‘Remove the diadem, and take off the crown. This shall not be as it was. Exalt the low one, and abase the high one. I will overturn, overturn, overturn it. Also this shall not be until the coming of Him whose right it is. And I will give it to Him’ ” (verses 25-27).

This passage is fundamental to our understanding of this subject; thus, it is incumbent upon us to consider it carefully. Unfortunately, most Bible translations grossly distort its meaning—which has led to considerable misinterpretation. (For a detailed explanation of this passage—including how it has been misused by those who teach on “British Israelism” and the origins of the Anglo-American nations—please refer to Appendix 4.)

When properly rendered, the intended meaning of this passage is quite straightforward. As always, establishing the context is the key. Here, the context is set by verse 26—i.e., that everything was about to change. The overall purpose of the passage is to proclaim that the “throne” of David was coming to an end in the land of Judah—and would only be returned when it was to be claimed by the Messiah.

The prophet begins by stating that Zedekiah’s wicked rule was fast coming to an end—emphasized by God’s command to remove the diadem (probably a kingly turban) and the crown. The next statement is key and has the meaning that “things will not remain as they have been.” Unprecedented change was coming; things were going to be turned “upside-down.” The ensuing upheaval would result in the abasement of what had been lofty or high, and the exalting of what had been lowly or humbled.

Verse 27, when properly rendered, emphasizes the severity of the change coming. Essentially, God is saying that He is going to subvert or overthrow (some translations use ruin) the throne in such a manner as had never happened in the history of Judah (the Hebrew root actually means to pervert something). This subverted state would continue until the throne was delivered to its ultimate heir, the Messiah.

To be sure, this passage does not suggest the destruction or utter demise of the Davidic throne; rather, its harsh tone—using repetition for intensity—is intended to emphasize the gravity of the situation: what was about to happen to the throne was a tragic departure from what God had intended for David and the nation of Judah. Indeed, verse 26 indicates that “everything was going to change”—and verse 27 shows that it would be unprecedented in nature. What was to change? Astonishingly, the “throne” itself was to go into an extended “exile”—outside of Judah!

That the throne of David should no longer exist in the land of Judah was almost incomprehensible. But this is precisely why there has never been a king in Judah since the Jews returned from Babylon. There would be an extended suspension of the Davidic throne in Judah—something unheard of. As we will see in related passages, the “throne” would be reestablished in another location for preservation—and where it would actively rule over a portion of the House of Israel.

Below is a paraphrased rendering that accurately captures the intent of Ezekiel’s prophecy (for details on the Hebrew text, see Appendix 4).

“Remove the turban and the crown from Zedekiah! From this time on, nothing will remain the same! I will exalt that which has been humbled, and abase that which was exalted. As for the throne, I will make it a ruin, tarnished, disgraced— indeed, such has never occurred!—until He comes Who has the right to it; then I will give it to Him.”

In turning everything “upside down,” God would abase that which was previously exalted. Who, what had been exalted? The nation of Judah and its royal elite! Now, because of the grievous sins of the people and their leaders, the Jews were being sent into exile; the temple would be destroyed; and the Davidic throne would be removed from the land—but only until the Messiah should come to claim it. Only then would it be returned to Jerusalem.

The final clause of Ezekiel’s prophecy—“until He comes to whom it rightfully belongs; to Him I will give it” (NIV)—is clearly messianic and reminiscent of Genesis 49: “The scepter [or throne] shall not depart from [the tribe of] Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until He comes to whom it [the throne] belongs; and to Him shall be the obedience of the nations” (verse 10; alternate rendering). Thus, the “throne” would be removed from the land of Judah for safekeeping—but would never be removed from the tribe of Judah.

God would also exalt that which had been abased. Who, what had been previously humbled, abased? The “lost” tribes of the House of Israel! Judah had been exalted not only because they possessed Jerusalem and the temple, but because David’s throne ruled over the nation. But what of the northern nation of Israel? Jerusalem fell in 586 BC, a mere 130 years or so after the fall of Samaria. By this time, the “lost” tribes were migrating into areas around the Black Sea. It was just as the prophet Hosea had said—“the children of Israel shall live many days with no king, and no ruler” (Hosea 3:4). Thus, the “lost” tribes of Israel were humbled through their captivity, abased as a scattered people, unable to unite under a single king or leader.

But according to Ezekiel, God was about to reverse the positions— and in terms of world history, the consequences would be far reaching and nothing short of astonishing. Judah was to be abased in losing her king and throne—never again to be reestablished in this age. “Lost” Israel, however, was to be exalted—as its Judaic ruling line, having long been established in Ireland, would be joined to a remnant of the Davidic royal line transferred from the land of Judah.

As previously brought out, the tribe of Dan had colonized the British Isles as far back as Solomon’s time (or much earlier). Moreover, as we will see in the next chapter, Danite excursions—by way of Greece—to the Isles led to the establishment in Ireland of certain “royal” members of the tribe of Judah. It was among these Jewish nobles that the “throne” of David was to find a new home. Thus, these “lost” Israelites would be exalted by becoming the new guardians of the Davidic throne, transferred to the British Isles.

The Riddle of the “Tender Twig”

Another prophecy in the book of Ezekiel sheds light on how God would preserve the Davidic throne in this new location. Given in the form of a “riddle,” the prophet explains how Nebuchadnezzar—described as a “great eagle”—came against Jerusalem and “broke off” the “young twigs” of the “highest branch” of a “cedar” (Ezek. 17:3-4; 12). This, of course, refers to the youthful King Jechoniah, who was taken as a prisoner to Babylon; the great “cedar” represents the royal lineage established through Solomon. The Babylonian king also took of the “seedlings of the land”—referring to Zedekiah, who was of the Davidic line (verses 5 and 13). As a vassal king, Nebuchadnezzar placed Zedekiah on the throne in place of Jechoniah. (Notice verse 14, which states that Nebuchadnezzar was to abase Judah— just as brought out in Ezekiel 21:26, where God said He would “abase that which had been exalted.”)

As the story goes, Zedekiah rebelled against Nebuchadnezzar in looking to Egypt for help (verses 15-18). Yet it was God’s will for Zedekiah and the Jews to submit to Babylon; his rebellion against Nebuchadnezzar was tantamount to rebellion against God (verses 19-21).

In light of Zedekiah’s demise, God then declares that He will do just what Nebuchadnezzar had done—He too would take a “tender twig” from the same “lofty cedar” and plant or establish it. “Thus says the Lord GOD, ‘I, even I, will also take of the top of the highest cedar and will set it; I will crop off from the topmost of its young twigs a tender one, and will plant it on a high and lofty mountain. In the mountain of the height of Israel, I will plant it…” (verses 22-23).

Nebuchadnezzar took the topmost young twigs of the cedar—took Jechoniah and all the princes of Judah, the “top” of the royal line (he also later took Zedekiah). Similarly, God Himself would take from the “top of the cedar”—from among the royal family—a tender one. The Tanakh reads, “I will pluck a tender twig from the tip” of the cedar.

Who could this “tender one” be? Zedekiah, his sons, and the royal princes were all dead—and Jechoniah’s line was accursed. Bible scholars make the assumption that this passage is messianic—that the “tender one” refers to Jesus, the “Branch” of David (Jer. 33:15; Isa. 53:2; etc.), who is to inherit David’s throne as His kingdom is established on the “high mountain” of Zion in the age to come.

This would make good sense—except for three reasons: First, this approach essentially means that the throne was destroyed with Zedekiah’s demise—yet God has promised that the Davidic throne would be active in all generations. Secondly, from a contextual point of view, God’s actions appear to be mostly concurrent with Nebuchadnezzar’s actions. Therefore, the “plucking” of both the “young twigs” and the “tender one” would have to take place at about the same time—not separated by centuries.

Third, in order for Jesus to be the “tender twig” taken by God from the “cedar,” He would first have to be of that “cedar”—of that royal line. But Jesus was not of the royal line established through Solomon. He cannot be the “tender one.” Jesus was born of Mary, who was a descendant of one of David’s more obscure sons—Nathan (Luke 3:31). Remember, because of sin, the royal dynasty established through Solomon could not be perpetual. Jesus’ blood-line right to the throne comes through Nathan. Solomon’s royal line will end when Jesus assumes the throne.[12]

Again, who could this “tender one” be? If Ezekiel’s “riddle” is not a messianic prophecy—and if all of the potential heirs to the throne were dead or rendered disqualified—what would become of David’s throne? Of this “tender twig,” God said He would “plant it on a high and lofty mountain. In the mountain of the height of Israel, I will plant it.” This certainly suggests the idea of royalty—of governance over a people.

Where and how has this been fulfilled?

God continues: “And it shall bring forth boughs, and bear fruit, and [become] a majestic cedar [a new dynasty]. And under it shall dwell birds of every kind; in the shadow of its branches they shall dwell. And all the trees of the field shall know that I the LORD have brought down the high tree, have exalted the low tree, have dried up the green tree, and have made the dry tree to flourish. I the LORD have spoken it and have done it” (Ezek. 17:23-24).

Notice how the wording here parallels that of Ezekiel 21, where God said He would “exalt the low one, and abase the high one” (verse 26). It is apparent that the two prophecies are interrelated—for they both deal with the demise of the Davidic throne in Judah and its subsequent relocation elsewhere for preservation. Judah was the “high tree” and Israel the “low tree.” As well, Judah had been a “green tree”—fruitful with Davidic royalty—while Israel had been a “dry tree” throughout that period.

But in order to make this monumental change, God needed an heir of Solomon’s line—or, perhaps, an heiress would do?

CHAPTER 11 NOTES

1. As an expression of perpetuity, it is also noted that God “gave the kingdom over Israel to David forever, to him and to his sons, by a covenant of salt” (II Chron. 13:5).

2. In II Kings 25:25, Elishama, a son of David (II Sam. 5:16), and his descendants are noted as “royal seed.” Thus, “royal status” was not limited to those of Solomon’s line. (See Note 11 below.)

3. Importantly, the kingdom over which David and Solomon reigned was a united kingdom; likewise, in Jesus’ millennial reign, the reestablished Kingdom of Israel will be reunited (Ezek. 37:15-28), forming the basis for the world-encompassing Kingdom of God. As the Davidic Messiah, Jesus must rule over all of Israel from the original place of David’s throne— Jerusalem (Psa. 132:13, 17; Isa. 2:3; Luke 1:32-33). Moreover, speaking to David, God said his kingdom would be “made sure forever before you”— that is, in David’s presence (II Sam. 7:16). This makes the promise ultimately millennial—for Ezekiel 37:24 shows that a resurrected David will once again rule as king over Israel (under the Messiah).

4. Still, while both lineages have been preserved, Judah has never been the same after its fall to Babylon. Even to today, the Jews have never been ruled over by a Davidic king; other than an occasional Jewish “governor,” the nation has been almost exclusively subjected to Gentile rulers. As for the temple, it has functioned “normally” for only brief periods and has often been subjected to the whims of Gentile rulers. Today, the “throne” of David remains in “exile” and the Temple Mount has stood bare for almost two millennia. Jews, of course, believe the Davidic throne came to an end with the fall of Jerusalem to Babylon.

5. Some see the “two families” as Judah and Israel—but Judah is of Israel. Others argue (based on verse 26) that the reference is to Jacob and David— but David’s line is of Jacob, not separate. Clearly, the context shows that the reference is to the distinct family lines of David and Aaron.

6. Just how bewildering is this passage? The author has read and studied scores of books and papers on this subject. All of them quote Jeremiah 33:17—but only two dare to even quote verse 18! In their uncertainty, they cannot explain verse 18—so they just ignore it. The two that do quote the verse give it a vague “church” application.

7. Tanakh—The Holy Scriptures, Jewish Publication Society (1985)

8. David H. Stern, Complete Jewish Bible (1998)

9. Psalm 89 continues in verse 38 with a negative lament that seems to suggest that God had reneged on His promise to David. Keep in mind, however, that God’s word is sure, and that He cannot lie (Titus 1:2). The key to this enigmatic passage (verses 38-52) is found back in Jeremiah 33. Paraphrased, verse 24 begins with God asking, “Have you, Jeremiah, not noticed what these people are saying?” The Jews were convinced that they were about to witness the end of both the Davidic and Aaronic lines. Thus, the lament found in Psalm 89 reflects the pessimistic mindset of the people—not God or Jeremiah. Some researchers believe that this passage was written by Jeremiah shortly after the fall of Jerusalem and was later added to the psalm. If so, Jeremiah was simply documenting the unfortunate perspective taken by many of the Jews at the time. Another possibility is that an unknown Levitical psalmist wrote the passage after the Jews returned from Babylon. As a lament, his intent was apparently to rehearse the history of the loss of the throne.

10. The third vacancy occurred when King Charles I of England—a descendant of David through the ancient Scottish and Irish royal lines—was beheaded in 1649 as a consequence of the English Civil War between royalists and parliamentarians. During the interim, Oliver Cromwell was appointed by parliament as “Lord Protector of the Commonwealth”—effectively ruling over England, Scotland, and Ireland. In 1660, after royalists regained control of the nation, the king’s son, Charles II, was restored to the British throne.

11. As brought out in II Kings 25:25 (and Jer. 41:1), other Davidic “royal seed” survived. But keep in mind that God originally established David’s throne through Solomon (II Sam. 7:12-16; etc.). Indeed, all of the kings of Judah were of Solomon’s line—a reality never challenged by any of David’s other sons. Unless God brought Solomon’s dynasty to an end, no other Davidic seed was eligible to assume the throne. (See Note 2 above.)

12. Interestingly, Jesus’ adoptive father, Joseph, was of the cursed line of Jechoniah. Had Joseph been Jesus’ biological father, Jesus would be disqualified from the throne—because of the curse placed on Jechoniah. But Joseph no doubt adopted Jesus (see Luke 2:48), which would have circumvented the effect of the curse. Thus, in addition to His blood-line rights through Nathan, Jesus also had a legal right under Hebrew law to the throne established under Solomon (see Appendix 3).

CHAPTER TWELVE

The Prophet Jeremiah’s Mysterious Royal Commission

Who, then, is the “tender one” of Ezekiel’s riddle? The answer, in part, lies with a mysterious commission given to the prophet Jeremiah. In the opening verses of the book that bears his name, we read that Jeremiah was to be used by God in a peculiar way: “See, I have this day set you over the nations and over the kingdoms, to root out, and to pull down, and to destroy, and to throw down”—all negative terms, to be sure. But he was also “to build, and to plant” (Jer. 1:10; compare 18:9; 24:6; 31:28; 32:41; 42:10). Recall that God said He Himself would plant a “tender one.” Would He use Jeremiah to accomplish this “planting”?

Commentaries are at a loss to explain just how or when Jeremiah did this pulling down and building or planting. They simplistically link this aspect of his role to “prophetic pronouncements” concerning the rise or fall of nations. While this may be applicable, certainly more is implied. As the passages listed above show, God did indeed “pluck up” and “plant” nations or peoples. But what was Jeremiah’s role in this regard?

Shortly after the fall of Jerusalem and Zedekiah’s death, we find that Jeremiah was released from prison and dwelled among a small remnant still in the land of Judea (Jer. 39:14; 40:6). The group was under the appointed governorship of Gedaliah, who was subsequently murdered by a fellow military leader named Ishmael (Jer. 41:2). Ishmael apparently rejected the political arrangement. In verse 10 we read that Ishmael and his band took the entire remnant as prisoners. Notice who is particularly mentioned as being among the group: “Then Ishmael took captive all the rest of the people … even the king’s daughters”—Zedekiah’s daughters!

According to the account, a Jewish military captain named Johanan rescued the captives. But fearing retaliation from the Babylonians for the murder of Gedaliah, Johanan set out with the remnant for Egypt (Jer. 41:11-18). This was in direct violation of God’s instructions through Jeremiah to stay in the land and not fear the Babylonians (Jer. 42). Apparently, Johanan took the group by force into Egypt. “But Johanan … took all the remnant of Judah … men, and women, and children, and the king’s daughters … and Jeremiah the prophet, and Baruch…. So they came into the land of Egypt, for they did not obey the voice of the LORD. So they came to Tahpanhes” (Jer. 43:5-7). Note that this was Johanan’s disobedience, not Jeremiah’s.

Thus, Jeremiah, along with his faithful scribe Baruch (Jer. 36; etc.), accompanied the kings daughters into Egypt. Zedekiah was only 32 when he was taken to Babylon (II Chron. 36:11), so his daughters would have been relatively young, certainly in their early teens. History records their names as Scota and Tamar Tephi. Jeremiah was no doubt acting as guardian for the young princesses.

Remember, Jechoniah’s line had been fully disqualified from ever inheriting the Davidic throne, and Zedekiah’s sons had all been killed. The term “tender one”—as used in Ezekiel’s riddle—certainly implies a young female. Could one of Zedekiah’s daughters be used to perpetuate the throne? Would this be at all legal?

According to Hebrew law, a man could pass the family inheritance on to a daughter if he had no son (Num. 27:8). Certainly this would apply even to the throne. Athaliah, wife of King Jehoram of Judah, took the throne by treachery; nevertheless, her brief reign was not challenged because she was female (II Kings 11:1-3). The promise in Jeremiah 33:17—that David would never lack a man to sit on his throne—must not be taken to exclude women. While the Hebrew word ish is used throughout the Old Testament to designate a male, the term is used frequently of humans in general (Job 14:12; 15:16; 34:21; Psa. 39:11; 78:25; etc.). Moreover, the legitimacy of the maternal line is clearly upheld in the fact that Jesus’ only blood link back to David is through his mother, Mary.

It appears that Nebuchadnezzar’s desire was to destroy the dynasty established under Solomon and permanently end the succession of Jewish kings. But the Babylonian king may have been completely unaware of Zedekiah’s daughters; at the very least, he was apparently unfamiliar with Hebrew law—specifically that a princess could inherit the throne if there were no male heirs. There was, however, one stipulation: the heiress had to marry within the royal tribe, the tribe of Judah, if she was to retain the inheritance (see Numbers 36:6-7 for the precedent). Thus, Zedekiah’s daughters had every right to the throne of their father—as long as they married someone from the tribe of Judah.

The story of Jeremiah and Zedekiah’s daughters ends with them still in Egypt—at least as far as the Bible goes. We are left to speculate—based on historical accounts, the prophecies of Ezekiel, the promises concerning David’s throne, and the “mysterious commission” given to Jeremiah—as to what happened next.

Why does Scripture—in light of the demise of Jerusalem and the nation of Judah, the temple, and (apparently) the Davidic throne— mention twice that Zedekiah’s daughters had survived? And why were they apparently under the guardianship of Jeremiah the prophet? What was Jeremiah to do with the king’s daughters? Was one of Zedekiah’s young daughters the “tender one” of Ezekiel, taken from the “tall cedar”—the royal dynasty established under Solomon—and planted by Jeremiah in another land? Would she ultimately marry into a long-established Jewish ruling line, thus preserving the throne of David so that it could continue to rule over some part of the seed of Abraham?

The overriding point to keep in mind is that God’s promises never fail. He has promised that David’s throne would remain active throughout all generations; thus, as that throne was ejected from the land of Judah, it must have been reestablished in a land where descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were well settled.

Davidic Throne Planted in Ireland

From a biblical perspective, the story of Jeremiah, Baruch and the king’s daughters ends on a positive note. God had previously warned the Judaic remnant against going to Egypt. Later, He explicitly declared that the entire group would ultimately die in Egypt—“except those who escape” (Jer. 44:12-14). Obviously, Jeremiah and his party were not in rebellion against God; thus, there is no doubt that they escaped God’s final judgment on the Jewish remnant. Verse 28 indicates that a small number of them did, in fact, escape Egypt and return to Palestine.

But where did Jeremiah, Baruch and the king’s daughters go? It is likely that Nebuchadnezzar had not known about Zedekiah’s daughters or he would have killed them as well. But by this time, he no doubt knew. He would also have been informed that Jeremiah’s party had found sanctuary with his enemy, Pharaoh Hophra. And Jeremiah, who had previously been shown great favor by the Babylonians, would now be certainly counted as an enemy of Nebuchadnezzar. Thus, Jeremiah and the royal daughters could not return to Judea—nor would it be safe to settle among the Jewish exiles scattered in Babylon.

But as we will see, Jeremiah’s “mysterious commission” was to take him and his royal party elsewhere, for he was to plant one of Zedekiah’s daughters in a land already well populated by Israelites—the British Isles! As you will recall from Chapter 9, Danite and Phoenician traders had explored and colonized the Isles back in the time of Solomon. In fact, it is probable that Danites had already settled the Isles back in the time of Israel’s Judges, as the tribe is criticized by Deborah—who governed Israel some 200 years before David—for being “away at sea” during a protracted local conflict (Judges 5:17). Later, just prior to the fall of Samaria in about 722 BC, many more Danites—and Israelites from other tribes—set out by sea to avoid the Assyrian captivity. Naturally, they would have settled in areas already dominated by Israelites—the Iberian Peninsula and the British Isles.

Some of the earliest Danite settlements in the Isles were in Ireland. As these colonies became more developed, ruling clans of Danite kings arose. Eventually, however, these kings were superseded in Ireland by a Milesian line of kings made up of royalty from the Jewish line of Zarah (I Chron. 2:4, 6). As will be brought out below, this royal line developed when Danite and Judah-Zarahite refugees settled parts of ancient Greece prior to Israel’s enslavement while in Egypt. This Milesian line eventually made its way to Ireland. Jeremiah’s mission was to join the Davidic throne to the “Irish” throne through the marriage of Tephi, Zedekiah’s daughter, to an heir of the Milesian line—a prince named Eochaidh. This is how Jeremiah was to plant a “tender one” in what would eventually become a “high mountain”—the Israelite birthright kingdom of Great Britain.

From this point we must look to the historical writings of ancient Ireland, which reveal that Jeremiah did indeed travel, via Spain (Iberia), to the Isles with his scribe, Baruch, and a certain princess Tephi. While the following account is summarized from authenticated histories rather than mere legends, it is important to realize that, as with any ancient narrative, a certain amount of contradiction is to be expected.

The Irish are known for their dedication to recording their national history, which has been illustratively handed down in songs, poems, tales and legends. As such, Irish historical figures have often been endowed with almost magical powers, and actual events have at times been obscured by embellishment as they were told and retold by Celtic bards. As the Isles entered the Christian era, Irish history was first written down by monks, who compiled the stories into rare manuscripts. But adding their own “spin” to the tales, these clerics often made the accounts more confusing. Still, experts in Irish history have been able to establish certain common story lines among the hundreds of ancient legends.[1]

As concerns Jeremiah and princess Tephi, their arrival in the Isles is well documented in the annals of Irish history; however, the accounts differ, sometimes widely. Archeologist E. Raymond Capt has concisely described Jeremiah’s “planting” of the Davidic throne in Ireland. According to Capt, Irish records tell of a particular ship of the “Iberian Danaan” coming to Ireland in about the year 583 BC—a mere three years after the fall of Jerusalem (this date varies somewhat in other accounts). The ship was of Danaan origin, meaning it was linked to a particular group of Danites who had earlier settled in Greece. It came to Ireland by way of Iberia—Spain. As the ship approached the northeast coast of Ireland, it ran aground near the area known today as Carrickfergus. Though the stories vary, it is clear as to the ship’s passengers: an aged Hebrew patriarch called Ollam Fodhla, his attendant named Brach (or Breack, Barech, Berach, as it is variously spelled in the legends), and “an eastern king’s daughter” called Tephi.[2]

Irish tradition asserts that Ollam Fodhla was the prophet Jeremiah (appropriately, the name means honored prophet). Baruch, his scribe, can clearly be identified from the variations of his name listed above. The royal princess Tephi is identified in the archives as the daughter and heiress of King Zedekiah; her sister, Scota, is said to have remained behind in Spain (Jeremiah and his party apparently spent several months in Iberia). As John Fox writes in his classic book The World’s Greatest Throne, the various records include “an account of the marriage between the royal princess and Eochaidh the Heremon, or King of Ireland, giving the princess’ name as Tamar Tephi….” Heremon means chief and was a title used of kings. Eochaidh is traced in early Irish records as having descended from the patriarch Judah, through the Zarah line.[3]

In his Lost Tribes of Israel Study Maps, researcher Daniel Walsh relates information taken from the 1886 work The Book of Tephi. J. A. Goodchild wrote the book—which takes the form of a 3,000-line poem— after spending years studying Irish legends. “The poem records the journey of Tea Tephi, Jeremiah and Baruch from the House of Judah to the ‘Isles of the West.’ The Isles are known as a home for the remnant from the tribe of Dan. The group left Tahpanhes and the Nile Delta aboard a [Hebrew] ship from Tarshish [Iberia]. The ship’s pilot was a Danite.”[4]

Based on Goodchild’s poem, Walsh goes on to outline the journey: from Egypt the Danite ship stopped at Carthage, then Rome; the group then sailed to southern Iberia (Carteia, in the area of Gibraltar) where they stayed about five months; from there they made a brief stop at Tarshish (Tartessus) before going on to Cornwall, in southern England. A few weeks later, the party made the short trip up the coast to eastern Ireland. Irish chieftains convened soon afterwards to confirm Eochaidh as Ard-Righ—High King of Ireland. Princess Tephi was also confirmed as Queen and a royal marriage was soon arranged. The poem also brings out that Eochaidh’s coronation was conducted over a unique stone brought to Ireland by Jeremiah—called Lia Fail (“Wonderful Stone”) by the Irish. This stone is apparently “Jacob’s pillar” from Scripture, and has been utilized in the coronation of all the kings of Ireland, Scotland, and England who are traced back to Eochaidh (see Appendix 5).

Concerning Eochaidh, Walsh writes: “One of Ireland’s rulers was a man named Eochaidh Heremon. Eochaidh is Irish for the Greek name Achaios, and the term Heremon is a title meaning Chief of the Landsmen, a king. He was a Milesian living among the Tuatha de Danann…. His genealogy traces back to Chalcol [I Chron. 2:6; I Kings 4:31], the Zarahite founder of Athens, who is said to have planted a royal dynasty in Ulster [Northern Ireland].” [5]

Thus Tephi, heiress to the Davidic throne, married into an existing Jewish royal line which had been ruling for some time over Israelites settled in Ireland. As the newly crowned Queen of Ireland, Tephi brought the very authority of the throne of David to Eochaidh’s reign. According to tradition, Eochaidh’s coronation took place in about 580 BC—six years after the fall of Jerusalem. Ultimately, through their offspring, the “tender twig” would become a “majestic cedar” (Ezek. 17:22-23)—a new royal dynasty in its own right—through which the Davidic throne would be perpetuated. Thus, in keeping with God’s sure promises, David’s throne has remained active— ruling over Israel in all generations.

Healing an Ancient Family Breach

The union of Tephi and Eochaidh not only established a new dynasty over Israelite Ireland, it also resolved an ancient breach or division in the tribal family of Judah. This breach, which took place shortly before Jacob relocated his family to Egypt, resulted from the unusual circumstances surrounding the birth of Judah’s and Tamar’s twins, Zarah and Pharez.

As we see from the story in Genesis 38, Judah had arranged for his son, Er, to marry Tamar. But before they could have children, God killed Er for his wickedness. As was the custom, it fell to Er’s brother, Onan, to “raise up seed” for his dead brother. But Onan refused and was also killed by God. The duty then fell to Judah’s youngest son, Shelah, who was too young at the time. So Tamar lived as a widow at her father’s house while waiting for Shelah to come of age.

As time went by, Judah’s wife died and Shelah came of age. But for some reason, Tamar was not given to Shelah. Becoming impatient, Tamar decided to take matters into her own hands. Determined to have a child, Tamar disguised herself as a prostitute in order to seduce Judah, her fatherin- law. Tamar became pregnant and was subsequently sentenced by Judah to die for harlotry. Thus, Tamar was forced to reveal that Judah was in fact the father—a move that saved her life.

When the time came for Tamar to give birth, her midwife discovered she was carrying twins. Surprisingly, one of the infants put forth its hand, to which the midwife promptly tied a red string, saying, “This one came out first.” Assuming that it would be born first, the midwife was simply trying to keep track of which baby was the firstborn. But the child withdrew its hand and the other baby was born first. To this unexpected turn of events, the midwife declared, “What a breach you have made for yourself!”—or, “This breach be upon you!” (verse 29). Fittingly, this male child was named Pharez, meaning breach. His twin brother who had put forth his hand was named Zarah, meaning dawn—a name that suggests he came first. One must wonder why this story is included in Scripture, for this breach is never again mentioned. What purpose could there be to these remarkable events?

The unusual circumstances surrounding the twins’ birth no doubt caused some controversy as to which child was truly the firstborn. At stake were the rights of the firstborn, a prominent aspect of Hebrew culture. The twins were born a short time prior to Jacob relocating his family to Egypt. Once in Egypt, it would be another 17 years or so before Jacob would give his prophecy of Genesis 49. Thus, when the boys were born, it was not yet known that Judah’s offspring would inherit rights of royalty (Gen. 49:10). Because of this unique inheritance—the rights of royal lineage—the Pharez- Zarah controversy became paramount. Royal lineage was at stake.

While the biblical accounts of Judah’s genealogy list Pharez first, the fact that Pharez was blamed for (and even named for) this breach implies the development of a significant brotherly rivalry. There is no doubt that Zarah and his subsequent Zarahite line believed that they had been deprived of the firstborn position—and the right to rule over Israel. This family breach, however, would be resolved through the royal marriage of Eochaidh and Tephi.

Zarahite Migrations Prior to the Exodus

By the time Pharez and Zarah were born, Joseph had already been in Egypt for some 20 years. Shortly after the seven-year famine began, Joseph relocated his father and all of his family to Egypt. Another 70 or so years would pass before Joseph died. Scripture is silent concerning the transitional years following Joseph’s death—except for this one note: “And there arose a new king [Pharaoh] over Egypt who did not know Joseph” (Ex. 1:8).

Much is implied in this ominous statement. Joseph and the Israelites were held in high regard—after all, they had been given Goshen, the most fertile region of the Nile Delta. Accordingly, we must not imagine that with Joseph’s passing there was a sudden end to the substantial Israelite influence in the land. Who ruled as “governor” of Egypt after Joseph’s death? Since all Israel understood that the scepter belonged to the tribe of Judah, we can make the assumption that Judah’s descendants ruled not only over Israel while in Egypt, but also likely served as governors under Pharaoh.[6] But who specifically ruled in Joseph’s place? And how long did this unique political arrangement continue?

We read in I Chronicles 2:5 that Pharez had two sons, Hezron and Hamul. Other than appearing in genealogical listings, nothing noteworthy is ever said about either son. Since Pharez was the “accepted” firstborn of Judah, we might assume that his sons ruled in Joseph’s place. But perhaps not. We also read that Zarah had five sons (verse 6). Three of them were noteworthy: Heman, Calcol, and Dara.

In I Kings 4:31, Solomon’s extraordinary wisdom is compared to the wisdom demonstrated by other celebrated leaders—Heman, Chalcol, and Darda, the “sons of Mahol.” (It is generally accepted that Chalcol is a later variation of Calcol and that Darda is a later variation of Dara.) But how are these three brothers the sons of Mahol—were they not sons of Zarah? Several commentaries note that Mahol is not a proper name as such, but an appellation describing particular characteristics or skills common to these men. Adam Clarke, for example, writes that the term signifies dance or music—that a “son of Mahol” was a person particularly skilled in music.[7]

But why would Solomon be compared to these three Zarahites who predated him by centuries? Why would they be noted for great wisdom unless they, like Solomon, were great leaders—perhaps governors—in their own day? If so, when did these sons of Zarah rule? Could it be that they ruled as governors in place of Joseph—over Israel and perhaps Egypt—well prior to the children of Israel becoming enslaved to the Egyptians?

At any rate, this Zarahite “dynasty” was apparently well respected by both Israelite and Egyptian—for a time, perhaps as long as one hundred years (at least two generations would need to pass in order for a pharaoh to arise who had no knowledge of Joseph). But the Israelites eventually fell out of favor with the Egyptians, who saw them more and more as foreign usurpers of power. It was only natural that there would be a gradual loss of the loyalty that was originally tied to Joseph. In time, the Egyptians would indeed ask, Who was this Joseph?

Thus, the untimely collapse of Zarahite rule in Egypt is suggested in this simple statement found in Exodus 1:8. Soon the Israelites were no longer welcome in Egypt—and were no doubt greatly persecuted. And as we know from Scripture, this eventually led to slavery. As circumstances went from bad to worse, it appears that the wealthy and powerful Israelites fled Egypt by ship. Given the fact of the Danites’ later proclivity for seamanship, it is likely that they were already exploring the Mediterranean. The ruling “aristocratic” Zarahites would have also left Egypt before the situation reached a crisis point.[8] The unprivileged masses were left behind to go into slavery—and ultimately be delivered under Moses. Later, in the Promised Land, the Pharez line would inherit the throne over the Kingdom of Israel starting with King David. (Of course, another possibility is that the Pharez line actually ruled in Egypt, which prompted the disenfranchised Zarahites to abandon Egypt by sea.)

While all of this may sound a bit too speculative, history does support this scenario. For example, the Greek historian Diodorus Siculus (c. 80-20 BC) tells of several Israelite flights from Egypt at this very time— most notably into Greece—under two key Israelite leaders, Danaus and Cadmus. Quoting Diodorus, Walsh writes that the Egyptians claimed that a large number of colonies were “spread from Egypt over all the inhabited world” and that exiles led by Danaus “settled what is practically the oldest city of Greece, Argos.” According to Walsh, other ancient sources verify that Danaus captured and developed Argos, known originally as Danaidae. Ancient Greek literature refers to these “Egyptian” pioneers as Danaans (Danaidae, Danai), noting that they spread throughout much of what is today known as Greece—reaching as far as Macedonia (which retains Dan’s name). Danaus was obviously of the tribe of Dan. (Other Danites, of course, went into slavery in Egypt. Later, under Moses and Joshua, these Danites were not surprisingly given a coastal territory in Palestine favoring their love of sea travel.) At some point, perhaps before Solomon’s time, Ireland was settled by some of these same “Greek” Israelites—known as the Tuatha de Danann, the tribe of Dan—whose ancestors had fled Egypt.[9]

But what became of the royal Zarahites who abandoned Egypt? History shows that the Greek city of Athens was founded by the legendary Cecrops. Diodorus wrote that Athens was settled by colonists from Sais, Egypt, located in the Nile Delta. Was Cecrops an Israelite? Walsh notes that “some scholars maintain that Cecrops is none other that Chalcol of the Zarah branch of Judah.” He adds: “Like their Phoenician counterparts, the seafaring Danites and Zarahites spread [Israelite] colonies throughout the Mediterranean. It is even said that Chalcol planted a royal dynasty of Irish kings in Ulster. Indeed, the ancient Greeks spoke highly of the Irish…. Diodorus says that the [Irish] ‘are most friendly disposed toward the Greeks, especially towards the Athenians.’ ”[10]

Chalcol’s brother, Darda, is said to have founded the city of Troy. The first Trojan king was Dardanus, undoubtedly a variation of Darda, from whom the Dardanelle strait obviously derives its name. Capt writes that “the descendants of Darda ruled ancient Troy for some one hundred years.” He adds that a Zarahite descendant, Brutus, migrated to Britain—to what they called the “great white island” due to its massive chalk cliffs—and established New Troy, later called London as a variation of the Roman Londinium.[11]

Concerning Zarahite expansion to the west, Capt writes: “Historical records tell of the westward migration of the descendants of Chalcol along the shores of the Mediterranean Sea establishing Iberian (Hebrew) trading settlements. One settlement, now called Saragossa, in the Ebro [like Iber, Ebro is short for Hebrew] Valley in Spain, was originally known as Zara-gassa, meaning the Stronghold of Zarah.” Back to the east is the Italian island known as Sardinia, which retains elements of both Zarah and Dan in its name—Zar-Din-ia.[12]

Capt continues: “From Spain they continued westward as far as Ireland. The Iberians gave their name to Ireland, calling the island Iberne … which was subsequently Latinized to Hibernia, a name that still adheres to Ireland….[13] Many historical records point to Israel’s presence (particularly Dan and Judah) in Ireland at a very early date…. Writers such as Petanius and Hecatoeus … speak of the Danai as being Hebrew people, originally from Egypt, who colonized Ireland.” He adds that in Moore’s History of Ireland it states that “the ancient Irish, called the Danai or Danes, separated from Israel around the time of [actually well prior to] the Exodus from Egypt, crossed to Greece, and then [later] invaded Ireland.”[14]

A Zarahite-Milesian Royal Line

History indicates that the Athenians—whose Jewish founders were Zarahites via Chalcol—took the Greek city of Miletus around 1000 BC. Thus, those known in history as Milesians are actually Judah-Zarahites. As noted earlier, Chalcol is credited with planting a Zarahite dynasty in Ireland. Precisely when this took place is not clear; the most likely scenario is that one of Chalcol’s descendants, a Milesian bearing the Chalcol family name, established a royal dynasty in Ulster some years after the Zarahites settled Miletus. Their Danite brothers had already begun to settle Ireland, going back to the time of the Judges or earlier. The so-called Milesian invasion of Ireland was, in reality, an effort by Zarahites from Miletus to exert rulership over their Israelite kinsmen.

According to Capt, one of the earliest and best preserved chronicles of Ireland, known as the Plantation of Ulster, includes the “Milesian Records.” These archives give an account of Milesian conquerors of Ireland belonging to the “scarlet branch of Judah”—the Zarahites. He writes: “The Milesians invaded Ireland in about 1000 BC, subjugating the de Danann…. Both the de Danann and the Milesians were kinsmen, who long ages before had separated from the main Hebrew stem [possibly while in Egypt]. Many historians today erroneously refer to these people as Celts and Gaels, whereas, in fact, they are only forerunners of the Celtic tribes that [later] wound their several ways across Europe from the East … finally blending … in one great Gaelic stream into the islands of Britain. The Celts were also kinsmen, but mainly of the later westward [overland] migrations of the Israelite tribes following their captivity in Assyria….”

Concerning the historical “scarlet branch of Judah,” he adds: “It was Zarah’s hand bound with a scarlet thread that probably accounts for the origin of the heraldic sign employed [even] today in Ulster, northern Ireland, consisting of a Red Hand coupled at the wrist with a scarlet thread.”[15] While the Irish today are largely unaware of the true origin and meaning of this symbol, it is, nevertheless, strong proof that the ancient Zarahites—who left their indelible imprint on the British Isles—had long remembered the unique and unfavorable circumstances of Zarah’s birth and sought a way to reconcile their apparent loss of royal rights.

The marriage of Eochaidh—a Milesian of Zarahite descent—to Tehpi, who through David was of Pharez descent, healed this ancient breach by uniting both lines in the establishment of a new royal dynasty. To revisit the prophecy of Ezekiel 21, we can see that God had abased the one who had been high, King Zedekiah and the entire nation of Judah—for they lost the throne. At the same time, God exalted the one who had been low— Israel. Moreover, from a certain perspective, the Pharez line had been abased in that they no longer exclusively held the throne—for they would now share that right with an exalted Zarahite line.

In the riddle of Ezekiel 17, “the trees of the field” are likened to the other nations of the world—which would in time come to realize that God had brought down the “high tree,” Judah, casting her into slavery, while exalting the “low tree,” Israel. Indeed, God had dried up the “green tree”— removed its prized Davidic throne and reestablished it in Irish-Israel so that the formerly “dry tree” might flourish.

From this new Zarahite-Pharez dynasty would spring many Israelite monarchs—all ruling in the British Isles. In fact, all of the royal lines of Ireland, Scotland, and England trace back to this fateful union—including Queen Elizabeth II who currently occupies the Davidic throne, held in reserve for its rightful heir, the Messiah.[16] Importantly, Genesis 49:10 indicates that there will be a monarch of Jewish descent ruling from David’s throne in the last days (verse 1), just prior to Jesus’ return to claim the throne.

Thus, through the prophet Jeremiah’s mysterious royal commission, the scepter remained fully in the possession of the tribe of Judah; the Davidic throne was preserved for safekeeping in the British Isles; and a land was prepared to accept Celtic and Anglo-Saxon Israelites who would over several centuries migrate to their new home.

CHAPTER 12 NOTES

1. No honest researcher denies the myriad of contradictions in Irish history. What is important, however, is that the identity of modern Israel does not hinge on a perfect understanding of Irish history or the “transfer” of David’s throne to Ireland. The massive amount of evidence available today clearly demonstrates “lost” Israel’s migration from the Mideast into the British Isles. As such, it far surpasses any unanswered questions regarding David’s throne being established in the Isles.

2. E. Raymond Capt, Jacob’s Pillar, pp. 31-32. John Fox corroborates this information in his book The World’s Greatest Throne, pp. 23-24.

3. John Fox, The World’s Greatest Throne, p. 24. Fox adds this: “Travelers to western Ireland today who visit Loch Erne … are taken especially to Devenish Island and are shown what tradition has always stated to be the prophet Jeremiah’s burial place or tomb, carved out of solid rock. And those visiting county Meath, north of Dublin, are taken to Tara, to the spot where Queen Tamar Tephi … was interred” (p. 24). Another traditional site for Jeremiah’s tomb exists in Meath, near Oldcastle (Capt, p. 39).

4. Daniel Walsh, Lost Tribes of Israel Study Maps, vol. 3, “Jeremiah’s Journey,” p. 3

5. Walsh, p. 6

6. The reader should recall these passages: “Judah [has indeed] prevailed among his brothers, and from him [has come] the chief ruler, but the birthright [has remained] Joseph’s” (I Chron. 5:1-2). “The scepter [symbolizing rulership and authority] shall not depart from [the tribe of] Judah, nor a lawgiver [ruler] from between his feet…” (Gen. 49:10).

7. Adam Clarke, Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible (on I Kings 4:31)

8. The wholesale departure of Zarahites from Egypt may be reflected in their omission from Judah’s genealogy found in I Chronicles 4:1.

9. Walsh, vol. 1, “The Pre-Exodus Flights,” pp. 2-3

10. Walsh, p. 3

11. Capt, p. 26. Fox as well notes that in Welsh bardic tradition the city now called London was founded by Brutus the Trojan, from the tribe of Judah, who afterward ruled over parts of ancient Britain (p. 21).

12. Capt, p. 27. Psalm 72:10 says, “The kings of Tarshish [Iberia, Spain] and of the isles shall bring presents [to Solomon]: the kings of Sheba and Seba shall offer gifts.” Perhaps this is a reference to various Mediterranean island-nations—such as Sardinia—with Israelite roots. It could also refer to the early Zarahite kings of Ireland.

13. Indeed, Ireland is even today called Hibernia; moreover, a group of islands off the coast of Scotland are known as the Hebrides. Both indicate the name Hebrew.

14. Capt, p. 27

15. Capt, p. 28

16. The entire royal line can be traced from David to Queen Elizabeth II in the book The Royal House of Britain, An Enduring Dynasty by W. M. H. Milner (Covenant Publishing, London, 1991).

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

Modern Israel’s Astonishing Rise to Greatness

As we have seen, the so-called “lost” tribes of Israel were preserved by God—in accordance with His promises to Abraham—and led in stages to new lands in western Europe. Britain in particular would become the home of the birthright tribe of Ephraim, with the birthright tribe of Manasseh later establishing itself in America. God has indeed set the descendants of Joseph “high above all [the] nations of the earth” (Deut. 28:1). As indicated in verse 13, America and Britain have truly been “the head, and not the tail.” And, because of God’s blessings, these two nations have always been “above” other nations—never “beneath” them, or under foreign rule. In today’s terminology, modern-day Ephraim and Manasseh have been undisputed world superpowers.

The rise of the British Empire and the United States to unparalleled world prominence has been, to say the least, astonishing. Nothing remotely like it has ever occurred. Moreover, their ascent—concurrent for the most part, but with America becoming a world power after Britain’s dominance had begun to wane—has taken place with amazing rapidity. And as we will see in a later chapter, their decline has been—and is—equally remarkable.

But how and why have the Anglo-American nations come to possess the absolute richest lands of the world—lands blessed with unparalleled natural resources? Why have they enjoyed an unrivaled level of economic wealth and military power?

Few realize just how powerful and wealthy the British and American people have been. These two nations have literally changed the world. Never in the history of the world has there been such a dramatic and rapid rise to global power and dominance than has been experienced by Britain and America. Could such a phenomenon really be ignored in the Bible?

Unparalleled Greatness Promised to Joseph

Before his death, God inspired the patriarch Jacob to foretell what would happen to the descendants of his twelve sons in the “last days” (Gen. 49:1). Our focus concerns Joseph—or, more accurately, his sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, who co-inherited the birthright promises passed on through Isaac from Abraham. These birthright blessings have only been realized in modern times through the dramatic rise of the Anglo-American peoples.

Joseph’s modern descendants are, in fact, easy to identify precisely because of the specific blessings they were to inherit. In a nutshell, the birthright blessings were promises of unprecedented national greatness and overflowing prosperity—of a scope never experienced by any other nation in history. Notice again Jacob’s prophecy for Joseph:

“Joseph is like a fruitful vine, a prolific vine watered by a spring, whose branches grow and run over the walls. With bitterness and hatred his enemies have attacked him, but his arms have remained strong and quick as he aims his bow accurately—because his power comes from the Mighty One of Jacob, the Shepherd, the Rock of Israel. Indeed, your father’s God, the Almighty, has helped you and blessed you with the blessings of the heavens above, with the blessings of the deep that are hidden below, and with the blessings of the breast and womb. The blessings I proclaim for you are as certain as the ancient mountains, as sure as the age-old hills. Let all these blessings rest on the head of Joseph, on the one most distinguished among his brothers” (Gen. 49:22-26; author’s paraphrase).

In a similar prophetic blessing given by Moses just before his death, we read of Joseph:

“May the LORD bless your land with the precious rain of heaven above and with the deep waters that lie below. May He bless you with the best produce the sun brings forth and the finest fruits the months yield; with the choicest treasures of the ancient mountains and the precious resources of the everlasting hills; with the very best gifts the earth can offer— and may you delight in the favor of Him Who once dwelt in the burning bush. Let all these blessings rest on the head of Joseph, on the one preeminent among his brothers. Joseph’s glory is like that of a firstborn bull—but with the strong horns of a wild ox! He uses them to push at the nations, even those at the ends of the earth. Thus describes the multitudes of Ephraim, and the host of Manasseh” (Deut. 33:13-17; author’s paraphrase).

As is apparent, these blessings cover everything from great natural resources and agricultural abundance to military superiority and world dominance. The reference to Joseph’s vine running “over the wall” points to Britain’s inclination for colonialism (less so for America). That Joseph’s “arrows” are quick and accurate indicates an unstoppable military (the U.S. Air Force and Britain’s Royal Air Force readily come to mind); likewise, Joseph’s “horns” that “push at the nations”—even in the far-flung corners of the world—point to the powerful naval forces possessed by both Britain and America.

In Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28 we find numerous prophecies concerning the original nation of Israel. While these “blessings and curses” were not foretold specifically concerning Joseph, they do nonetheless apply in principle to modern-day Israel—Ephraim and Manasseh. The blessings speak of abundant and timely rainfall; fertile lands that yield an abundance of fruit, grain and produce; peace and safety through unmatched military superiority; a greatly multiplied population; and, above all, the favor of God (Lev. 26:4-12). In Deuteronomy 28, God promises Israel preeminence over all other nations (verse 1). Again, blessings of abundance—crops, cattle and livestock, healthy children, military superiority (verses 2-8). Such would be Israel’s prominence that “all the people of the earth shall see that you are called by the name of the LORD, and they shall be afraid of you” (verse 10).

Economically, God promised that Israel would be in a position to “loan to many nations”—but never have to borrow (verse 12). Speaking of Israel’s dominance over nations, Moses wrote: “And the LORD shall make you the head [among nations], and not the tail. And you shall be always above [rule over other nations], and you shall not be beneath [under their rule]…” (verse 13). Deuteronomy 26:19 says Israel would be “high above” all the nations of the world.

These prophecies perfectly describe the United States and the British Empire—the promised “great nation” and “company of nations,” respectively (Gen. 35:11; 48:19). As we will see, no other peoples or nations can possibly match this highly detailed description of modern Ephraim and Manasseh. Keep in mind, however, that the astounding blessings granted to America and Britain were not because of our righteousness or obedience to God—for Israel had been in gross rebellion against God, sent into exile at the hand of the ruthless Assyrians. Rather, these blessings are the direct result of promises God made to righteous Abraham. The Anglo-American peoples have done nothing to deserve them. However, keeping such profound blessings and remaining in God’s favor would require our ongoing obedience to God’s basic moral code of life—the Ten Commandments.

Indeed, as the last part of Deuteronomy 28:13 brings out, the key to Israel continuing in such blessings was obedience to God: “—if you obey the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you today, to observe and to do them. And you shall not go aside from any of the words which I command you today, to the right hand or the left, to go after other gods to serve them” (verses 13-14).

Britain’s Rise to World Prominence

The English had long been under the thumb of European aristocratic dominance, punctuated by repeated conflicts with a Catholic, imperialistic Spain. But in 1485, with the establishment of the Tudor dynasty of Henry VII, a transformation began to occur. Over the next one hundred years, tiny England enjoyed a stable government; literacy began to spread; Catholic control was, for the time being, overthrown; and the nation began to develop a significant naval power.

In 1588, however, Spain set out to conquer England and restore it to the fold of the Catholic Church. But an interesting event occurred: the vast Spanish armada was overwhelmed by storm winds suddenly appearing off the coast of England. In the end, Spain was defeated. In his History of the English-Speaking Peoples, Sir Winston Churchill wrote: “But to the English people as a whole, the defeat of the armada came as a miracle.”[1] The benchmark event not only freed England of Spanish influence, it fully ended Catholic dominance over the nation’s religion. Soon, a genuine desire for religious freedom began to grow—and along with it an awareness of God’s role in British history. Moreover, a newfound interest in the Scriptures resulted in the 1611 translation and subsequent distribution of the King James Version of the Bible. (See Appendix 6 on the role of the Bible in the development of the British Empire.)

Owing to her penchant for exploration, England began in the 16th century to look beyond her own shores, crossing vast seas to establish new trade routes and forge new partnerships. This pioneering spirit led to the establishment of colonies around the world and, eventually, to the formation of the British Empire. As already noted, Genesis 49:22—Joseph’s “branches run over the walls”—suggests this proclivity for colonization and worldwide influence.

Historians generally agree that Britain became the preeminent nation of the world as a consequence of wresting itself from French dominance. After the British defeated Napoleon in 1815, it became quite clear that Britain was the undisputed ruler of the civilized world. Britain’s vast Royal Navy ruled the seas, and what followed was a century of peace—“Pax Britannica”—cut short only by the German militarism that triggered World War I in 1914.

The British economy was also stimulated by the Napoleonic Wars, resulting in rapid growth. Britain soon found itself in a position to acquire vast territories around the globe, colonizing on such a grand scale that the sun literally never set on her worldwide empire. Her acquisitions included the richest farmlands and abundant natural resources—all in favorable climates, the most productive regions of the Temperate Zone. The British found themselves extraordinarily successful at seemingly every venture—be it colonization and exploration, commerce and trade, science and industry, the invention of labor-saving machines, military exploits, etc. Indeed, little Britain emerged, within a short period of time, to rule the greatest, most extensive empire the world has ever known. That empire developed into a great “company of nations” held together by allegiance to a common crown.

In fact, it was during Queen Victoria’s reign, from 1837 to 1901, that the British Empire expanded tenfold—from a scattering of insignificant colonies to one quarter of the world’s land mass, which included a fifth of the world’s population. The impact of the Empire has been incalculable: New nations were born while industry, commerce, and newly developed population centers altered the face of existing nations; whole societies adopted new, advanced cultures; primitive civilizations learned new value and judicial systems; English became the universal language of the world; and a higher standard of living was spread to all corners of the globe. According to historian James Morris, “It was not merely the right of the British to rule a quarter of the world, so the imperialists thought, it was actually their duty…. They would so distribute across the earth their own methods, principles, and liberal traditions that the future of mankind would be reshaped. Justice would be established, miseries relieved, ignorant savages enlightened, all by the agency of British power and money.”[2]

At its height of power and influence early in the 20th century, the British Empire included some of the choicest parts of the world. With the acquisition of Australia and Canada, Britain came into possession of areas of great natural resources and some of the richest agricultural lands on earth. By 1922, the Empire claimed over 13 million square miles and some 460 million people as subjects or citizens. (By comparison, the Roman Empire, at its height, covered only 2.5 million square miles and governed some 120 million people.) The British Empire ultimately boasted of 54 colonies, territories or protectorates—including Egypt, India, Pakistan, vast parts of Africa, the Caribbean, Hong Kong, Singapore, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Palestine, and others. Each territory had its own distinct culture and way of life—yet they were united by a single institution, the British crown. (Today, only 16 of the original member nations—now participants in the British Commonwealth of Nations—still recognize the British monarchy as relevant in terms of national politics.) It was without question the most expansive and influential empire in the history of the world.[3]

The Anglo-American rise to world prominence is directly linked to the Industrial Revolution. At the peak of their possessions, the British and American peoples controlled vast swaths of the most fertile farmlands and the richest mineral-producing areas of the world. As descendants of Joseph, both Britain and America possessed the “choicest treasures of the ancient mountains,” the “precious resources of the everlasting hills”—the “precious things of the earth” (Deut. 33:15-16). These abundant natural resources— gold and silver, iron and tin, oil and coal, timber and water, etc.—would allow them to eventually dominate the world economically.

Industrially and economically, Britain and America grew rapidly between 1750 and 1800. The British experienced a population explosion during this same period. For many generations their population had been mostly static. But owing to unprecedented economic growth, colonial expansion, and industrial might, Britain’s population almost tripled—from 7.7 million to 20.7 million. After all, an abundance of offspring was also part of the promised blessings (Deut. 28:4, 11; Lev. 26:9).

With the Industrial Revolution came huge increases in industrial capacity and inventiveness. The all-important steam engine, developed by English inventors, began to see significant commercial use by the 1780s. Moreover, during Great Britain’s rapid rise to global dominance, it was British capital, expertise, and “stick-to-itiveness” that developed not only her colonies but led the developed world into newfound prosperity.

While the British Empire was built on the principle of imperialism, it was by no means tyrannical. Many of its colonies and territories experienced newfound freedoms; increased commerce led to added jobs and better living standards; education and literacy were given a high priority; many subjects were able to own land; and, for the most part, one could practice the religion of his or her choice. Plus, there was the important benefit of security under Britain’s impressive military. Ultimately, most of the Empire’s colonies flourished into politically stable and highly productive territories.[4]

In time, the growing New England colonies broke away from British rule—mostly owing to oppressive taxation by England. Concepts such as democracy, freedom of speech and religion, and power invested in the people would eventually become hallmarks of the world’s most successful republic, the United States of America.

America’s Rise to Unparalleled Greatness

Throughout the 17th and 18th centuries, immigrants from the British Isles and northwest Europe—where the “lost” tribes of Israel had long settled— flowed in waves to the growing American colonies. These Israelite immigrants ultimately established the character of the American nation. In 1783, America won its independence from Britain, separating Manasseh from Ephraim— just as indicated in Genesis 48.[5]

From its inception, America was founded on the ideal of common law—that of the Scriptures. In the words of British historian Paul Johnson, it was “an experiment designed to establish the rule of God on earth.”[6] Indeed, America’s founders realized that their commitment to a moral life based on the Word of God was fundamental to maintaining the favor of the God of Abraham—for as we will see, they understood the ultimate source of the nation’s blessings. For well over a century, America maintained, for the most part, that sense of moral destiny. But as following chapters bring out, the gradual loss of this godly standard would spell disaster for modern-day Manasseh.

As a young nation, the United States began to blossom shortly after 1800. Following in the footsteps of the British, American ingenuity pushed industry and commerce to new heights. From Robert Fulton’s first steamboat in 1806 to Henry Ford’s huge success with large-scale mass production, industrialization exploded in America.

Land acquisition also exploded. In 1783, America’s western border reached only to the Mississippi River. In need of cash to wage war against England, France’s Napoleon sold his country’s vast American territorial holdings to the United States in 1803, resulting in the Louisiana Purchase— doubling the size of the nation. This purchase literally made the U.S. a contender on the world’s economic stage by adding over 800,000 square miles of the most fertile farmland in the world—the American Midwest.

In 1845, the Texas Annexation was added, and a year later the Oregon Territory was acquired. As a result of the Mexican War of 1846- 1848, Mexico surrendered lands extending from Texas to the lower west coast. The last major addition would come in 1867 as Alaska was purchased from Russia.

Thus, within about a generation or two of the turn of the 19th century, the United States had expanded to almost its present-day size. This unparalleled expansion took in some of the world’s richest farmland and most valuable natural resources. Though not realized at the time, these blessings from God would allow Americans to eventually enjoy a per-capita wealth never before seen in the world.

As the 20th century began, America had only just emerged on the world scene after victory in the 1898 Spanish-American War. Forty years later, at the start of World War II, America’s military strength was all but insignificant, ranking well below that of most European states. But war transforms nations—economically, politically, militarily. Content for many decades with its “isolationist” stance, the United States was forced to the forefront of international politics because of World War II. Taking to her new role in world affairs, America began to flex her newfound economic and military muscle as a promoter of freedom and individual rights. The growing American economy led to rapid prosperity at home, and New York became a leading financial center—second only to London. Ultimately, with the demise of her Cold War rival, the Soviet Union, America became the sole superpower of the world.

As the world’s most powerful nation, America chose not to dominate or oppress its defeated enemies, but to generously use its strengths to rebuild enemy lands—such as through the Marshall Plan, wherein a war-ravaged Europe was rebuilt at a cost of $24 billion ($150 billion in today’s dollar). Japan, too, was given assistance in its post-war recovery. Today, both Germany and Japan are global economic powers—thanks to America’s altruistic spirit. What other nation in the history of the world has treated her enemies with such compassion? Truly, all nations of the earth have been significantly blessed as a result of modern-day Joseph’s inheritance of the Abrahamic birthright promises (Gen. 12:2-3).

But just how powerful and wealthy have the United States and the British Empire been? After the early 1800s, more than half of the world’s cultivatable lands came into the possession of these two powers. Utilizing the richest natural resources and farmlands known to man, America quickly became the “breadbasket” of the world. The United States has been blessed with the rich agricultural lands of the Mississippi Valley; the choicest fruit-producing lands of Florida, Texas and the West Coast; the vast wheat and grain fields of the Midwest (similar to those of Canada and Australia, developed under British rule); the majestic forest lands of the Pacific Northwest; rich coal mines; abundant sources of iron and other metals; and natural waterways as a means of generating electricity to power industrial and manufacturing districts.

What other nation or even group of nations has ever possessed such material wealth? These two sons of Joseph—America and Britain—have led the whole world into an era of unprecedented knowledge, technology and prosperity. No other nation has even begun to approach the impact left on the world by these Anglo-American brother-nations.

Anglo-American Control of Strategic “Sea Gates”

While wealth and industry depend on natural resources, prosperity on a national level comes by commerce—which is predominantly conducted by utilizing the sea-lanes of the world. How significant, then, are strategic “sea gates”—economically and militarily?

As noted earlier, God promised Abraham that his descendants would possess the gates of their enemies (Gen. 22:17; 24:60). The term gate is used throughout the Old Testament to refer to the entryways into cities and towns (Gen. 23:18, for example); as such, it is widely used to refer to the city itself (Deut 17:8; 24:14, for example). But like Israel of old, America and Britain have never “occupied” enemy lands and cities except for brief periods.

In the context of the birthright promises made to Abraham and his descendants, gates must refer to something more—such as passageways that provide strategic control of commercial shipping or military movement. Such vital sea gates would include the Panama and Suez canals, the Cape of Good Hope, the Strait of Gibraltar—and many other passageways and ports of somewhat lesser strategic importance.

America and Britain have controlled each of the above sea gates throughout the modern era, and each has been critical to their economic and military dominance. In fact, the Allied victory in World War II hinged on such gates. For a time, Britain came to control much of the oil produced in the Middle East. Her possessions and pipelines in that region helped provide the oil the Allies needed, and transporting that oil depended on controlling certain sea gates.

Historically, Gibraltar—located in the southern part of the Iberian peninsula—has been an indispensable sea gate for England. Acquired as a consequence of her war with France in the early 1700s, Gibraltar once gave Britain full control of the traffic of the Mediterranean Sea. In 1875, the British acquired the Suez Canal, but lost it to Egyptian nationalization in 1956. From its completion in 1914, the United States—through some shrewd maneuvering—maintained control of the highly strategic Panama Canal until it was turned over to Panama in 1999.

Today, these same gates are owned or operated by other nations— some of which hate us. China, for example, is making huge investments in Panama—with obvious intentions of controlling the canal. Why have we relinquished control of these vital gates?

Have Britons and Americans Perceived the Hand of God?

The vast blessings showered on Britain and America have come with sobering responsibilities. First, there is the need to acknowledge that such blessings were directly from God. Secondly, there is the obligation to use such blessings in a responsible and wise manner. Together, America and the British Empire possessed more that two-thirds of the world’s raw materials and natural resources. But later generations—especially today’s—have failed to appreciate the divine source of our wealth and power; we have failed to see God behind the miracle of modern Ephraim and Manasseh. And, as custodians of such unparalleled blessings, we have been grievously careless in how we have used what God has given us!

British doggedness and American entrepreneurialism aside, we have in no way deserved or earned these blessings. It is a little understood biblical fact that Anglo-American wealth and power has resulted expressly from promises that God made to Abraham concerning his descendants. These promises were made because of Abraham’s obedience to God. “ ‘By Myself have I sworn,’ says the LORD, ‘because you have done this thing, and have not withheld your son, your only son; that in blessing I will bless you, and in multiplying I will multiply your seed like the stars of the heavens, and as the sand which is upon the seashore. And your seed shall possess the gate of his enemies. And in your seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice’ ” (Gen. 22:16-18).

Some of our leaders have realized that God is the source of our great blessings. U.S. President Ronald Reagan expressed it this way: “I have always believed that this anointed land was set apart in an uncommon way, that a divine plan placed this continent here between the oceans to be found by people from every corner of the Earth who had a special love of faith and freedom.”[7] Likewise, President Harry Truman once said, “I do not think that anyone can study the history of this nation of ours without becoming convinced that divine providence has played a part in it. I have the feeling that God has created us and brought us to our present position of power and strength for some great purpose!”

Has America become a nation drunk with achievement not due to its own efforts—a nation taking unwarranted credit and glory to itself? It would seem so, as many Anglo-Americans think that we are responsible for our nations’ ascent to greatness. Abraham Lincoln understood the true source of our blessings—and even in his day he perceived that we were beginning to forget God and glorify ourselves. He wrote:

“We find ourselves in the peaceful possession of the fairest portion of the earth, as regards fertility of soil, extent of territory, and salubrity of climate…. [We] find ourselves the legal inheritors of these fundamental blessings. We toiled not in the acquirement or the establishment of them.” He further stated: “It is the duty of nations, as well as of men, to own their dependence upon the overruling power of God … and to recognize the sublime truth, announced in the Holy Scriptures and proven by all history, that those nations only are blessed whose God is the Lord…. We have been the recipients of the choicest blessings of heaven. We have been preserved, these many years, in peace and prosperity. We have grown in numbers, wealth and power as no other nation ever has grown; but we have forgotten God! We have forgotten the gracious Hand which preserved us in peace, and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us; and we have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own. Intoxicated with [our] unbroken success, we have become too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of [God’s] redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the God that made us [great].”[8]

A short time before the children of Israel went in to possess the Promised Land, Moses recorded a sobering warning from God. While the following passage was written concerning Israel in Palestine, it absolutely applies to the modern-day birthright nations of America and Britain.

“For the LORD your God brings you into a good land, a land of brooks of water, of fountains and depths that spring out of valleys and hills, a land of wheat and barley and vines and fig trees and pomegranates, a land of olive oil and honey, a land in which you shall eat bread without scarceness. You shall not lack any thing in it. It is a land whose stones are iron, and out of whose hills you may dig copper.

“When you have eaten and are full, then you shall bless the LORD your God for the good land which He has given you. Beware that you do not forget the LORD your God by not keeping His commandments, and His judgments, and His statutes, which I command you today, lest when you have eaten and are full and have built goodly houses and lived in them, and when your herds and your flocks multiply, and your silver and your gold is multiplied, and all that you have is multiplied, then you become haughty of heart, and you forget the LORD your God....

“Beware lest you say in your heart, ‘My power and the might of my hand has gotten me this wealth.’ But you shall remember the LORD your God, for it is He Who gives you power to get wealth, so that He may confirm His covenant which He has sworn to your fathers [Abraham, Isaac and Jacob]…. And it shall be [that] if you do at all forget the LORD your God and walk after other gods serving them and worshiping them, I testify against you this day that you shall surely perish—yes, perish. As the nations whom the LORD destroys before your face, so you shall perish because you would not obey the voice of the LORD your God” (Deut. 8:7-20).

God did not choose Israel because they were great in any way—for they were the least. He did so because of His great love, and because of His covenant with Abraham (Deut. 7:7-8). The same applies to America and Britain. God alone has given modern Joseph the ability to become great—so that He might keep His covenant promises to Abraham. What a testimony to America and Britain. We have forgotten God—and given ourselves credit for our power and wealth!

We should bear in mind that the Abrahamic blessings were mostly denied to ancient Israel because they refused to live by God’s laws. But the birthright blessings have been given to America and Britain. Now we are slowly but surely losing those blessings because we have turned from God. What will be the outcome if Britain and America continue to deny God? As we will see, God warns America and Britain—through numerous prophecies in Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, Micah, etc., all directed to modern-day Israel— that unless we, of this end-time generation, repent of our sins and turn to Him with fasting and heartfelt prayer, our nations will reap the same consequences as did ancient Israel. God will bring unheard-of famine and disease upon the land; He will make our cities desolate, empty; He will bring a “cruel one” against us—we will be invaded, besieged and taken captive once again as slaves—just as happened anciently to the northern tribes of Israel! And as Scripture indicates, only then will we repent!

CHAPTER 13 NOTES

1. Sir Winston Churchill, History of the English-Speaking Peoples, vol. 2, p. 131

2. James Morris, Pax Britannica: The Climax of an Empire, p. 26

3. The British Commonwealth is an intergovernmental organization of 53 member states that were mostly territories of the former British Empire. Formed in 1949 with the decolonization of the Empire, the Commonwealth operates by consensus of its member states. Sixteen of the members are known as realms, with Queen Elizabeth II as their monarch. Member states have no legal obligation to one another. Instead, they are united by language, history, culture, and shared values.

4. Unfortunately, some of the territories held by the Empire fared poorly under British rule. Parts of Africa were partitioned without regard to existing tribal boundaries, which ultimately led to civil war and great bloodshed. In India, millions were forced to relocate to due to similar partitioning schemes. Other areas fell into chaos when the British pulled out. Moreover, some colonial areas were essentially robbed of their natural resources in order to fuel England’s industrial growth; other areas were forced to grow “cash crops” to support British interests when they should have been growing food for the native population. As concerns “religious freedom,” the British foolishly attempted to force Christianity onto parts of Africa. Today, the resultant mix of African Christians among native Muslims has led to significant regional instability.

5. A number of historians have noted that America could have easily lost her bid for independence. Indeed, there were numerous occasions when the patriots’ cause teetered on the brink of disaster. Moreover, some historians have dared to ask why the colonies should have entered into a war for independence with Britain in the first place. After all, until the 1770s the American colonies were quite content to be a part of the British Empire. The Empire was growing rapidly and prospering, which ultimately benefited all of Britain’s colonies—not to mention the fact that guaranteed security and protection were a perk of a colonial connection to Britain.

But friction suddenly arose over excessive taxation, mostly due to monies the British tried to raise to fund their war with France. Except for Britain’s stubborn effort of imposing unfair taxes on America, the colonies actually had little reason to reject British rule. In hindsight, it was as if Britain provoked the colonies into rebellion. This suggests that the hand of God was moving: it was time for Manasseh to break away from Ephraim, just as indicated in Genesis 48:19-20.

6. Paul Johnson, “No Law Without Order, No Freedom Without Law,” Sunday Telegraph (Dec. 26, 1999)

7. Newsweek (Dec. 27, 1983)

8. From Lincoln’s proclamation for a national day of fasting and prayer, April 30, 1863.

CHAPTER FOURTEEN

The Decline of Anglo-American Influence

Few realize just how powerful and wealthy Britain and America have been. Fewer still are aware of why those unparalleled blessings of prosperity and world dominance are now rapidly slipping away. Why has Great Britain—no longer considered great by any standard—lost its vast empire? With the exception of a few remaining Commonwealth partners, the once-unequalled British Empire is no more: Gone are her incalculable worldwide resources and wealth; gone is her dominant political and military influence in global affairs. Once a maritime superpower and ruler of a quarter of the world, Britain now occupies a rather isolated position as an economically strained island.

Why is America today despised and mocked around the world? After World War II, the United States was the world’s hero, the envy of every nation. Whole societies around the world followed her lead, imitated her customs, longed after her lavish lifestyle—and looked to her for financial aid, which she gladly provided. But today, America is in steep decline, edging closer and closer to economic ruin. Plagued by moral and spiritual decay, she has seemingly lost sight of her God-ordained role in this world. And now, her position as the world’s only remaining superpower is being challenged by a developing European Union, a resurgent Russia, and a burgeoning China.

If present trends continue, what will happen to Britain—to America? These two nations literally changed the world. What will the world look like with their downfall? Never in the history of mankind has there been such a dramatic and rapid rise to global power and dominance—followed by an even more rapid decline—than has been experienced by Britain and America. But just as their ascent to greatness was foretold in Scripture, their demise is also outlined in biblical prophecy.

Remember, modern Ephraim and Manasseh were to uniquely carry the name Israel in the “latter days.” There are many prophecies in the Bible concerning the House of Israel. Obviously, many have been fulfilled; others, however, are yet to be fulfilled. At the same time, many prophecies in the Bible are dual in application. In such cases, there is a former or initial fulfillment, usually smaller in scale and impact, followed much later by a final, complete fulfillment. This “ultimate fulfillment” is typically designed to occur during the “latter days.” Many of the prophecies concerning the rise and decline of Israel fall into this category: they applied initially to the original nation of Israel, but subsequently apply on a greater level to modern-day Israel—to Britain and America (see Chapter 16 for a full explanation of “prophetic duality”). As previously noted, Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28 are often referred to as the “blessings and curses” chapters. These chapters outline the many blessings God would pour out on the people of Israel if they were obedient; but they also reveal, in stark detail, the curses that would befall the nation if it departed from God’s ways.

As the birthright nations of Joseph, Britain and America—identified prophetically by the name Israel—have reaped the incalculable blessings promised by God to Abraham. Our nations have done nothing to earn or deserve those blessings—for they are based solely on God’s unbreakable covenant with Abraham. But maintaining those blessings is another matter. As we will see in the next chapter, the Anglo-American peoples have left their moral foundation—a foundation once based on the Scriptures. Thus, the prophesied curses have begun to multiply and will soon overtake our nations. As God warns in Leviticus 26:25, He will indeed “avenge the quarrel of His covenant,” bringing corrective punishment on modern Israel for her blatant, ongoing violation of His biblical precepts—expressly the Ten Commandments.

Throughout the remainder of this book, we will refer to many of these curses. Prophecies will be brought out that have a final or “latter day” fulfillment for modern Israel—following the “pattern” set by their initial, ancient fulfillment. Moreover, as we will see, there are numerous prophecies concerning Israel that have never yet been fulfilled in any form, as they are clearly intended for the end time.

The Rapid Decline of Modern Joseph

Without question, the 19th and 20th centuries were dominated by Britain and America. But just as their rise to greatness was both rapid and unprecedented, their decline is now accelerating—and their ultimate demise will no doubt be shocking and tragic.

In two world wars, the British Empire and the United States saved virtually the entire civilized world from fascist powers bent on global domination. But the wars left Britain’s economy in shambles and robbed her of two generations of young men. With her financial reserves drained, the British Empire began to crumble. Starting with India in 1947, one colony after another has been given independence. The British simply no longer had the will or the resources to maintain the Empire. Today, the greatest empire the world has ever known—the biblical “company of nations” of Ephraim—is gone. Pax Britannica has passed.

For two centuries the British had enjoyed an unrivaled international role. But after World War II, British supremacy began to give place to American dominance. Now the United States would assume the burden of “managing the world.” However, while America has become the greatest single nation in the history of the world, it has not been unrivaled. The post-war emergence of the Soviet Union as a superpower in its own right led to the decades-long strategic standoff known as the Cold War—which in many ways restrained American influence. With the dissolution of the Soviet bloc in 1991, America finally became the world’s only superpower. That same year, the U.S. demonstrated its global dominance by leading a coalition of forces in driving Iraq from Kuwait. Then, in 2003, the U.S. invaded Iraq to oust its leadership and set up an interim government. In both cases, America’s success was largely due to vastly superior military technology.

Today, however, America finds itself in a precarious position. In the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the U.S. has become bogged down in a dubious “war on terror.” The exhausting ten-year campaign in Iraq and the ongoing war in Afghanistan are proving to be largely in vain—with a price tag that has done nothing but stunt the economy. In spite of our military might—and after the loss of some 5,000 American lives and a cost of more than one trillion dollars—the U.S. withdrew from Iraq, leaving the nation in a dangerous and unstable condition, dooming it to be eventually overtaken by extremist forces. In Afghanistan, a similar pattern will follow after the planned American withdrawal by the end of 2014. In the end, both wars will prove to be futile efforts.

At present, Russia is bullying its way into repossessing Crimea and using military intimidation to prevent Ukraine from joining the EU. Clearly, Russia no longer fears America. Meanwhile, the Obama administration is proceeding with an unprecedented military drawdown. Indeed, the world is watching and questioning America’s resolve—and our ability to lead the free world. Our allies and enemies alike (and the distinction between the two is becoming less and less clear) are waking up to the reality that the United States is no longer willing or economically able to police the world.

But who will fill the void—and at what cost to America?

To make matters worse, Washington’s current socialist-welfare agenda is putting the U.S. economy at grave risk by creating unprecedented and unsustainable national debt. America’s military, industrial and technical power is still supreme—for now. But these are directly dependant on a strong economy. As the U.S. economy continues to deteriorate, America will find itself losing its place as the undisputed leader of the free world.

At home and abroad, Great Britain and America face complex and seemingly insoluble problems. Their steady decline has, in fact, already left a noticeable vacuum of power around the globe. Consequently, other key nations—China, Russia, a German-led European Union—are all moving to challenge American hegemony.

Shocking Anglo-American Economic Decline

Following World War II, America quickly became the undisputed economic powerhouse of the world. Though economically devastated by the war, Britain and her colonies still ranked high in the production of vital materials and commodities. However, beginning in the 1960s, the Anglo- American economies began to decline. By the mid-2000s, the decline was becoming alarming. Below are some eye-opening examples.

In 1950, the United States was producing 52 percent of the worlds petroleum. Combined with British Commonwealth output, that figure came to 60 percent. But by the mid-1960s, that 60 percent had dropped to a mere 32 percent. By 2008, American production had declined to a paltry 10 percent, while production in the UK fell to just 2 percent of global output. Today, as the world’s largest consumer nation, America has found itself in the dangerous position of being dependant on foreigners for 60 percent of its oil—with much of that coming from nations that hate us! Currently, the UK imports 30 percent of its oil.[1]

Britain and America once mined nearly twice as much coal as all other nations combined. But by 1966, that figure had shrunk to 31 percent— less than one third of world production. By 2007, coal production in the U.S. had dropped to 16 percent of the world total; meanwhile, production in the UK was allowed to drop so low that it had to import approximately 41 million short tons of coal.

In 1950, America and the British Commonwealth boasted of 75 percent of the world’s steel production (the U.S. alone produced 60 percent). America also produced almost twice as much pig iron as all other nations combined. By 2008, the U.S. was producing only 7 percent, and the UK 1 percent, of the worlds 1.3 billion metric tons of steel. That same year, worldwide pig iron production stood at 927 million metric tons, of which the U.S. contributed a paltry 32 million tons (3.5 percent), and Britain only 10 million tons (1 percent).

America and Britain once possessed almost 95 percent of the world’s nickel, 80 percent of the world’s aluminum, and 75 percent of the world’s zinc. But by the mid 1960s, those figures had dropped dramatically: nickel, 3.6 percent; aluminum, 40 percent; and zinc, 12.4 percent. Today, the U.S. and the UK produce no nickel, but about 27 percent of the world’s total is produced by Canada and Australia. Likewise, by 2008 America’s aluminum production had dropped to 6.6 percent of world totals (Canada and Australia produced 12.7 percent), and U.S. zinc production fell to 6.8 percent. The UK is no longer listed as a zinc producer, though Canada and Australia produced 19 percent of 2008 world totals.

In 1950, American and British companies produced two thirds of the world’s rubber and dominated world markets in copper, lead, tin, and other metals. But by the mid-1960s, we produced only 23.4 percent of the world’s copper, 9.9 percent of its lead, and virtually no tin (southern England was once world renown for its tin mines). By 2008, Britain and America no longer produced any natural rubber, moving instead to synthetic rubber. That same year, U.S. copper production stood at only 8 percent of the global market, but lead production grew to 12 percent. Today, America, Britain, and Canada produce no tin.

When it came to gold production, the British Commonwealth once produced two thirds of the worlds supply—$642 million worth in 1950. The U.S. had three times as much gold held in reserve as the rest of the world combined. But by the mid-60s, much of America’s gold supply had been dangerously drained. In 2008, the U.S. mined about 10 percent of the world’s supply, the UK virtually none.

In 1971, then-U.S. President Richard Nixon took America off the gold standard and refused to redeem overseas dollars with gold, a move that caused a gradual decline in confidence in gold. Subsequently, gold prices began fluctuating wildly, reflecting speculation and other market trends. In response, the central banks of numerous nations sold off their gold reserves (Britain, for example, sold off its national gold reserve by 2002). Without the backing of gold, however, many analysts contend that paper money systems are doomed to eventual failure.

For many decades, the United Kingdom was the undisputed leader in shipbuilding, constructing more vessels than any other country. But today, over 90 percent of all ships are built by Japan, South Korea, China and the European Union. The United States claims a paltry one percent of the global shipbuilding market. Moreover, as of 2007, not one of the world’s top ten major seaports is located in the U.S. or Britain.

Great Britain and America once possessed over half of the world’s merchant fleet tonnage. By 1966, that figure had dropped to only 32 percent. In 2008, worldwide shipping companies utilized over 36,300 merchant ships transporting approximately one billion dead-weight tons. With a mere 876 vessels, Britain owned only 2.5 percent of that tonnage. The U.S., operating 1,769 ships, owned 3.8 percent. These figures reveal an astonishing decline in American and British commerce—a drop over a 40-year period from 32 percent to a combined 6.3 percent. Today, the vast majority of freight moved in and out of America is carried on ships operating under foreign flags. This arrangement represents a serious danger to the U.S. economy, not to mention our national security.

America has always been known for its production of automobiles, once producing 73 percent of the world’s market. By the mid 1960s, the U.S. and Britain combined only produced 55 percent (44 percent from the U.S.). By 2007, America’s share had dropped to 15 percent, with Asian producers accounting for 42 percent, followed by Europe’s 31 percent.

As indicated by these statistics, the British and American economies have been in decline for decades. Today, both nations are hampered by stagnant economies and runaway debt. In particular, America stands on the brink of disaster because of massive government debt.

Looming Anglo-American Economic Ruin

In the aftermath of the 2008 global financial meltdown, Britain has had to rethink its role in today’s world—a role essentially without economic clout. As with America, excessive spending and debt accumulation—both public and private—have brought the British economy almost to its knees. The Newsweek article “Forget the Great in Britain” describes Britain’s economic recession as a “watershed moment.” “The country’s public debt is soaring, possibly doubling to a record high of 100 percent of GDP [Gross Domestic Product] over the next five years”—according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The National Institute for Economic and Social Research forecasts that “the effects will cascade all across the government. Budgets will be slashed at the Ministry of Defense and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, affecting Britain’s ability to project power, hard and soft. And there’s little that can be done to reverse the trend….”[2]

The article continues: “The global recession has hit virtually every country, but Britain more than most. The great engine room of British prosperity, the financial sector, now feels like an anchor. Britain has slipped into deflation—a decline in general price levels—for the first time in 50 years. The IMF believes Britain’s economic slump will be deeper and longer than that of any other advanced economy. The number of Britons claiming unemployment benefits has jumped from 1.3 million (4.6 percent of the workforce) in 1999 to more than 2 million [in 2009] and is on track to top 3 million.” In fact, “Britain is arguably saddled with the worst public finances of any major nation, thanks to voracious spending in recent years and to borrowing that is growing faster than in other developed nations.”

Describing circumstances in the UK as the “end of a political era,” the article soberly notes: “History has been closing in on Britain for some time.” Now, the nation’s role in the world will “shrink with its budget.”

In an effort to reduce the country’s crippling debt, harsh austerity measures have been enacted—the toughest peacetime fiscal management action in UK history. Treasury officials plan 81 billion pounds ($128 billion) in spending cuts through 2015, which will ax welfare payments, slash government services, and eliminate half a million public sector jobs.

One of the key blessings promised to Israel was financial prosperity. Likewise, unparalleled economic power was part of the birthright blessings promised to modern Joseph: “And you shall loan to many nations, and you shall not borrow”—for there would be no need to borrow (Deut. 28:12). As such, modern Israel was to dominate other nations (verse 13). But one of the primary curses for continued disobedience to God would be the loss of such a privileged position—i.e., eventually becoming debtor nations (verses 43-44). America, in particular, is borrowing money from other nations at an unprecedented rate. After World War II, America was the world’s greatest creditor nation. But in little more than a generation, America has become the greatest debtor nation in history—with no hope of ever being able to repay its loans. The eventual outcome can only be virtual slavery to other nations. As Proverbs 22:7 says, the borrower is servant to the lender.

As the year 2000 ended, America’s national debt was $5.7 trillion.[3] Since then, U.S. debt has exploded. The 9/11 (2002) attacks resulted in huge expenditures for America’s “war on terror”—effectively doubling the debt to $10.7 trillion by the end of 2008. Then, following the 2008 election of Barrack Obama, the nation’s debt rose dramatically—largely as a result of his failed attempt to “stimulate” the economy through increased government spending. By the end of Obama’s first term, the national debt stood at $15.5 trillion—and the U.S. was borrowing 40 cents of every dollar it spent. This is the number one reason the national debt continues out of control.[4]

Obama’s economic strategy is fundamentally flawed, as it relies on spending rather than frugality. But the fact is, it is impossible to resolve debt problems—caused by previous over-borrowing—by borrowing even greater amounts of money. Countries such as China—which currently holds $1.3 trillion of our debt—have “financed America” by buying U.S. bonds and other debt instruments. But such lenders are now sending signals that they may soon be unable—or unwilling—to purchase much more of our debt.

Compounding the problem is the fact that the Federal Reserve has resorted to printing needed funds—called “quantitative easing” or QE. The latest round, QE3, which began in September of 2012, is described by the Federal Reserve as “infinite”—meaning the presses will keep running, cranking out $85 billion a month in fake money. To date, the QE program has added $3 trillion worth of new greenbacks. But such “assets” are bogus because they have no backing and do not represent real wealth. Indeed, assets created by fiat lack the backing of wealth, gold or silver—and can only devalue the dollar, leading America eventually into hyperinflation. Mathematically, this financial strategy can only end in one way—a total catastrophe.

Meanwhile, Barack Obama, having been reelected, is overseeing the greatest expansion of government in U.S. history. Entitlement and welfare programs are swelling with unprecedented numbers of new beneficiaries. For example, an astounding 33 percent of Americans now receive some kind of government subsidized food assistance under one or more of the dozen programs run by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Of these, the old “food stamp” program—recently renamed the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP—has grown dramatically. Since Obama took office, the number of beneficiaries receiving “food stamps” has doubled—to its current one in six Americans.[5]

In other areas of government expansion, “Obamacare” threatens to turn the nation’s healthcare industry into a three-ring circus, which will no doubt ultimately result in a complete government takeover of one sixth of the U.S. economy; unreasonable tax increases are squelching small business growth, contributing to ongoing record unemployment; and restrictions and controls over businesses are creating an intrusive, overly bureaucratic, socialistic government bent on controlling the lives of Americans.

At the end of 2012, America’s gross federal debt—a mind-boggling $16-plus trillion—surpassed the national output of our sluggish economy at 102.7 percent of GDP.[6] And that debt is still growing—fast. Only once has our nation’s debt exceeded output—during World War II, when the U.S. racked up a huge debt in an effort to defeat the Axis powers (but with the booming economy that followed the war, that debt was quickly paid off).

Today, government expenditures for Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, various welfare programs, and the interest on the national debt continue to rise—with no end in sight. With the White House and Congress divided by partisan politics as never before, it seems that neither has the political will to bring spending under control. The result? The failure of our government to come to grips with the nation’s debt crisis led in 2012 to the first-ever downgrading of America’s credit rating—from AAA to AA+. While most Americans are oblivious to the implications of this move, its meaning is all too clear for our creditor allies: American has become a country that cannot be trusted to repay its debts!

From the perspective of other nations, the re-election of Obama is perceived as an endorsement of a set of fiscal policies that have not only set the United States on a collision course with economic disaster, but that also threaten the global economy. America, it seems, has endorsed an endless government spending spree that can no longer be held in check. It is mathematically inarguable: Just as “two plus two equals four,” the economic policies pursued by Obama and the Federal Reserve can only result in the demise of the U.S. dollar. Already, a number of countries are beginning to “diversify their holdings”—meaning they are increasingly willing to dismiss the dollar as the world’s reserve currency. Experts focus on the U.S. dollar as a percentage of the world’s total money supply—and the dollar’s portion has decreased dramatically, from 90 percent in 1952 to about 25 percent today. A February 2013 CNBC report stated, “The U.S. dollar is shrinking as a percentage of the world’s currency supply, raising concerns that the greenback is about to see its long run as the world’s premier denomination come to an end.”[7] As more and more countries increasingly rely on other currencies to conduct business, the dollar will continue to lose ground.

Numerous experts are already predicting the dollar’s demise. Dick Bove, vice president of equity research at Rafferty Capital Markets, is quoted in the CNBC report: “Generally speaking, it is not believed by the vast majority that the American dollar will be overthrown. But it will be, and this defrocking may occur in as short a period as five to ten years.” Concerning QE3, Bove added, “If the dollar loses status as the world’s most reliable currency, the United States will lose the right to print money to pay its debt. It will be forced to pay this debt.” But how—and with what? No one will even want the once-almighty dollar. When nations—particularly the size of America—default on their debt, allies suddenly become enemies; trade wars and embargoes result—then real wars! As we will see in a later chapter, this is exactly where Bible prophecy says America and Britain are headed!

How critical is it that the United States maintains the dollar’s status as the world’s reserve currency? Michael Pento, president of Pento Portfolio Strategies, puts it like this: “The number one security issue we have as a nation is the preservation of the U.S. dollar as the world’s reserve currency. It’s a thousand times more important than a nuclear bomb being tested by North Korea. It’s a thousand times more important that we keep the dollar as the world’s reserve currency, and yet we are doing everything to abuse that status.”[8]

By world standards, Americans have lived lavishly, even wastefully, always living beyond our means. We are preoccupied with material things, obsessed with entertainment, addicted to satisfying our every lust—while being woefully ignorant of the divine source of our tremendous blessings. But we are no longer blessed—we are cursed at every turn. There is now only one outcome for America: the impending loss of the dollar’s coveted global status, coupled with hyperinflation, leading to societal collapse and government tyranny. And, finally, slavery at the hands of our enemies.

The “Ticking Time Bomb” of Unfunded Liabilities

In addition to the surging national debt, there is a growing crisis of unfunded liabilities at the state and local level. These financial burdens threaten to swamp governments across the country. At the center of the problem are pension and medical liabilities that have mushroomed out of control in a population increasingly made up of retirees, older citizens and “baby boomers” entering the social system and needing medical care. A 2010 study put the current figure for state-level unfunded liabilities at more than $1 trillion over the next decade. When the federal government’s obligations are factored in, the figure comes to $106 trillion over the next 30 years.[9] That kind of money cannot be raised or simply printed—let alone paid. The fact is, millions of people are not going to get what they have been promised. What will be the societal consequences of such a default?

Numerous states and cities are already facing insolvency. A prime example is Detroit, which in mid-2013 declared bankruptcy, the largest city in U.S. history—and perhaps the modern world—to take such drastic action. In this case, the declaration of insolvency allowed Detroit to abandon many of its financial obligations—including some $3.5 billion worth of pension payments. The same scenario is being played out in other major cities across America—including Chicago, which owes $19 billion in pension payments it doesn’t have, and the city of Los Angeles, which is more than $30 billion in the hole (the state of California itself is teetering on bankruptcy). Once the hub of industrial output in America, Detroit is in a state of

economic collapse. In addition to its massive pension debts, the city owes money to tens of thousands of vendors, contractors and lenders—about $19 billion worth. Detroit has gone in 60 years from being one of the world’s most prosperous cities, with one of the highest standards of living, to one of the poorest in the West. What was the underlying cause of Detroit’s demise? To call it fiscal mismanagement would be glossing over the truth: high taxation on both businesses and individuals—with an eye toward the redistribution of wealth, i.e., welfare programs—was a main cause. The effect was to drive away business and to make more people poor. (This, of course, is the same economic approach the Obama administration is taking.) Another key cause has been the ill-advised “outsourcing” of manufacturing and industry to other parts of the world—all in the name of our “global economy.”

As America’s first “third world” city, Detroit has largely become a ghost town: some 80,000 buildings have been abandoned, including 78,000 homes. Once boasting of a population of two million, Detroit is home today to a mere 700,000. Most of its schools have closed, only 53 of its 300-plus city parks remain open, and the city no longer consistently provides even basic services to the residents who remain. Infested with urban blight, its crumbling infrastructure is beyond repair. But—the city still boasts of Ford, GM and Chrysler, bailed out by taxpayer dollars. And, while sales are up a bit for 2013, all three automakers are once again maxed out on debt—which no doubt signals their impending failure (or another bailout).

Detroit’s plight is an ominous warning sign for the nation. But God foretold that modern Israel’s major cities would be “cursed” (Deut. 28:16). Indeed, all of America’s key cities are cursed—they are impressive to view from a distance, but they are decayed, largely bankrupt, and riddled with corruption, crime, and drug abuse. Whole neighborhoods are overrun by unassimilated immigrants, poverty and unemployment are widespread, the schools are a miserable failure, thousands are homeless, and untold numbers are fleeing the city in hopes of a better life in rural areas.

“Strangers” Among Us

When it comes to commerce, the Anglo-American dependence on foreigners is increasing at an alarming rate. Of particular concern is how America is selling off businesses, industries, land, infrastructure—anything of value—to nations that “own our debt.” As noted earlier, just a few decades ago America was a lender nation: “And you shall loan to many nations, and you shall not borrow.” As long as we remained a nation that trusted in God—as we proudly display on all of our money, “In God we trust”—we would make wise fiscal decisions, prosper, and never need to borrow. But America and Britain no longer honor God, and He has been slowly but surely removing the birthright blessings we inherited as modernday Joseph. Today our “prosperity” is but a house of cards, ready to come crashing down when the nations of the world grow weary of financing our lavish, materialistic lifestyles.

Borrowing is now deeply entrenched into the Anglo-American way of life. As noted, the U.S. is borrowing money from other nations at an unprecedented rate. We can never repay these debts—and the nations know it. Thus, they are in a position to dominate us—which they soon will. As we will see, the Bible refers to these nations as our illicit “lovers”—who will ultimately turn and devour us. God warned ancient Israel of this very curse—and the same warning is for us today: “The stranger [non-Israelite] dwelling among you will rise higher and higher above you”—dominating, moving into a superior economic position—“while you will come down lower and lower. He shall loan to you, but you shall not loan to him. [And what is the result of this massive debt accumulation?] He shall be the head, and you shall be the tail” (Deut. 28:43-44; author’s paraphrase).

Who are the “strangers” dwelling among us? In the interests of a so-called “global economy,” the U.S. has foolishly allowed numerous nations to “invest” in America—to own and operate thousands of industries and business here on our land. They prosper at our expense, dominating markets once held by American companies. For example, in 1998, Ford, Chrysler and GM—the “Big Three”—accounted for 76 percent of all auto sales in the U.S. But today, foreign manufacturers with assembly plants on American soil produce the majority of vehicles sold in the U.S. The saying “Made in America” now has a rather hollow ring!

Today, a great deal of what Americans consume is “made in China.” To satisfy our insatiable greed for greater profit margins, U.S. companies have “outsourced” manufacturing jobs to other countries where wages and costs are lower—primarily China. Since 2000, the U.S. has lost a staggering 32 percent of such jobs—some to outsourcing, some to foreign competition. Since 2001, America has lost more than 56,000 manufacturing facilities to foreign relocation—mostly to China. According to the Economic Policy Institute, America is losing half a million jobs to China each year. The result is that over the past decade the Chinese economy has grown seven times faster than the U.S. economy. According to the IMF, China will soon pass the United States to become the largest economy in the world.[10]

Currently, the United States is able to make reasonable payments on its massive debt. But as our economy continues to decline and our national debt accumulates, creditor nations are getting wary; increasingly, they want to see some kind of tangible return for their investment. As a result, foreign creditors—which includes national governments, businesses, industries, and investment groups—are literally buying up anything of value in America. Thus, America is being sold piecemeal to those nations to which we are the most indebted—such as China. In fact, over the past several years, the Chinese government and large Chinese corporations—which are frequently partially owned by the government—have been systematically buying up industries, businesses, homes, farmlands, real estate, infrastructure, and natural resources all over America. Today the U.S. owes China about $1.3 trillion, and China is intent on converting some of that debt into equity. The result has been the widespread “economic colonization” of America. China already owns numerous U.S. industries, businesses, infrastructures, high-value lands, etc. Moreover, they are bringing their own people here to run and manage these purchases. (For shocking details on how the current U.S. economy compares to China’s, see Appendix 7.)

Increasingly, modern Israel is truly at the mercy of foreigners—just as the Bible predicted. These “strangers among us” are rapidly positioning themselves to dominate our economy—even major portions of our society. The prophet Hosea wrote primarily to Israel—the northern tribes. In chapter two, he addresses Israel as a woman given to harlotry—who has pursued illicit “lovers” (verse 5). In geopolitical terms, this would correspond to Israel turning its back on God as her rightful “husband” and provider and pursuing alliances with foreign nations. This is precisely what Britain and America have done!

We see the same symbolism used in Jeremiah 30—a pivotal chapter dealing with the time of “Jacob’s trouble” (verse 7), which is God’s soon-coming corrective punishment on modern Anglo-American Israel. In verse 14, we see that Israel has been abandoned by her “lovers”—foreign nations in which she placed her trust, instead of looking to God. Verse 16 suggests that these “lovers” will become devouring enemies! Likewise, Ezekiel 23 brings out that Samaria, here called Aholah (verse 4), played the harlot with her “lover” Assyria (verse 5)—the very nation that later turned on her and took the northern tribes into captivity (verse 9; for more on Assyria, see Appendix 9).

This is exactly where the United States and Britain are headed. We have turned our backs on God and are increasingly placing our confidence in alliances with foreign nations—nations that will ultimately participate in our final downfall!

The Curse of Unrestrained Immigration

As a matter of history, America has embraced vast numbers of legal immigrants. After all, some immigration is healthy for a developing nation. But uncontrolled immigration—both legal and illegal—can have profoundly negative consequences on a people. Unlike the immigrants that contributed to the early development of America—who came to this country with the dream of becoming Americans—today’s ongoing flood of immigrants has overwhelmingly adopted the liberal ideology of multiculturalism. Thus, they have resisted assimilation—resisted becoming Americans. They don’t come here today to build a life based on the American dream, they come here to take advantage of our freedom—and numerous welfare and entitlement programs—colonizing in isolated communities, maintaining their own culture and religions. As a result, whole societies are becoming fragmented along ethnic and cultural lines. Moreover, in most immigrant communities crime and poverty are rampant.

In free societies such as in Britain and America, a lack of cultural unity can only lead to conflict. Thus, immigrants today are far more apt to become a divisive force, particularly when they are highly concentrated in major urban areas. Indeed, a key factor of the ongoing decline of Anglo- American Israel is the scourge of unrestrained immigration.

Increased poverty and gang-related crime are not the only problems associated with uncontrolled immigration. In America today, immigrants (both legal and illegal) account for a serious drain on the economy. Now, under Obama’s proposed immigration agenda—which features across-theboard amnesty for illegals—immigrants stand to benefit even more from our growing welfare programs.

Another impact of immigration—with highly significant long-term implications—is how it has changed U.S. demographics. For the first time in our history, as of 2012, more than half of all babies born in America belong to ethnic minorities. While whites are in no danger of becoming a minority anytime soon—at current trends, whites would become a minority by about 2040—this does portend a dangerous trend politically. As was demonstrated in the 2012 reelection of Barack Obama, minority groups already have considerable voting clout, particularly in key swing states (over 70 percent of minority voters voted for Obama). A vital aspect of the Democratic Party’s agenda is to garner minority votes—even if they have to buy them. This means more welfare, more free healthcare, more food stamps, possible amnesty for illegals—whatever it takes to keep liberal democrats in office.

Across the pond, the situation is much more dire. For a thousand years Britain has historically been a largely homogeneous society. Thus, unlike America, Britain has never been a nation of immigrants—until the past few decades. Ominously, an upsurge in immigration in recent years has literally remade Britain.

Europe in general is experiencing tremendous immigration strain— mostly due to Muslim immigrants. The same is true for the UK. Shockingly, white Brits are a minority in London today, making up only 45 percent of the population. According to the British magazine Standpoint, the Muslim population in England and Whales almost doubled from 2002 to 2012, going from 1.5 million to 2.7 million. The article’s author, Douglas Murray, adds that if you include illegals, the stats are much higher. Based on recent census data, Murray says there is a “troubling future” ahead for Britain.[11]

Murray notes that three million UK homes have no adult who speaks English. He writes: “Mass immigration has altered our country completely. It has become a radically different place, and London has become a foreign country.” Overall, he says, this massive immigration trend has “made us poorer, drained our resources, and brought cultural practices we could happily do without.” He refers specifically to Muslim cultural practices in which immigrants are attempting to “impose parallel legal systems” (sharia law) and other “norms of behavior” contrary to the traditional British way of life. He adds that “specific cultural ideas and attitudes that some immigrants bring with them … [are] pre-medieval.” Instead of expecting immigrants to assimilate British culture, Britain has encouraged them to bring their beliefs, customs, religions—and hatred—to Britain.

Murray laments that the UK’s Office for National Statistics labels the massive influx of immigrants as mere “diversity”—an indication of the government’s multiculturalist leanings. In fact, according to the Daily Mail, the government has in recent years intentionally “embarked on a policy of mass immigration to change Britain into a multicultural society…. During the period that Labour has been in office, mass immigration has simply changed the face of Britain. The total number of immigrants since 1997 is pushing three million.” The article accuses the former Labour government of trying to deliberately “change the ethnic composition of the country” for political gain—to lock in future supporters who would be “expected to vote Labour” (this is not unlike what Obama is doing by greatly expanding the American “welfare state”).[12]

Ultimately, the article says, the Labour Party “set out to destroy the right of the British people to live in a society defined by a common history, religion, law, language and tradition. They set out to destroy forever what it means to be culturally British, and to put another ‘multicultural’ identity in its place.”

But even among those who are genuinely concerned, Murray says that “defeatism” best describes the current government’s plan to deal with the issue. European experts, he adds, are saying, “It cannot be stopped.”

According to Murray, the problem in England—like in America—is an inordinate fear of being labeled racist. The Mail article adds that those who express concerns about UK immigration issues are “dismissed with utter contempt as racists.” For now, it appears that the British leadership has chosen to “look the other way.” Meanwhile, however, as Murray says, “British identity itself is at stake.”

It is indeed as God has said: “For My people”—both ancient Israel and modern Anglo-American Israel—“are foolish; they have not [truly] known Me; they are stupid children, and they have no understanding. They are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge” (Jer. 4:22). Britain is so afraid of offending Muslim “sensitivities” and being labeled racist that its leaders cannot bring themselves to confront Islam outright. Instead, Britain’s leadership continues to turn to the illusion of politically correct multiculturalism. Perhaps we should take to heart Hosea’s words, that modern-day Israel has racially “mixed himself among the people…. Strangers have eaten up his strength, and he does not know. Yea, gray hairs are here and there on him, yet he knows it not” (Hosea 7:8-9).

“Where there is no vision…”

Today, Britain and America are confronted with massive economic and social problems unparalleled in history. Yet the harder our leaders work at solving our problems—the more money they spend attempting to rescue our economies—the more entangled the problems become.

Ultimately, our nations’ problems are not really economic, social or political—they are spiritual. Britain and America have forsaken God—we have rejected His rule both as nations and as individuals. As the following chapter will bring out, our Anglo-American nations have been undergoing a steep moral decline for decades—and even “Christianity” has failed to make a difference. Now, time has caught up with us. Just as we have been the recipients of divinely-promised blessings of immeasurable magnitude, we are now reaping the prophesied curses for our rejection of God.

When humans reject God and refuse to believe and follow His Word, they are left to their own devices—which eventually always fail, for “there is a way which seems right to a man, but the end thereof is the way of death” (Prov. 14:12). They also lose their sense of national vision. Proverbs 29:18 says that “where there is no vision, the people perish”—the nation will, in time, fall.

In his eye-opening book America the Beautiful, Dr. Ben Carson says America—and certainly Britain as well—has lost her vision. Noting that America is now a nation that has “turned inward,” he writes that “it is becoming increasingly difficult to discern what the vision for America is. Do we really know who we are and what we stand for? Do we know what we believe in?” Yet, he adds, the key to our past success was a “well-defined vision for the nation.”[13]

Indeed, with the loss of our moral compass, our nations seemingly have little purpose in the world. Beset with serious problems and challenges at home and abroad, our leaders lack both the wisdom and the will to respond appropriately. One of the curses God warned of for modern Israel’s continued disobedience was that He would break the pride of her power (Lev. 26:19). There are numerous ideas as to what this means. But notice that God did not say He would break our power (though that will come), but the pride of our power. Today, America and Britain still have considerable power—be it defined economically, politically, militarily, etc. But having lost our national vision, we no longer take pride in our role as leaders of the free world. The historic boldness and confidence are gone—vanquished by our moral depravity. Thus, it seems the pride of our power has been broken. Consequently, we have conceded to a form of “global political correctness” that despises strong leadership. (Barack Obama’s numerous apologies for America’s past leadership role bear witness to this growing viewpoint.)

Just as the rise of America and Britain to global dominance changed the world in countless positive ways, the accelerating decline of Anglo- American influence will likewise impact the entire world—in profound and frightening ways.

CHAPTER 14 NOTES

1. U.S. oil production has continued to increase over time, but its share of global output has decreased—largely due to increased output by other nations (today it stands at 13 percent, ranking third behind Russia and Saudi Arabia). The point to these statistics is to show that the U.S. no longer has the economic impact it once did—such as when it produced half of the worlds oil supply.

2. Stryker McGuire, “Forget the Great in Britain,” Newsweek (Aug. 17, 2009). On the Internet, the article has been renamed “The Last Gasps of the British Empire” (see www.newsweek.com/last-gasps-british-empire-81521).

3. This refers to the total national or public debt, which is money borrowed by the federal government.

4. When Obama took office in 2009, America’s national debt was just over $10 trillion. By the end of 2013, it had reached $17 trillion—mostly due to Obama’s spending programs. It is predicted that by the time he leaves office in 2016, the U.S. debt will exceed $20 trillion!

5. During the five years Obama has been in office (2009-2013), the federal government has spent a total $3.7 trillion on approximately 80 different poverty and welfare programs (these do not include Social Security or Medicare). Moreover, the states contribute more than $200 billion annually to this federal nexus, primarily in the form of free low-income health care. (“U.S. Spending on Welfare Fast Approaching $1 Trillion per Year,” Natural News, Nov. 4, 2013. From www.naturalnews.com/z042774_US_ welfare_entitlement_spending_national_debt.html.)

To some extent, welfare and entitlement growth reflects the ongoing problems of underemployment and stagnant wages in America. But in the case of SNAP, the Obama administration has made it significantly easier to qualify for assistance. Many see this is an example of Obama’s political agenda: expand the American “welfare state” in order to effectively buy Democratic votes for future elections.

6. The gross federal debt is the sum of public debt and intra-government debt (money owed by one branch of the government to another).

7. “Is the Dollar Dying? Why U.S. Currency Is in Danger,” CNBC (Feb. 14, 2013); see www.cnbc.com/100461159.

8. www.cnbc.com/100461159

9. “Financial Disaster Looms for America: $106 Trillion in Unfunded Obligations Mounting Up Over 30 Years,” Natural News (June 20, 2013). From www.naturalnews.com/z040868_US_debt_entitlements_financial_ disaster.html.

10. www.investmentwatchblog.com/does-china-plan-to-establish-chinesecities-and-special-economic-zones-all-over-america/#jyPJPaHzMpYPvaF8.99

11. Douglas Murray, “A Census that Revealed Our Troubling Future,” Standpoint (March 2013); www.standpointmag.co.uk/features-march-13-census-that-revealed-a-troubling-future-douglas-murray-immigrationmulticulturalism-race-ethnicity?page=3

12. “The Secret Plot to Destroy Britain’s Identity,” Daily Mail (Feb. 24, 2010)

13. Dr. Ben Carson, America the Beautiful, p. 110

CHAPTER FIFTEEN

The Shocking Moral Decline of Britain and America

The Anglo-American nations of Britain and America were founded on the moral precepts of the Bible. The British Empire was built on common law derived from the principles of the Torah, and the United States was founded by God-fearing men of faith who, despite their personal failings, possessed a great reverence for the Scriptures. Like a “city on a hill,” our English-speaking nations once shone as a moral beacon of hope in a dark world. But today, we are fast becoming a “byword” throughout the world (see Deuteronomy 28:37).

As this chapter will demonstrate, the Anglo-American peoples have forsaken their moral foundation—a foundation once based squarely on the Scriptures. Thus, curses—prophesied long ago as corrective punishment on a rebellious Israel—have begun to multiply and will soon overtake our nations. As God warns in Leviticus 26:25, He will indeed “avenge the quarrel of His covenant,” bringing sore punishment on modern Israel for her persistent violation of His laws—in particular, the Ten Commandments.

In order to understand God’s present judgment on America and Britain, we must first realize the stark contrast between how our forefathers viewed God and the Bible as compared to how today’s leaders view God and the Bible. As you will see, the difference is astonishing.

British Reliance on Scripture

Whether Catholic or Protestant, Britain has been nominally Christian for well over a thousand years. An early figure in the nation’s religious history was Alfred the Great (849–899 AD), who, as king, was able to secure victory over the Viking invasion of 871 AD that threatened to destroy Christianity just as it was beginning to flourish as the majority religion. Inspired by his success, Alfred created a new system of Christian education designed to reach the illiterate country people. It was the king’s hope that Christianity would begin to capture the imagination of the ordinary people. Known for his reverence for Scripture, Alfred “adopted the Ten Commandments and other selections from the Pentateuch, together with the Golden Rule … as the foundation of the early laws of England.”[1]

Later, the Norman Conquest of England (1066 AD) cemented the power of the Church of England. Throughout the Middle Ages, Christianity in Britain became central to the lives of ordinary people.

In 16th-century England, Catholicism—which had dominated the nation’s religious landscape for centuries—was beginning to face serious criticism from the common people as the Reformation gained momentum. Protestantism, however, was a minority faith, and no one seriously thought about England dropping Catholicism. But as fate would have it, King Henry VIII wanted a divorce so he could remarry and secure a male heir—but the Pope denied him permission. The king reacted by “divorcing” England from the Roman Catholic Church. Of course, Henry endorsed a few religious reforms so his decision did not appear to be driven by self-interest.

Eventually, after a brief but bloody return to Catholicism under Henry’s daughter, Mary I, England became predominantly Protestant. For the first time in Britain’s history, to be English was to be Protestant. Despite later turmoil caused by Catholic royalty, the 1689 Act of Toleration granted freedom of religious worship. The Church of England, though always the official state religion, had surrendered the idea of imposing a single faith on its people. (For more on the religious history of Britain, see Appendix 6.)

As brought out previously, the British defeat of the Spanish armada in 1588 was hailed by the English as the result of divine intervention— which it clearly was. The benchmark event gave the British renewed confidence and a sense that God had a great purpose for the nation. With the end of Catholic dominance over Britain, religious zeal began to flourish among the common people, and renewed interest in the Scriptures soon resulted in the 1611 translation of the King James Version of the Bible.

As the British Empire was rapidly expanding under Queen Victoria, people began to sense an awareness of God’s role in British history—and many began to sense a divine mission behind the Empire. For example, Lord Archibald Rosebery, British prime minister from 1894 to 1895, once spoke at Glasgow University about the British Empire. He said that even “the most cynical must see the finger of the divine” in the Empire’s formation, which, he added, resulted from the “supreme direction of the Almighty.”[2] At times, other leaders have referred to the “manifest destiny” of the British—of their “right” and “duty” before God to serve mankind through the rule of the Empire.[3]

Such sentiments served to solidify religious devotion and a reliance on the Bible in the lives of many British citizens. One of these was Sir William Blackstone. Introduced in 1765, Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England were fundamental to the development of English common law and served as the premier legal reference for the nation. Of utmost importance was the fact that Blackstone’s work was based principally on the laws and precepts of the Bible. The Commentaries were crucial as well in the subsequent development of America’s legal system.[4] Following British example, many early American colonies incorporated the entire text of the Ten Commandments into their legal code. Other passages of the Old Testament were copied in whole or in part into various legal documents.[5]

But today, modern psychology, new philosophies, and naturalistic worldviews—which have proliferated in Great Britain for more than a century—are taking center stage, leaving Christianity in serious decline. Now a breeding ground of Darwinian evolution and atheism, England has been falling away from its Christian heritage for generations. Moreover, as Appendix 8 brings out, Christianity may be facing virtual extinction in the United Kingdom.

America’s Biblical Roots

Today, it is considered “politically incorrect” to teach America’s Christian roots. While most Americans (about 85 percent) still identify themselves as Christians, America itself is now widely viewed as a post- Christian nation. As will be demonstrated, this apparent paradox is the result of a long process of cultural and ideological change—including a new, liberal approach to the idea of the “separation of church and state.”

What does it mean to be post-Christian? Essentially, it means that Christianity—or, more to the point, the Bible—no longer impacts American politics or culture as it once did. While almost all politicians are sworn into office with their hand conspicuously placed on the Holy Bible, they ignore it as the ultimate source of moral law. In the interests of political correctness, tolerance and moral relativism—which, as we will later see, all stem from multicultural ideology—Christian morals cannot be held as superior to any other religious view or set of principles, including those of secular atheism. Thus, the Bible—since it is the basis of Christianity, and Christianity is now viewed as just one religion among many in America—has been gutted of its power and authority as a tool for national leadership or as a standard for societal morality.

Without question, there is a growing bias against anything Christian. According to secularists, religion is fine as long as it remains private and does not spill over into the areas of morality, education or politics. It’s fine to read the Bible, go to church, or be a Christian. It’s fine to have conservative, biblical values (though, today, only a minority actually do). But don’t let those values impact national policies on school prayer, sexual conduct, the “right” of homosexuals to marry, or abortion on demand.

Today, in liberal American politics, “separation of church and state” means a government devoid of Judeo-Christian influence. But to argue that our founding fathers had just the opposite view—that the state was, in fact, to be governed by biblical principles—is to invite scorn and ridicule. In the view of our founders, “separation of church and state” meant that while the state (the federal government) would recognize the singular importance of Christianity, it was never to favor one particular church denomination above another—let alone attempt to impose a single religion on the people. This was precisely what the early colonists were attempting to avoid by coming to America—the enforcement of state-run religion as they had experienced under the Church of England. But to claim that religion was to have no part in the formation and administration of government is to misunderstand the intent of those who established this nation. The truth is, it was religion itself that gave birth to the colonies in America.

While today’s secular-oriented educational curriculum conveniently ignores this reality, America was clearly founded on biblically based values with the founders themselves being men of great faith. In his book The Case for America’s Christian Heritage, Gary DeMar writes: “America’s Christian roots run deep and wide throughout the landscape of our nation’s history. At every point in our nation’s past, America’s Christian heritage can be seen at nearly every turn through the voluminous historical records that have been painstakingly preserved.”[6] Concerning these historical records, University of Houston political science professors Donald Lutz and Charles Hyneman published a monumental, ten-year study in 1983 in which they surveyed over 15,000 documents written by America’s founding fathers between 1760 and 1805. They discovered that the Bible was, by far, the most cited source, comprising 34 percent of all quotations. In fact, the Bible was quoted four times more than any other source.[7]

Yet these historical records have been ignored when it comes to teaching future generations. Today’s mainstream programs of study—from grade school to high school—all but overlook our Christian heritage. Many in elite circles even deny the clear facts of our founders’ faith. Obviously, there are forces at work that want to project America as secular, irreligious. Why? Again, it gets back to the rejection of the Bible as the standard for moral values. As DeMar notes, America’s founders “shared a common religion and set of values. America’s earliest founders were self-professed Christians, and their founding documents expressed a belief in a Christian worldview.”[8]

Moreover, every colonial constitution acknowledged that God had a hand in their founding and development. Many later state constitutions were specifically Christian in their wording, and all of them were generally religious in tone (over time, such wording has been largely purged in the interests of “political correctness”).

Indeed, there is abundant historical evidence demonstrating that 1) our founding fathers looked to God as the source of their victory over the British in establishing nationhood; 2) they believed America’s abundant national blessings came as a result of divine providence; and 3) they prayerfully and humbly relied on the wisdom of the Scriptures to direct their steps. Here are just a few examples:

After the American colonies won their independence from Britain, George Washington, military commander-in-chief during the Revolutionary War, wrote a letter to the governors of the 13 states expressing his desire to return to private life. He closed the letter with this prayer: “I now make it my earnest prayer that God would have you and the State over which you preside in His holy protection, [and] that He would incline the hearts of the citizens to cultivate a spirit of subordination and obedience to government, [and] to entertain brotherly affection and love for one another … [and] that He would most graciously be pleased to dispose us all to do justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that character, humility, and [peaceful] temper of the mind, which [are] the characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed religion….”[9] In a similar spirit, Samuel Adams—governor of Massachusetts and often acknowledged as the “Father of the American Revolution”—issued a state proclamation asking the people to pray “that the peaceful and glorious reign of our Divine Redeemer may be known and enjoyed throughout the whole family of mankind.”[10]

In a letter to his wife on the day the Continental Congress approved the Declaration of Independence, John Adams, who would go on to become the second U.S. president, wrote: “The general principles upon which the [founding] Fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity … [which are] eternal and immutable…”[11] Adams’ son, John Quincy Adams, the 6th U.S. president, wrote: “The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.”[12]

With these notable examples, we can clearly see that the patriotism of America’s forefathers was undergirded by a strong Christian foundation. These were men of deep conviction and reliance on God. Moreover, they understood that a functioning, peaceful society must be founded not just on “law” in general, but on an ultimate principle, a higher moral code—such as provided in Scripture. Daniel Webster, senator from Massachusetts and U.S. Secretary of State from 1841 to 1843, wrote: “To preserve the government we must also preserve morals. Morality rests on religion [and religion on the Bible]; if you destroy the [moral] foundation, the superstructure must fall.” Likewise, James Madison, 4th U.S. president and considered the father of the Bill of Rights, referred directly to the Ten Commandments as that moral basis: “We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self government; upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.”[13]

As we will see, the founding fathers’ commitment to the principles found in the Bible was central to America’s greatness—and it was this adherence to biblical morality that assured God’s continued favor. But today, with the Scriptures dismissed as irrelevant at the government and academic levels—and scarcely followed even by those claiming to be Christian—God has removed His favor and the nation has begun spiraling toward disaster.

Scholars who have honestly studied this subject cannot avoid the obvious: from the beginning, America’s values were firmly rooted in the Bible. For instance, a 1982 Newsweek article titled “How the Bible Made America” stated: “[For] centuries [the Bible] has exerted an unrivaled influence on American culture, politics and social life. Now historians are discovering that the Bible, perhaps even more than the Constitution, is our founding document, the source of [our founders’ belief in] … the United States as a special, sacred nation, a people called by God to establish a model society, a beacon to the world.”[14] Time magazine wrote something similar in 1987:
“[America] is the only country deliberately founded on a good idea. That good idea combines a commitment to man’s inalienable rights with the Calvinist [i.e., biblical] belief in an ultimate moral right and sinful man’s obligation to do good. These articles of faith, embodied in the Declaration of Independence and in the Constitution, literally govern our lives today.”[15]

At the start of the American Revolution, 98 percent of Americans claimed to be Protestant (a mixture of Baptists, Quakers, Sabbatarians, Puritans, Independents, etc.) and 1.4 percent claimed to be Roman Catholic. Thus, over 99 percent were professing Christians! Representing the colony of Pennsylvania, Benjamin Franklin wrote: “Serious religion, under its various denominations, is not only tolerated, but respected and practiced. Atheism is unknown….”[16] Franklin also wrote: “I have lived, sir, a long time; and the longer I live the more convincing proof I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men! And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured, sir, in the sacred writings, that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this….”[17]

No doubt politicians today would be embarrassed to learn that all of the 55 delegates who forged the Constitution were “careful students of the Bible, especially the Old Testament, and even though some did not belong to any Christian denomination, the teachings of Jesus were held in universal respect and admiration.”[18]

In more recent times, American leaders have reaffirmed America’s biblical foundation. In a 1911 address titled “The Bible and Progress,” Woodrow Wilson—a short time before he became the 28th American president—told his audience that “America was born a Christian nation. America was born to exemplify that devotion to the elements of righteousness which are derived from the revelations of Holy Scripture.”[19] Calvin Coolidge, 30th U.S. president, said, “The foundations of our society and our government rest so much on the teachings of the Bible that it would be difficult to support them if faith in these teachings should cease to be practically universal in our country.”[20]

Franklin D. Roosevelt, 32nd U.S. president, once said: “We cannot read the history of our rise and development as a nation without reckoning with the place the Bible has occupied in shaping the advances of the Republic. Where we have been the truest and most consistent in obeying its precepts, we have attained the greatest measure of contentment and prosperity.”[21] In a mid-Atlantic summit with British Prime Minister Winston Churchill in the darkest hours of World War II, Roosevelt asked the crew of an American warship to join him in a rousing chorus of the hymn “Onward, Christian Soldiers.”[22] Can you imagine any American president making similar claims or requests today? Given the current atmosphere of anti-Christian bias and political correctness, he would be ridiculed by a hostile media and mocked by the academic elite!

Supreme Commander of Allied forces in Europe during World War II and 34th U.S. president, Dwight D. Eisenhower said: “Without God there could be no American form of government, nor an American way of life. Recognition of the Supreme Being is the first—the most basic—expression of Americanism.”[23]

In a 1954 interview with Time magazine, Earl Warren, chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court from 1953 to 1969, said America is “a Christian land governed by Christian principles. I believe the entire Bill of Rights came into being because of the knowledge our forefathers had of the Bible and their belief in it….”[24]

But perhaps the most insightful view of how biblical morality played a key role in America’s founding comes from the French social philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville. In 1831, de Tocqueville came to America to observe the new nation and its institutions. His conclusions, published in 1835 as Democracy in America, have been described as “comprehensive and penetrating” in analyzing the character of 19th-century American society. He wrote: “The sects that exist in the United States are innumerable. They all differ in respect to the worship which is due to the Creator; but they all agree in respect to the duties which are due from man to man. Each sect adores the Deity in its own peculiar manner, but all sects preach the same moral law in the name of God…. Moreover, all the sects of the United States are comprised within the great unity of Christianity, and Christian morality is everywhere the same…. [T]here is no country in the world where the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America.”[25]

As de Tocqueville brings out, it was not religion per se—or even Christianity itself—that made America morally strong. Rather, it was the almost universal respect for the biblical standard of God’s laws and commandments. To be sure, the reality of America’s biblical roots cannot be ignored. DeMar concludes that a good working definition of “Christian America” is “the sharing of common moral values that have been shaped with reference to the Bible.”[26]

Why is all of this important? These common moral values, based on the Bible, were fundamental in the development of America. Now, their loss will be the key to our judgment as a nation. Modern Joseph—Britain and America—is now under judgment. But God’s criterion for judgment is not “religion” per se; it does not hinge on denominationalism or on a specific doctrinal worldview—for America, even at its inception, was home to a variety of faiths (including the Jewish faith, which honors the moral teachings of the Old Testament). Rather, God’s judgment centers on how we as a people have lived—and are now living. We once had a common moral code of life based on the Bible. It did not matter if you were Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, or even non-religious. From its earliest days, America held to a common, recognized, and esteemed moral code summed up in the Ten Commandments.

Now, because of our foolish rejection of this biblical standard, we are being cursed right and left. Ultimately, it will mean our destruction as a nation.

The Decline of Biblical Morality

Post-war America possessed a clear sense of obligation or duty to the world. And there was no question about America’s “moral compass”— as it was based solidly on the Bible. As Dave Miller of Apologetics Press brings out: “The Bible was required reading in the public schools of America from before the beginning of the nation—and for two centuries thereafter up to the 1940s and 1950s. Indeed, the first book in the classroom was the Bible. It was the centerpiece of a child’s education: ‘Students learned how to read using the Bible. Much of the school day was devoted to memorizing and reciting passages from it, and passages were copied to learn penmanship.’ ” Moreover, “respect for the Bible as the Word of God was once the norm. [But the subsequent] pluralistic assault by the forces of political correctness on America’s Christian heritage has obscured this fact. America’s initial existence and future survival was originally seen by the Founders to be heavily, if not exclusively, dependent on the successful diffusion of the Bible throughout society.”[27]

Dr. Ben Carson—a retired surgeon turned politician—echoes this point of view in his recent book America the Beautiful: “When our nation was rising rapidly to the pinnacle of the world, we were not ashamed of our relationship with God. In fact, reading from the Bible was not only common, it was expected in early public schools. The founders wanted generally accepted religious values to be taught in our schools without favoring any particular denomination, but they never intended to exclude God from the classroom because they knew that you had to have something upon which to base your system of values. If we only believe in evolution and survival of the fittest, whose values do we use to govern society?”[28]

But in post-war America, change was on the horizon. Insidious forces were hard at work to radically alter American culture. The ideological origins of much of this change can be traced to America’s academic world. Throughout much of the Cold War—while most Americans were worrying about the prospect of a Soviet-initiated nuclear war—Russian-bred Marxistsocialistic influences were infiltrating American academia, poisoning the minds of a generation of young people. Moreover, there was a growing infatuation among educators with Darwinian evolution. Thus, a godless liberalism gradually emerged from America’s institutions of higher learning that in no small part set the stage for the nation’s slide into moral oblivion.

The resultant 1960s counterculture—generated largely by well-planned university uprisings—was all about legalizing drugs, abortion, and homosexuality; the promotion of radical feminism; and the elimination of censorship. Numerous extremist organizations were formed during this period, which today share this same agenda. Their strategy also remains the same: minimize (or ultimately eliminate) Christianity, the family unit, and the role of the White male.

Central to this attack on America’s moral and cultural foundation was the Civil Rights movement. While the achievement of “civil rights” for Black Americans was certainly good and right, it was not without hidden costs. In effect, the quest for “social equality” for Blacks spawned a variety of liberation movements—all under the misleading banner of “fairness and nondiscrimination.” Out of the Civil Rights movement came “black studies” in the colleges. The idea was that past exploitation of and injustice toward Blacks merited society’s special emphasis on Black cultural achievements. Thus, “black pride” and “black history” were born. But as David Kupelian notes in his book The Marketing of Evil, there was more going on behind the scenes. Mainstream Civil Rights focused on the idea that all men are created equal. This battle cry was, in effect, “hijacked by forces of the ’60s radical left.” Black pride, for example, was not about attaining equality for Blacks, it was about positioning America as a White racist nation. Rather than working for racial harmony, the veiled goal was to “indict America as a racist oppressor as a means to foment division, revolution, and societal transformation.”[29]

Radical activists were keen to the opportunity before them. Thus, riding on the coattails of the “successful” Civil Rights movement, other “liberation” movements quickly emerged: “equal rights” were demanded for gays and lesbians, along with special “rights” for women—such as the “right to choose” to abort a pregnancy as a matter of convenience.

In order to counter America’s fundamentally conservative outlook, such movements would need to marginalize Christianity and the Bible. Enter multiculturalism. Arising from the world of liberal academia, there has been no greater threat to America’s moral and cultural foundation than the one brought under the deceptive guise of multiculturalism. On the surface, the idea of studying the values and experiences of other cultures seems innocent enough. After all, we do need to enrich our understanding of the world and its peoples, right? But multiculturalism—as it has been promoted and employed in Anglo-American academic settings—is not about fostering a deeper understanding of other world cultures. Rather, multiculturalism has been used to promote other cultures as superior to and in opposition to Western culture. Ultimately, multiculturalism promotes all cultures as being equal—which, of necessity, means that all religions and all moral positions are equal.

In his book Slouching Towards Gomorrah, Robert Bork contends that multiculturalism was “fabricated by radicals” solely as “a philosophy of antagonism to America and the West”—as a central element in a well-planned “attack on America, the European-American culture, and the white race, with special emphasis on white males.” Bork explains that a multicultural curriculum should focus on the study of other cultures. But typically, such courses have not delved into the cultures of other parts of the world. Rather, “the focus [of multicultural curricula] is on groups that, allegedly, have been subjected to oppression by American and Western civilization— homosexuals, American Indians, blacks, Hispanics, women, and so on. The message is not that all cultures are to be respected, but that European culture, which created the dominance of white males, is uniquely evil. Multiculturalism follows the agenda of modern liberalism, and it comes straight from the Sixties counterculture. But now, in American education, it [the liberal mindset of the 1960s] is the dominant culture.”[30]

Kupelian argues that multiculturalism—a key link in the chain of all radical liberation movements—has created a “moral inversion” of sorts that proclaims all cultures to be equal. The result is a “pervasive environment of moral equivalence.”[31] In fact, the moral landscapes of America and Britain have been reshaped around this destructive concept. Since all cultures are equal, all values are equal: the homosexual lifestyle cannot be criticized as sinful or contrary to nature; same-sex “marriage” should be accepted and embraced; and abortion is not murder but a rightful choice. All religions are equal: Christianity cannot be superior to Buddhism or Hinduism or Islam or secular atheism, as it is but one cosmic viewpoint among many. All political and ideological views are equal—even those that clearly run counter to the free market system that helped build America.

Kupelian adds that “the multicultural madness that started in the ’60s has infused virtually all of American society with unending confusion…. A generation later, the various ‘liberation’ movements—sexual liberation, women’s liberation, gay liberation, and so on—have blossomed into rampant infidelity, divorce and family breakdown, gender confusion, AIDS, abortion, and other mammoth problems…. [Moreover, what] was bizarre and unmentionable a generation ago is today a civil right.”[32]

In the end, the Anglo-American Bible-based culture is no longer held as superior to other cultures. Thanks to multiculturalism—which is the driving ideology behind “social justice,” political correctness, tolerance and non-discrimination, and “equal rights”—the Bible has been all but gutted of its authority to regulate human conduct. Meanwhile, values, ethics, and morality become relative, situational.

As a point of interest, when God brought the children of Israel into the Promised Land, He instructed them in one way of life. This included “strangers” or Gentiles. If a foreigner wanted to live in the land of Israel, he was required to live by Israel’s laws—God’s laws (Ex. 12:49; Lev. 24:22). No allowances were made for other “cultural preferences.” Similarly, God warned the Israelites against intermarrying with non-Israelites (Deut. 7:3-4; Ezra 9:1-4; Neh. 13:23-25)—as He did not want to pollute the superior culture He sought to establish for Israel. God is not a multiculturalist—all cultures are not equal—and He expressly prohibits anything that interferes with His perfect standard.

God warns, “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil; who put darkness for light and light for darkness; who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!” (Isa. 5:20). Is that not exactly what we have done? Is it any wonder that Britain and America are today afflicted by overwhelming political, social and economic troubles? As verse 24 says, have we not “cast away the Law of the LORD of hosts, and despised the Word of the Holy One of Israel”? Kupelian echoes this very point: “[Today’s secular] worldview whereby we declare all human cultures and moral codes, from the fairest to the foulest, to be equal in value is made possible only by the total abandonment of any objective standard of right and wrong.”[33]

As we have seen, our founding fathers looked to the Scriptures as the basis of all they would implement in terms of governance. As a summary of a broader body of laws, the Ten Commandments have been that fixed standard in America since before its founding. Some of the colonies even incorporated the entire text of the Ten Commandments into their legal code. Other passages of the Old Testament were copied in whole or in part into various colonial or state legal documents.[34] Indeed, with brilliant simplicity and brevity, the Ten Commandments codify acceptable human behavior— not just for then or now, but for all time.

As previously mentioned, Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England were not only fundamental to the development of English law, they also served as the leading legal reference for America’s founders. With his work deeply rooted in biblical principles, Blackstone was apparently the first to use the phrase “the laws of nature and of nature’s God” to refer to divine law. Natural law, for Blackstone, was—or sprang from—God’s Law. Thus, both British and American law can be traced to “natural law,” which in reality reflects the Torah. As H. B. Clark wrote in Biblical Law, “The Ten Commandments are the basis of Mosaic law—the constitution of the Mosaic dispensation. They have been called the greatest short moral code ever formulated and the idealized model for all law, and it has been argued [by scholars such as Blackstone] that the whole of natural law may be deduced from them.”[35]

But today, radicals and political elites want to deny the fact that America’s legal system originated in Scripture. For example, in 1991 Clarence Thomas—then a U.S. Federal Judge—appealed to the concept of “natural law” in some of his legal opinions and writings. Like Blackstone, Thomas viewed “natural law” as an extension of God’s “higher law.” When Thomas was subsequently nominated for a post on the U.S. Supreme Court, liberals in the U.S. Senate took vociferous exception. The reason? They knew his stance on biblical law and were fearful of anyone who might promote the Bible from a position of authority. Leading the attack was then-senator Joseph Biden—the current vice president in the Obama White House. Biden wrote an article that year in The Washington Post expressing his party’s distain for Thomas’ conservative view of law. In the article, Biden defined “natural law” in complete opposition to the “higher law” of the Bible—claiming that “natural law” does not function as “a specific moral code regulating individual behavior.” He wrote that “natural law” is not a “static set of unchanging principles”—such as we find in the Ten Commandments—but an “evolving body of ideals.”[36]

Clearly, to Biden—whose views characterize those of today’s liberal Democrats including the Obama administration—“natural law” is moral relativism in disguise. “Law” is what you choose to believe and follow. Morality becomes a matter of individual preferences.

Thus, as DeMar writes, “The modern conception of law is a far cry from the moral principles on which America was founded.” However, man “cannot live within the fluid boundaries of legal relativism. There must be a definitive and final legal standard of appeal to justify moral decisions at the personal and governmental levels. If not, then one judge’s opinion is as good (or as bad) as another.”[37]

That standard is the Word of God. But as Solomon once said, there is nothing really new under the sun—for in the Garden of Eden, even Adam and Eve rejected that standard. They too chose the path of moral relativism.

True, there was no codified “law” at that time—but the moral principles behind God’s laws and precepts were in existence. In Eden, God’s personal instructions to Adam and Eve equaled His word. In taking of the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil,” Adam and Eve effectively told God that they would determine—choose—what was good and evil, light and dark, bitter and sweet. Moral relativism. But did not the Serpent at least imply that it was their “civil right” to do so—that they needed liberation?

The Destructive Myth of “Church-State Separation”

The issue of “church and state” in Britain has been fundamentally different from that in America. After all, Britain has been Christian for over a thousand years. The supremacy of the Church of England—as the official “state religion”—has allowed Protestantism to play a role in nearly every area of British society. Even today, “Lords” representing the Church of England have a voice in the British Parliament. But having a “state church” and actually practicing that religion are completely separate issues. In the UK, secular humanism has made tremendous inroads into academia as well as mainstream society—and atheism (along with New Age philosophy) is almost universally accepted among the educated. The long-term result has been that while the “state religion” is still taught in the public schools, it has been reduced to little more than a history lesson on past English culture.

But in America, the myth of the so-called “separation of church and state” has—in alliance with multiculturalism, “equal rights” and political correctness—been conjured up by radicals solely for the purpose of denying the Bible its rightful place in society. In Protestantism in America, Jerald C. Brauer writes that soon after World War II the church-state issue emerged in a “radical form.” Controversy arose over whether public monies could be used for private religious schools. Parochial schools had begun demanding their share of tax revenue that normally went to fund public education. After all, state-funded schools at the time were promoting (or allowing) classroom Bible reading and prayer. Protestant organizations aggravated the situation by arguing that such funds should be withheld from non-Protestant (i.e., Catholic) parochial schools. When public resources were ultimately denied, private schools and various secular organizations began to appeal to the First Amendment—citing the so-called “separation of church and state” clause—asserting that religion had no place at all in state-funded schools.[38]

Essentially, if private religious schools could not have access to state funding, then public schools—if they sponsored religious teachings—should also be denied state funds. Over time, this had the effect of driving religion from the public school setting—a consequence that later spilled over into nearly all other public venues.

In 1948, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with anti-religion forces in a case called McCollum vs. Board of Education. They wrote: “The First Amendment has erected a wall between the church and the state which must be kept high and impregnable.” In effect, the court was acting to bar religious classes from public schools. The high court would subsequently prohibit state-sponsored prayers in schools in a 1962 New York case, then rule a year later against devotional Bible readings in classrooms. In an interview with Christian Century magazine, J. Brent Walker, executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, said: “The 1948 [McCollum] case … set the tone for the Supreme Court’s view on the proper relationship between church and state in public schools.”[39] In the end, the court would permit religious instruction only if it was voluntary and held off-campus. Even Bibles and Christian books were banned from state schools. In Roberts vs. Madigan (1989), for example, the court ruled: “It is unconstitutional for a classroom library to contain books which deal with Christianity, or for a teacher to be seen with a personal copy of the Bible at school.”[40]

Some states followed the court’s rulings to the letter, but many states—with little more than a contemptuous nod to the courts—continued to allow simple Bible-reading and school prayer with little concern. In time, however, pressure by radical groups would force them to do otherwise. Brauer sums up the result: “What actually prevailed in public education was either indifference or hostility, veiled or outright, against all religious beliefs. This was, in fact, a form of faith that denied the relevance of the Judeo-Christian tradition for modern life by denying it any place in the [public school] study program.”[41]

Following these public school precedents, the idea of the “separation of church and state” was carried over into virtually all of American public life. Efforts by God-hating radicals to prohibit the public display of the Ten Commandments is a prominent example. In 1980, liberal elements finally reached the U.S. Supreme Court in Stone vs. Graham. The Court ruled that the Ten Commandments could not be posted in public school classrooms because the “preeminent purpose” for doing so was “plainly religious in nature.” The case summary noted: “It is unconstitutional for students to see the Ten Commandments since they might read, meditate upon, respect, or obey them.”[42]

Have we really fallen this far?

In the late 1950s, the Fraternal Order of Eagles donated monuments displaying the Ten Commandments to numerous American schools and communities. Few of those monuments still stand on public grounds; most have been removed by court order following civil action by activist groups such as the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF). In fact, the FFRF has systematically targeted these and similar displays over the past several years in an apparent attempt to strip America’s landscape of all expressions of reliance on God’s Word. In a Pennsylvania case, for example, the FFRF filed lawsuits in 2012 against two schools that still had the decades-old monuments on display. Citing Stone vs. Graham, the FFRF claimed that “the continued presence of the Ten Commandments on district property is an unconstitutional advancement and endorsement of religion,” and that the monuments “lacked any secular purpose”—that is, they were purely religious in nature.[43]

In a similar 2012 case, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit against Bloomfield, New Mexico, to force the removal of a display of the Ten Commandments on the town’s City Hall lawn. The complaint charges that “the monument is a government endorsement of religion and violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.” That same year in North Carolina, the FFRF threatened the city of Newland for displaying a plaque of the Ten Commandments at the entrance to their town hall—claiming that the display was “offensive” and constituted a “blatant violation of the First Amendment.”[44]

These are but a few of scores of similar cases where the anti-God forces of the ACLU, the FFRF and other radical organizations have sought to remove any sign of faith, worship or reliance on the Bible from public view. In every case, they appeal to a distorted interpretation of the First Amendment. In a case that garnered considerable publicity, Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore was sued by radical agnostic organizations in 2000 for installing a granite monument of the Ten Commandments in the court rotunda. Sadly, a U.S. district judge ordered the monument removed, stating that it was “an obvious effort to proselytize on behalf of a particular [i.e., Christian] religion.” Moore refused and was ultimately removed from his position in 2003.[45]

In 2002 interview with the New American, Moore stated that the Ten Commandments were placed in his court specifically to “acknowledge the moral foundation of our law and the foundation of our government.” Of the radicals who opposed him, he said, “They don’t want to be reminded that there is an authority higher than the authority of the state…. They don’t like to be reminded that there is a God.” He added, “Anytime you deny the acknowledgment of God, you are undermining the entire basis for which our country exists.”[46]

Notice what the First Amendment actually says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Note that the amendment is addressed directly to the U.S. Congress—the federal government. Thus, it carries no impetus for state governments—they can do as their state constitutions dictate. Note also that there is no mention of the words “church,” “state,” or “separation.” So where did the idea of “church-state separation” come from?

The concept first appeared in a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists to assure them that no one Christian denomination would gain an upper hand in America as they had in European nations, many of which had “established” state churches (such as the Church of England). Later, it became more about preventing any one religion, such as Christianity, from enjoying a privileged position in society.

Today, however, radicals and “progressive” liberals have nearly brainwashed America into believing that the “separation of church and state” means banishing religion entirely from the public square. As DeMar notes, “Americans have been duped to believe that the First Amendment was designed to keep religion out of every vestige of government under the subterfuge of ‘separation of church and state’ language.”[47]

But from the perspective of America’s founding fathers, “separation of church and state” did not mean that the country was not to be a Christian nation built upon the principles of the Bible. It meant that no one church denomination should enjoy a preferential status—such as was the case in Britain, where the Church of England was the “state” religion. If the amendment had been designed to prevent religion from having an impact on civil issues, it would seem rather strange that on September 24, 1789—the same day the First Amendment was approved—congress called on President Washington to proclaim a national day of prayer and thanksgiving. Clearly, America’s founders and early settlers wanted biblical principles to be fully entrenched within society—including the government.

Ultimately, the idea of the “separation of church and state” is a myth fabricated by liberal activists solely for the purpose of removing all Judeo- Christian influence from American public life. Unfortunately, the U.S. court system—egged on by organizations such as the ACLU, the FFRF and Americans United for Separation of Church and State—has played right along, resulting in a radical separation of religion and civil government. But the fact is, the First Amendment only provides a legal separation between “organized religion” and the federal government—not a moral or a spiritual separation. Nothing in the amendment suggests that the nation’s government should not have a religious or biblical foundation. There is no reason, under the Constitution of the United States, why the principles of the Bible cannot pervade the laws and institutions of America.

When the acknowledgment of God and reliance on the Bible are driven from the public arena, what happens over the long term? Writing for the New American, Steve Farrell gives this insightful answer: “By banning Judeo-Christian morality from the public sphere, we give preference—by default—to lawmakers, judges, and executives (with powers over life and death, prosperity and poverty, freedom and servitude) to act without conscience_ and to educators (with powers over the hearts and minds of our children) to mold the rising generation without any rock solid guiding principles—a frightening prospect.”[48]

A Post-Christian Britain and America?

The tidal wave of social and cultural change unleashed throughout the 1960s and 1970s has fundamentally changed America. Now, a liberal generation nurtured in godless state-funded schools stands at the helm of this great nation. Their “education” has been punctuated by evolution and the rejection of God—where, in the absence of moral absolutes, anything goes and nothing is judged. Radical elements have either taken over or profoundly altered the key institutions of government, media, education, and religion. Christianity is particularly challenged, mocked, and ridiculed—the Bible discarded—while godless beliefs such as no-fault divorce, same-sex “marriage,” and abortion are accepted and embraced by the masses.

The divorce rate in America continues to exceed 50 percent. While the rate is down a bit across parts of the UK—because couples are delaying divorce for financial reasons—it has risen recently in England to 42 percent. Interestingly, in both countries the percentage is roughly the same for Christians. Abortion in America stands at about 1.3 million annually, and just under 200,000 for Britain and Wales (abortions are free under the UK’s system of nationalized healthcare). Since abortion was made “legal” in America in 1973, some 55 million helpless children have been murdered. Shockingly, most of the women who get abortions claim to be “Christian.” And most (85 percent) are unmarried, which points to the ongoing Anglo- American epidemic of premarital and extramarital sex. At current rates, about one third of American women will have an abortion.[49]

Advocates of same-sex marriage continue to advance their cause, as recent polls show that more and more Americans are getting “comfortable” with the idea. In 1996, only 27 percent of adults approved of legalizing “gay marriage.” Today, 53 percent approve—but that figure jumps to 73 percent among those age 18 to 29. Thus, we have passed the “tipping point,” where traditional marriage is no longer the majority view![50]

Today, same-sex marriages are recognized as legal in about a dozen U.S. states. In June of 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the issue, essentially deciding to leave the matter up to the individual states. But the ruling does give federal recognition to same-sex unions. Gay rights groups hailed the ruling as a major step forward for the country, but vowed to push on until same-sex marriage is legal all across America. In Britain, same-sex marriage has long had broad public acceptance. In July, Parliament legalized the practice and Queen Elizabeth gave it a formal nod.

But God warns those who call evil good or darkness light (Isa. 5:20). Make no mistake, the legitimization of homosexual unions as “marriage” will only accelerate the breakdown of Anglo-American society—with tragic consequences![51]

As this chapter has shown, it is all too clear that Britain and America no longer reflect Christian values and morals. Moreover, a 2009 Newsweek article titled “The End of Christian America” suggests that Christianity in America is in a state of serious decline—just as it has been for decades in Britain. Citing the results of the 2009 American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS), author Jon Meacham explains that the percentage of Americans claiming “no religious affiliation” has almost doubled in about two decades—rising from 8 to 15 percent between 1990 and 2008.[52]

These are not disgruntled Christians skipping church, but Americans who are choosing to not be Christians. The reasons behind this growing trend are complex, but there can be no doubt that the progressive expulsion of God and the Bible from the public arena has not only adversely affected Christian practice in the private arena, it has also given Christianity itself a black eye—and it’s only getting worse (see Appendix 8 on the failure of Christianity in Britain and America).

According to Meacham, this trend has been fairly uniform across the entire nation—even in the so-called “Bible Belt”—except for the Northeast. Indicating a change in previous patterns, the ARIS report stated that “the Northeast emerged in 2008 as the new stronghold of the religiously unidentified.” Meacham interviewed Albert Mohler—president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, one of the world’s largest—who found the ARIS report particularly disturbing: “[The] Northeast … was the foundation, the [historical] home base, of American religion. To lose New England [to secularism] struck me as momentous.”

Mohler added: “A remarkable culture-shift has taken place around us. The most basic contours of American culture have been radically altered. The so-called Judeo-Christian consensus of the last [few hundred years] has given way to a post-modern, post-Christian, post-Western cultural crisis which threatens the very heart of [American] culture…. Clearly, there is a new narrative, a post-Christian narrative, that is animating large portions of [American] society.”

Meacham notes, “Many conservative Christians believe they have lost the battles over issues such as abortion, school prayer, and even same-sex marriage, and that the country has now entered a post-Christian phase.” In most contexts, “post-Christian” refers the decline of the importance of Christianity in a particular society.

Even in the United Kingdom—which has a centuries-old Christian tradition—Christianity as a way of life has lost its importance. Indeed, as recently as April 2014 the former archbishop of Canterbury—Lord Williams of Oystermouth—made the profound proclamation that Britain is now a “post-Christian nation.” The evidence can be found throughout British society. For example, a movement is currently under way in Britain to revive the teaching of Christianity in the nation’s public schools. But note that the underlying motivation is a legal requirement that schools teach Christianity as central to England’s religious heritage—not necessarily as moral way of life. The movement is supported by a YouGov study indicating that 64 percent of survey participants believe Christianity should be taught in the schools—but for what reason?—to help children better understand English history and culture. However, the same study also revealed that only half of those polled believe that Christianity provides a moral compass that helps children decipher right from wrong. Apparently, the purpose of those heading up this new effort is not to teach the Bible as a source of morality, but to teach the Christian religion merely as a matter of historical and cultural interest. This approach bows to pressure from the British Humanist Association, which insists that Christianity not be taught “to the exclusion of other approaches to life and not in any pretense that it is relevant to the developing beliefs, values and life stances of most young people.”[53]

But as Mohler notes: “The moral teachings of Christianity have exerted an incalculable influence on Western civilization. As those moral teachings fade into cultural memory, a secularized morality takes their place. Once Christianity is abandoned by a significant portion of the population, the moral landscape necessarily changes.”[54] Kupelian puts it like this: “America—from her government to her schools and even to her churches— has steadily fallen away from the Judeo-Christian values that previously illuminated and gave life and strength to the nation’s institutions. This is equivalent to turning out the country’s lights.”[55]

The same can be said of Britain, which today reeks of secularism.

America’s current president, Barack Obama, has repeatedly asserted that the United States is “no longer a Christian nation.”[56] While Obama’s assessment—typically stated with an element of perverse satisfaction—is indicative of his radical, godless agenda for America, he is, nonetheless, correct. The United States was clearly founded on biblical principles. From that perspective, America was a Christian nation. But somewhere along the way—in the space of less than two generations—America has become morally bankrupt. And that is not Christian.

In private life, most Anglo-Americans still claim to be Christians. And Britain and America still appear Christian: we have all of the outward signs and symbols and trappings of nations that honor their God. But Jesus has a question for today’s Christian: “Why do you call me Lord”—and plastic Christians love to talk about the Lord this and the Lord that—“but you don’t do what I say?” (Luke 6:46; see Isa. 29:13; 58:2; Ezek. 33:31-32). Hence, Anglo-American morality is at an all-time low: divorce, adultery, fornication, abortion, sexual perversion, porn addiction, materialism, alcohol abuse, drug abuse, the list goes on. In fact, as evidenced by research polls, the difference between self-professed Christians and non-Christians in America and Britain is superficial. In terms of lifestyle and culture, they are virtually identical (see Appendix 8 for details). Perhaps Kupelian is onto something when he argues that “Christians, like everybody else, have been seduced by the marketers of evil.”[57]

What does it mean that America and Britain are now post-Christian? Essentially, it means that Christianity—or, more to the point, the Bible—no longer impacts politics or culture as it once did. As we have seen, the Bible has been the very foundation upon which our nations were built. Its common moral values were fundamental in the Anglo-American rise to greatness.

Now, with the demise of that foundation, our nations have begun to crumble—as we rush headlong into divine judgment.

CHAPTER 15 NOTES

1. Gary DeMar, The Case for America’s Christian Heritage, p. 150; available at www.americanvision.org.

2. Craig M. White, The British Sense of Mission as a Ruling People, pp. 25- 26. Rosebery made the statement in November of 1900.

3. James Morris, Pax Britannica: The Climax of an Empire, p. 26

4. Shane Idleman, “America: ‘Christian Nation’—Fact or Fiction?” From “Regaining Lost Ground,” www.oneplace.com/es/ministries/regaining-lostground/read/articles/america-christian-nation-fact-or-fiction--14596.html. Also see Leonard Ransil, “The Total Truth Solution for a Fractured America,” section 4, chapter 28: America Founded on a Christian Worldview, Our Founding Documents; www.lennysax.startlogic.com/TT-America’s_War-Founding_Documents.html. Both writers document the importance of Blackstone’s work.

5. DeMar, p. 151

6. DeMar, p. 7. Commenting on the widespread ignorance of America’s religious roots, DeMar adds that the “lack of historical knowledge of the role the Christian religion [and the Bible] played in the founding of America is rampant” (p. 5). In a news conference on the opening of the exhibit “Religion and the Founding of the American Republic,” James Billington, Librarian of the United States Congress, said that “the dominant role religion played in the earliest days of this country is largely ignored by media, academics, and others” (DeMar, p. 7).

7. Lutz and Hyneman’s work is discussed by Leonard Ransil in “The Total Truth Solution for a Fractured America,” available at www.lennysax.startlogic.com/TT-America’s_War-Founding_Documents.html.

8. DeMar, p.11

9. Noel Hornor, “America’s Biblical Roots,” The Good News (July/Aug. 2011); quoted from Signers of the Declaration of Independence (p. 35). An 1848 textbook used for decades in America’s public schools, the volume is made up of biographies of each of the signers of the 1776 document.

10. Hornor, quoting Signers, p. 31

11. Hornor, quoting Bill Conry’s Farewell to America, p. 19

12. “Quotes from America’s Leaders,” p. 7; www.earstohear.net/Heritage/quotes.html

13. David Reagan, “America’s Christian Heritage,” p. 4; www.lamblion.com/articles/articles_usa8.php. Originally published in Lamplighter magazine (July 2010).

14. DeMar, p. 9, quoting Kenneth L. Woodward, “How the Bible Made America,” Newsweek (Dec. 27, 1982)

15. DeMar, p. 9, quoting Time Magazine (May 25, 1987)

16. Hornor, quoting Peter Lillback’s George Washington’s Sacred Fire, p. 29

17. Hornor, quoting Jon Meacham’s American Gospel, p. 89

18. Hornor, quoting Cleon Skousen’s The 5000 Year Leap, p. 32

19. “Quotes from America’s Leaders,” p. 11

20. Reagan, p. 5

21. Reagan, p. 5

22. DeMar, p. 7

23. “Quotes from America’s Leaders,” p. 12

24. DeMar, p. 8, quoting Time Magazine (Feb. 1954)

25. DeMar, pp. 11-12, quoting Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America, vol. 1, p. 303

26. DeMar, p. 12

27. Dave Miller, Ph.D., “Much Respect for the Quran—Not Much for the Bible,” www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=1525

28. Dr. Ben Carson, America the Beautiful, p. 124

29. David Kupelian, The Marketing of Evil, p. 88

30. Kupelian, p. 88, quoting Judge Robert Bork’s Slouching Towards Gomorrah, p. 304

31. Kupelian, pp. 89-90

32. Kupelian, p. 89. As this book is being written, President Barack Obama is advocating that illegal aliens be granted amnesty under the “principle” of “civil rights.”

33. Kupelian, p. 90

34. DeMar, p. 151

35. H. B. Clark, Biblical Law: Being a Text of the Statutes, Ordinances, and Judgments Established in the Holy Bible, p. 8

36. Joseph R. Biden, Jr., “Law and Natural Law: Questions for Judge Thomas,” The Washington Post (Sept. 8, 1991)

37. DeMar, p. 147

38. Jerald C. Brauer, Protestantism in America: A Narrative History, ch. 18; www.religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=1663&C=1672

39. John Dart, “A Pioneer Figure in Church-State Rulings,” Christian Century (Sept. 19, 2006); www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=3426

40. Shane Idleman, “America: Then vs. Now. It’s Almost Unbelievable,” www.oneplace.com/ministries/regaining-lost-ground/read/articles/americathen-vs-now-its-almost-unbelievable-14866.html

41. Brauer, Protestantism in America

42. Idleman, “America: Then vs. Now. It’s Almost Unbelievable”

43. Dave Bohon, “Pennsylvania Ten Commandments Monument Latest Target of Atheist Group,” www.thenewamerican.com/culture/faith-andmorals/item/13098-pennsylvania-ten-commandments-monument-latesttarget-of-atheist-group?tmpl=component&print=1

44. Dave Bohon, “Atheist Groups Launch Attacks Against Ten Commandment Displays,” www.thenewamerican.com/culture/faith-and-morals/item/1108-atheist-groups-launch-attacks-against-ten-commandmentdisplays?tmpl=component&print=1

45. Thomas Eddlem, “Defender of the Decalogue” (interview with Roy Moore); www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/15571-defender-of-the-decalogue?tmpl=component&print=1

46. Eddlem, “Defender of the Decalogue”

47. DeMar, p. 84

48. Steve Farrell, “Getting Up Front and Personal With the Ten Commandments,” www.thenewamerican.com/reviews/opinion/item/5996-getting-up-front-andpersonal-with-the-ten-commandments?tmpl=component&print=1

49. www.abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_statistics

50. But today, even traditional marriage is in shambles; we have compromised with biblical principles and trashed God’s laws to the point where fornication, cohabitation, adultery, divorce, shattered homes, and fatherlessness are epidemic. With a generation obsessed with sexual promiscuity, marriage has been cast off as unnecessary. The result—nearly 50 percent of American babies are now born out of wedlock. Living together without marriage and single motherhood have become the norm. Encouraged by feminist organizations, single motherhood is, in fact, upheld as a badge of honor. With husbands and fathers no longer considered vital to the family, they are denigrated and ridiculed—then cast aside and replaced by the state. Today, welfare programs provide money, food, housing, and healthcare as if the government was a substitute “father.” Single mothers are married, as it were, to the government— the new “father-nanny” state.

51. Among the numerous modern-day evils and perversions of what God has created and ordained, same-sex “marriage” stands out as particularly heinous. Indeed, this satanic travesty tears at the very fabric of society—the family unit—and poses a grave threat to what is left of the Bible-based values upon which America and Britain were built.

The American Psychiatric Association announced in 1973 that homosexuality was no longer considered a mental disorder. Thus, the gay lifestyle has slowly but surely become widely accepted as a legitimate alternative to what God has created and blessed. Now, exactly 40 years later, in 2013, the highest court in America has tacitly sanctioned the practice of “homosexual marriage.” Earlier, in his second-term inaugural address, Barack Obama casually referred to the importance of “gay rights”—the first U.S. president to ever do so. In Britain, Queen Elizabeth—symbolic head of the Church of England—gave her nod to the practice after Parliament made it “lawful.”

But perhaps it is the growing public acceptance of same-sex “marriage” that is so damning. A telling article titled “Gay Marriage Already Won: The Supreme Court Hasn’t Made Up its Mind Yet, But America Has” (Time, April 8, 2013) reveals an alarming trend. In 1996, 27 percent of Americans approved of making “gay marriage” legal. In just over a decade (2007), that number had jumped to 40 percent. By 2013, the number had climbed to 53 percent. But in the 18 to 29 age group, a shocking 73 percent said they thought same-sex “marriage” should be recognized as legal. Hence the title of the article: While the Supreme Court might debate the issue, the American public (following the lead of the British) was quite ready to “thumb their nose” at what many still believe is the most sacred institution created by God—the family.

The broad acceptance of such a grievous perversion reflects the moral degradation to which America and Britain have succumbed in a single generation. In God’s eyes, could this be the final straw?

52. Jon Meacham, “The End of Christian America,” Newsweek (April 13, 2009)

53. Michael F. Haverluck, “Poll: Britain Wants to Return to its Christian Roots,” www.onenewsnow.com/culture/2012/12/01/poll-britain-wants-toreturn-to-its-christian-roots#.U4AB4YZx2PI

54. Meacham, “The End of Christian America”

55. Kupelian, p. 99

56. David Barton, “Is President Obama Correct: Is America No Longer a Christian Nation?” See at www.wallbuilders.com/LIBprinterfriendly.asp?id=23909.

57. Kupelian, p. 214

CHAPTER SIXTEEN

What Now for America and Britain?

At the beginning of this book the question was asked, “Where in the Bible is America to be found? What about Great Britain?” Considering the almost unfathomable impact these two nations have had on the modern world—and that they will undoubtedly play leading roles in any end-time scenario—it is inconceivable that God would choose to omit even so much as a mention of them in Bible prophecy. Indeed, their apparent absence from the Bible has puzzled many. But as we have demonstrated, America and Britain are none other than the latter-day descendants of the Israelite tribe of Joseph—Ephraim and Manasseh. The problem, then, has not been their absence from the Scriptures, but that scholars have failed to realize the biblical origins of America and Britain—failed to identify them for who they are: modern Israel. And it is by that name—Israel—that Britain and America are identified in literally scores of biblical prophecies.

The key to understanding this issue lies in Genesis 48:16. As was the Hebrew custom, the patriarch Jacob was preparing to pass on the family “birthright blessings,” which would include the astounding blessings of national greatness God had promised to Abraham. Such blessings normally went to the firstborn son. But because of sin, Jacob’s actual firstborn son, Reuben, was disqualified. Joseph, however, was also a firstborn son—from the wife Jacob truly loved, Rachel. Thus, the birthright belonged to Joseph—or, as events would have it, to his sons (I Chron. 5:1-2). Jacob was intent on essentially adopting Joseph’s two boys, Ephraim and Manasseh. They would become as sons to him. This enabled Jacob to pass the birthright directly to both of Joseph’s sons. This was unusual in that Manasseh was actually the firstborn. It was apparently Jacob’s desire that Ephraim not only share in the birthright, but actually receive the greater blessing—hence Jacob “wittingly” crossed his hands so that his favored right hand rested on Ephraim. All of this, of course, was carefully guided by God as part of His overall plan for the children of Israel.

But the patriarch did something else that was equally astonishing. In Genesis 48:5, he said Ephraim and Manasseh would be his sons. Thus, in adopting the two boys, Jacob gave them his very name. “Let my name be named on them” (verse 16; KJV)—or, as the NIV has it, “May they be called by my name.”

Few understand the prophetic significance of this statement. Modern Ephraim and Manasseh carry the name Israel. Conversely, other nations of Israelite ancestry—despite definite links to the “lost” ten tribes—were not to bear the name Israel. For example, scholars who have studied this subject believe the French are largely descended from the tribe of Reuben; likewise, the people of the Netherlands (Holland) are ancestrally related to the tribe of Zebulun; and the Finnish, for the most part, are descendants of the tribe of Issachar (see Appendix 2). However, these nations are not—in a biblically prophetic sense—modern-day Israel. Technically, even the Middle Eastern “State of Israel” is not biblically Israel, but is the House of Judah. This is not to say that such nations and peoples who are of clear Israelite origin have ultimately lost their Hebrew heritage, for the Bible is clear that “all Israel shall be saved” (Rom. 11:26). As will be brought out later in this chapter, God has wonderful plans for the entirety of a restored Israel in the age to come.

To be sure, the key to understanding much of biblical prophecy is to comprehend the profound significance of Jacob’s words: “Let my name be named on them.” Ephraim and Manasseh were to carry the name of Jacob— Israel. None of the other “lost” tribes of Israel—including the Jews—were to be identified in end-time prophecy as Israel (except in prophecies concerning the full restoration of all twelve tribes in the age to come).

The implications of this fact are astounding. It means that scores of prophecies heretofore misapplied to the Jews or relegated to “Israel’s history” now come alive with present-day meaning for modern-day Ephraim and Manasseh—Britain and America. To be sure, Bible prophecy has much to say about the future of the Anglo-American nations.

Ancient Prophecies: Obsolete—or Advance Warnings?

Biblical prophecy serves to inform God’s people of His plans (Amos 3:7), as well as to prove, in hindsight, that God has truly “declared the end from the beginning” (Isa. 46:9-10). Generally speaking, we might categorize biblical prophecy into three groups: 1) prophecies that have come to pass and have no further application; 2) prophecies that strictly apply to the latter days and beyond; and 3) prophecies that have been fulfilled—but only in a limited fashion and thus await a more complete, latter-day fulfillment. The prophecies of this third group—which relate overwhelmingly to Israel and the Jews—are said to be dual in nature: while they have been initially fulfilled in the past, their previous fulfillment serves as a type or model of a future application. This future fulfillment is typically linked to the latter days and usually takes place on a much grander scale.

A good example of this is Jesus’ Olivet prophecy of Matthew 24 (also found in Mark 13 and Luke 21). In many ways, Jesus’ prophecy accurately described events that led up to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD: There were false messiahs, wars and rumors of war, and Christians were persecuted; the Gospel had been preached to some of the then-known world; and, the Romans’ siege of Jerusalem certainly looked like the beginning of the highly anticipated “time of great trouble.” There is no doubt the early church thought they were in the “last days.” But many of the things Jesus mentioned did not occur at that time: The Gospel, in reality, had not been preached to every nation; the “abomination of desolation” prophesied by Daniel was not set up in the temple; the so-called “Great Tribulation” had, in fact, not begun; and, of course, Jesus did not return.

Jesus’ prophecy was no doubt intended to prepare His followers for events to occur in their generation—events that appeared to signal that they were living in the latter days and that Jesus’ return was imminent. Clearly, then, the Olivet prophecy—written for the latter days—is yet to be fulfilled. But the limited, initial fulfillment of the prophecy in 70 AD serves as a type of what is yet to occur at the “end of the age,” during the run-up to Jesus’ return. Indeed, the prophecy will yet take place on a grander scale: A great false messiah will appear, along with the “abomination of desolation” (see II Thessalonians 2; Revelation 13); the anticipated “Great Tribulation” will occur (Jeremiah 30:7; Daniel 12); Jerusalem will be surrounded by enemy nations (Zechariah 12:3, 9; Luke 21:20); the true Gospel will finally be proclaimed to the entire world (Matthew 24:14); and, of course, Jesus will then return. Thus, while the events of 70 AD did follow the pattern set by the Olivet prophecy, they functioned primarily as a forerunner of what is yet to occur in the latter days.

Understanding this principle of duality is vital to the purposes of this book. While many of the prophecies concerning Israel have been fulfilled, their past fulfillment serves as a type or forerunner of a more complete fulfillment yet to come. Since the Anglo-American nations carry the name Israel, the latter-day, final fulfillment of such prophecies applies primarily to Britain and America. Thus, numerous prophecies concerning ancient Israel now serve as advance warnings of what is to happen to the Anglo- American peoples.

But how can we know that prophecies relating to Israel have a “dual” application? As brought out earlier, prophecy speaks of a restoration for the northern Kingdom of Israel to the land of Palestine. For example, look again at Amos nine. As we have seen, the prophet warned that God would sift the northern tribes of Israel among the nations, yet none would “fall upon the earth”—no tribe would be lost or destroyed (verse 9). This has historically occurred. But notice verses 13-15: “Behold, the days [will yet] come … [in which] I will bring back the exiles of My people Israel, and they shall build the cities which are desolate, and they shall live in them. And they shall plant vineyards and drink their wine. They shall also make gardens and eat their fruit. And I will plant them in their land, and they shall no more be pulled up out of their land which I have given them.”

This passage cannot refer to the Jews—for the nation of Judah at that time was still dwelling in the land of promise. As a prophet, Amos was sent primarily to the northern tribes of Israel (Amos 1:1) during a time when Judah was still led by (mostly) righteous kings, such as Uzziah.[1] Amos nine clearly foretells of Israel’s captivity to Assyria, but it also predicts the nation’s restoration—which has never taken place. This means Amos’ prophecy—“I will plant them in their land”—can only refer to a yet future restoration following a future time of captivity. There is a similar duality to many of the prophecies dealing with both Israel and Judah. Without a doubt, prophecies describing Israel’s restoration cannot be fulfilled unless Israel— which now means the modern Anglo-American nations—finds itself once again in captivity. Thus, the prophecies of Israel’s captivity are dual. In the ultimate fulfillment of Amos’ prophecy (and others like it), America and Britain—biblically identified with Jacob’s name, Israel—will yet face national captivity followed by divine deliverance and restoration.

Another example can be found in Jeremiah 30: “ ‘For, lo, the days come,’ says the LORD, ‘that I will turn back the captivity of My people Israel and Judah,’ says the LORD. ‘And I will cause them to return to the land that I gave their fathers, and they shall possess it’ ” (verse 3). Note that Jeremiah’s message concerns Israel and Judah—both houses (verses 3-4). A similar passage occurs in chapter 33: “And I will cause the return from captivity of Judah and the return from captivity of Israel, and will build them, as at the first” (verse 7; compare verse 14 as well).

Jeremiah began to prophesy concerning Judah in about 626 BC— almost a hundred years after the House of Israel had been exiled. When he wrote chapters 30-33 (which form one continuous prophecy), Judah had not yet entered the final stage of its own captivity in Babylon, which culminated in 586 BC. While Judah was restored to the land following a 70-year exile, Israel was never restored—but essentially left in exile, left to migrate to new lands. Yet these passages in Jeremiah describe the restoration of Israel and Judah as if they were contemporaneous events. It seems that Jeremiah has a purpose in “weaving together” the stories of Israel and Judah in such a manner: his focus is not on the original exile of either nation—but on a future time of crisis on both nations. This future time of crisis will ultimately result in the restoration of both houses—but only after both nations face a second exile in the latter days. In fact, the final verse of chapter 30 says, “In the latter days you shall understand it.” Jeremiah writes:

“ ‘Alas! For that day is great, so that none is like it; it is even the time of Jacob’s trouble; but he shall be saved out of it. For it shall be in that day,’ says the LORD of hosts, ‘I will break [your captor’s] yoke [of slavery] from your neck and will [release] your bonds. And strangers shall no longer enslave [Jacob], but they shall serve the LORD their God, and David their king, whom I will raise up to them.

“ ‘O My servant Jacob, do not fear,’ says the LORD. ‘Do not be terrified, O [House of] Israel. For lo, I will save you from afar, and your seed from the land of their captivity. And Jacob [Israel] shall return [to their own land], and shall be at rest, and be quiet, and none shall make [them] afraid [again]. For I am with you,’ says the LORD, ‘to save you. Though I make a full end of all nations where I have scattered you, yet I will not make a full end of you; but I will correct you in measure, and will not utterly destroy you’ ” (verses 7-11).[2]

Again, a part of Judah was returned to the land after a 70-year exile. But the Israelite restoration described here in Jeremiah has never occurred. After abandoning the areas of their Assyrian captivity, the “lost” tribes of Israel resettled as independent nations in entirely new lands. Thus, Israel is no longer in exile—and there is no need for a “restoration.” The idea of a “restoration” presumes that the nation has fallen and is in captivity.

Yet these passages from Jeremiah must apply to the northern tribes of Israel—but how? The answer to this apparent enigma has to do with the dual nature of this prophecy (and others like it). In such cases there is a former or initial fulfillment, usually smaller in scale, followed much later by a final, complete fulfillment. In the case of the House of Israel, their original captivity to Assyria—from which they were never restored—serves as a forerunner of a later captivity from which their latter-day descendants will be restored. Thus, ultimately, Jeremiah’s prophecies of a contemporaneous Jewish and Israelite restoration can only apply to the modern Jewish nation of “Israel” as well as latter-day Anglo-American Israel.

Passages detailing Israel’s captivity and subsequent restoration can also be found in the books of Isaiah and Ezekiel. As noted with Amos and Jeremiah, the principle of duality is at times applicable. Isaiah speaks of a time when the Messiah will rule in righteousness from Jerusalem—clearly in the age to come (Isa. 11:1-10). Within that context, Isaiah writes:

“And it shall come to pass in that day”—the time of Christ’s return to deliver Israel and establish the Kingdom of God— “the LORD shall again set His hand, the second time, to recover the remnant of His people…. And He shall lift up a banner for the nations, and shall gather the outcasts of Israel and gather together the scattered ones of Judah from the four corners of the earth…. And there shall be a highway for the [return of the] remnant of His people, those left from Assyria, as it was to Israel in the day that he came up out of the land of Egypt” (verses 11-12, 16).

The prophet’s reference to a “second time” contrasts this latter-day deliverance with Israel’s original liberation from Egyptian slavery. But there are significant differences. In this modern-day captivity, Israel and Judah are mentioned independently—the “outcasts of Israel” and the “scattered ones of Judah.” This, again, shows the distinction between Judah (the Jews) and today’s Israel, the Anglo-American peoples. Moreover, they are rescued not from Egypt or the Middle East, but from the “four corners of the earth”— indicating that this future exile is widespread. Finally, note that this latter-day remnant of captives is “left from Assyria.” God will once again use the Assyrians—whose descendants correspond today to modern Germany (see Appendix 9)—the “rod of His anger” (Isa. 10:5-6), to bring corrective punishment on both the Jewish nation as well as on Britain and America.

Thus, it is apparent that Isaiah’s prophecy is referring to a future captivity from which Israel—primarily America and Britain—and Judah (the Jews) will be delivered and returned to their lands.

Ezekiel’s “Watchman” Prophecies

But there is yet additional proof of prophecy applying specifically to modern Israel—to America and Britain. The priest-prophet Ezekiel was among the Jewish captives taken to Babylon during Judah’s exile (Ezek. 1:1-3). Interestingly, however, Ezekiel was given prophecies specifically directed to the House of Israel—prophecies warning of imminent captivity. But the House of Israel had already gone into captivity—some 130 years earlier. Was Ezekiel realistically expected to deliver his message to the then-scattered “lost” tribes that had already begun to migrate to the northwest? More importantly, why would Ezekiel be required to deliver a message warning of imminent destruction and captivity to a people who had already been exiled over a century earlier? Ezekiel 2:3 shows that the prophet was to go to “the children of Israel, to a rebellious nation.” Chapter three says Ezekiel was to be a watchman to the “house of Israel” (verses 1, 4, 5, 7, 17, etc.). Claims that references to the “house of Israel” are directed at Judah are misguided. In Ezekiel 4:5-6 we see that both the House of Israel and the House of Judah are mentioned contemporaneously. Clearly, Ezekiel knew the difference. Moreover, what would be the point of warning the Jews of impending captivity when they had just been exiled?

As chapter 33 brings out, a watchman’s job was to sound the alarm when the nation was facing an imminent attack. But it also included warning the nation of God’s judgment: “And you, son of man, I have set you as watchman to the house of Israel. Therefore you shall hear the Word from My mouth, and warn them from Me” (Ezek. 33:7).

Ezekiel’s watchman message warned of impending destruction and national captivity. In chapters 6-7, for example, Ezekiel is given a dire warning to deliver to the “mountains of Israel”—figuratively representing the nation itself. Again, the question must be asked: How was Ezekiel to deliver his “watchman” message to a widely scattered, migrating group of tribes that had already been exiled 130 years earlier? When did Ezekiel fulfill this commission? There is no record—biblical or secular—of Ezekiel ever attempting to go to the long-exiled “lost” tribes of Israel. And what would be the point of such a message? Israel had already been destroyed and its people taken captive. The only answer that makes sense is that Ezekiel’s message was not for ancient Israel, but is an advance warning to those who today bear the prophetic name Israel—Britain and America.

Ezekiel 36 highlights ancient Israel’s captivity to the Assyrians; employing the principle of duality, it also describes the latter-day captivity of modern Israel. A restoration is again promised—a restoration that can now only be fulfilled in the end time. Notice this vital section:

“Therefore thus says the Lord GOD, ‘I have lifted up My hand; surely the nations around you [that participated in your captivity] shall [now] bear their [own] shame. But you, O mountains of Israel, you shall put out your branches and yield your fruit to My people Israel; for they will soon return. For, behold, I am for you, and I will turn unto you, and you shall be tilled and sown. And I will multiply men on you, all the house of Israel, all of it. And the cities shall have people, and the wastes shall be rebuilt. And I will multiply men and beasts upon you, and they shall increase and be fruitful. And I will make you dwell after your old estates, and I will do better to you than at your beginnings. And you shall know that I am the LORD. Yea, I will cause men to walk upon you, even My people Israel. And they shall possess you, and you shall be their inheritance….’

“And the Word of the LORD came to me, saying, ‘Son of man, when the house of Israel dwelt in their own land, they defiled it by their own ways and by their [wicked] doings…. Therefore I poured My fury upon them because of the blood that they had shed upon the land, and for their idols by which they defiled it. And I scattered them among the nations, and they were scattered throughout the countries. I judged them according to their ways and according to their [evil] doings. And when they came [into] the nations where they [were exiled], they even profaned My holy name [so] that it was said of them, “These are the people of the LORD, and they are gone out of His land.”

“ ‘But I had pity for My holy name, which the house of Israel had profaned among the nations where they were exiled…. [Indeed,] I will sanctify My great name, which was profaned among the nations…. For I will take you from among the nations and gather you out of all countries, and will gather you into your own land. And I will sprinkle clean waters upon you, and you shall be clean. I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from your idols. And I will give you a new heart, and I will put a new spirit within you…. And I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you shall keep My ordinances and do them.

“ ‘And you shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers. And you shall be My people, and I will be your God. I will also save you from all your uncleanness, and I will call for the grain, and will increase it, and will lay no famine upon you. And I will multiply the fruit of the trees and the increase of the field, so that you shall never again receive the curse of famine….

“ ‘And you shall remember your own evil ways, and your [deeds] that were not good, and shall [come to] loathe yourselves in your own sight for your iniquities and for your abominations…. In the day that I cleanse you from all your iniquities, I will also cause you to dwell in the cities, and the waste places shall be rebuilt. And the waste land shall be tilled, instead of being desolate before all who pass by. And they shall say, “This land that was desolate has become like the garden of Eden. And the wasted, desolate and ruined cities now are fenced and inhabited.” And the nations that are left all around you shall know that I the LORD [rebuilt] the ruined places and planted that which was desolate. I the LORD have spoken it, and I will do it…. I will yet be sought by the house of Israel to act for them. I will increase them with men like a flock. As a holy flock, as the flocks of Jerusalem in her appointed feasts, so shall the waste cities be filled with flocks of men. And they shall know that I am the LORD’ ” (verses 7-12, 16-21, 23-31, 33-38).

Remember, Ezekiel wrote while he was in captivity among the Jews in Babylon. The northern tribes had long been taken by the Assyrians. Yet this passage is clearly addressed to the House of Israel. It not only describes Israel’s demise at the hands of the Assyrians, it also describes a glorious restoration—a restoration that has never occurred. Verses 26-27—“And I will give you a new heart, and I will put a new spirit within you…. And I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you shall keep My ordinances and do them”—place this restoration in the same latter-day context as the passage previously quoted from Jeremiah 30, which actually extends through chapter 31. Notice Jeremiah 31:31-33: “ ‘Behold, the days come,’ says the LORD, ‘that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah…. I will put My law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.’ ” These passages clearly describe a renewed Israel in the coming messianic age.

Since Israel was already in exile when Ezekiel wrote his prophecies, we must ask: Was God more than a hundred years late in warning Israel of impending judgment and correction? Of course not. The only answer that makes sense is that Ezekiel’s warnings for the House of Israel are actually intended for those nations that today make up modern Israel—primarily the birthright nations of America and Britain. As we have seen, there are numerous biblical passages that vividly describe the restoration of Israel. Of utmost importance is the fact that those prophecies have never been fulfilled—and they cannot be applied to the Jews. Thus, unless we apply such prophecies to the modern Anglo-American nations, they simply have no relevance—no potential fulfillment. The key is to understand the “dual nature” of such prophecies—that they initially applied to ancient Israel, but only as a type of a greater, latter-day fulfillment through modern Israel.

Moses’ Ominous Warnings

The biblical book of Deuteronomy features numerous warnings from Moses to the children of Israel—warnings focusing on the certainty of divine judgment if the nation persisted in violating the covenant through which God established them as His chosen people. As we look at certain key passages, keep in mind that the principle of duality applies. This means that the same warnings are relevant today for Anglo-American Israel. In chapter four, Moses writes:

“For the LORD your God is a consuming fire, a jealous God. When you shall beget children and grandchildren, and when you shall have remained long in the land and have dealt corruptly by making a graven image, the likeness of anything [i.e., any form of idolatry], and shall do evil in the sight of the LORD your God to provoke Him to anger, I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day that you shall soon utterly perish from off the land which you are crossing over Jordan to possess. You shall not prolong your days upon it, but shall utterly be destroyed. And the LORD shall scatter you among the nations, and you shall be left few in number among the nations where the LORD shall drive you. And there you shall serve gods, the work of men’s hands, wood and stone, which neither see nor hear nor eat nor smell. But if you shall seek the LORD your God from there, you shall find Him, if you seek Him with all your heart and with all your soul. When you are in trouble and when all these things have come upon you in the latter days, then you shall return to the LORD your God and shall be obedient to His voice, for the LORD your God is a merciful God. He will not forsake you, nor destroy you, nor forget the covenant of your fathers which He swore to them” (Deut. 4:24-31).

Of particular importance is the phrase, “when all these things have come upon you in the latter days”—which shows that, while both Israel and Judah have experienced respective initial captivities, there remains a final captivity for modern Israel and the Jews for the latter days.

In chapter eight, Moses reminds the Israelites of all the good God had done for them during their 40 years of wandering—providing literally everything they needed. He then describes the incredible blessings they would find in the Promised Land—blessings of agricultural abundance and rich natural resources. In reading this passage, keep in mind the almost incalculable blessings God has showered on the birthright nations of Britain and America—blessings we have long taken for granted. Moses writes:

“When you have eaten and are full, then you shall bless the LORD your God for the good land which He has given you. Beware that you do not forget the LORD your God by not keeping His commandments, and His judgments, and His statutes, which I command you today, lest when you have eaten and are full and have built goodly houses and lived in them, and when your herds and your flocks multiply, and your silver and your gold is multiplied, and all that you have is multiplied, then you become haughty of heart, and you forget the LORD your God…. Beware lest you say in your heart, ‘My power and the might of my hand has gotten me this wealth.’ But you shall remember the LORD your God, for it is He Who gives you power to get wealth, so that He may confirm His covenant which He has sworn to your fathers as it is this very day. And it shall be if you do at all forget the LORD your God and walk after other gods serving them and worshiping them, I testify against you this day that you shall surely perish—yes, perish. As the nations whom the LORD destroys before your face, so you shall perish because you would not obey the voice of the LORD your God” (Deut. 8:10-14, 17-20).

Moses’ warnings reach a pitch in Deuteronomy 28, known to many Bible students as one of the “blessings and curses” chapters, along with Leviticus 26. Keep in mind that just as ancient Israel enjoyed all of the blessings described in these chapters, Britain and America have likewise enjoyed the same blessings—but on a much greater scale due to being the recipients of the Abrahamic birthright promises. Because of persistent sin, Israel of old also faced every curse listed—including, as we have seen, being finally taken into captivity by their enemies. As modern-day nations bearing the name Israel, America and Britain are already distressed by many of these curses. Importantly, Leviticus 26 indicates that the curses are designed to intensify over time—leading ultimately to national captivity. For example, after warning of several curses, God says, “And if after these things you will not be reformed by Me, but will still walk contrary to Me, then I will walk contrary to you and will punish you seven times more for your sins” (Lev. 26:23-24). Similarly, Moses warns that “all these curses will [gradually] come upon you. They will pursue you and overtake you until you are destroyed [through captivity] because you would not obey the LORD your God and observe His commands and decrees. And these curses will be a sign and a wonder to you, and to your descendants for generations” (Deut. 28:45-46; author’s paraphrase).

As we highlight some of these “blessings and curses” passages, it is important to keep in mind that the modern Anglo-American nations are vastly different from the agrarian peoples of ancient Israel and Judah. Not every curse will have a precise modern-day counterpart. Accordingly, we must focus on the overall meaning behind the text and not become bogged down by attempting to explain every nuance of Moses’ words.

“All these curses shall come upon you…”

Leviticus 26 prefaces its list of curses with this statement from God: “But if you will not hearken to Me and will not do all these commandments, and if you shall despise My statutes, or if your soul hates My judgments, so that you will not do all My commandments, so that you [continually] break My covenant, I will also do this to you…” (verses 14-15).

God then says He will bring certain grievous diseases on rebellious Israel (verse 16). Today, America and Britain are afflicted by persistent diseases such as cancer, heart disease, diabetes, Alzheimer’s, autoimmune conditions—not to mention AIDS. And all of these diseases are escalating— with no cures in sight. Astonishingly, while America arguably has the best healthcare in the world, it only ranks number 37 in actual quality of health.

Verses 16-17 refer to Israel’s enemies dominating them in various ways—economically, militarily, geopolitically, etc.—even to the point of “fleeing” when not actually being pursued. Ongoing terrorism creates just such a mindset, one of continual fear of what one’s enemies might do.

Verse 19 speaks of Israel’s loss of pride in their power. As noted earlier, this verse has been applied today in a variety of ways, not the least of which is the idea that the Anglo-American nations are abandoning their God-given role as leaders of the free world.

Verses 19-20 go on to describe widespread drought—such that the land fails to yield its produce. Once called the “breadbasket” of the world, America continues to face recurring drought patterns. The drought of 1988- 1990, which destroyed crops across the U.S., was the worst since the Dust Bowl days of the 1930s. In terms of damages, the drought was said to be comparable to hurricane Katrina. A drought of almost equal proportions occurred in 2002. In 2011, intense drought struck much of Texas and a large portion of the Southwest, bringing the region its worst conditions since the 1930s. While certain areas of Texas have partially recovered, most of the Southwest continues under what scientists are calling a mega-drought. With 87 percent of the region under “extreme” conditions, grasslands are being decimated, forcing farmers to sell off livestock. With the water supply in the West dropping fast, several states are already gearing up for a legal battle over access to the limited resources.

Overall, the combination of high temperatures and a lack of rainfall has resulted in weather patterns not seen since the Great Depression. As the summer of 2013 progressed, drought conditions expanded significantly into parts of California and into the western Corn Belt—including the top-producing state of Iowa, putting much of the nation’s corn crop at risk. The lack of rainfall in California—which produces a third of the nation’s fruits and vegetables—is particularly worrisome. Experts are calling it the worst drought in at least a century and warning that it could eventually lead to a new Dust Bowl effect. Drought in Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas also has farmers worried about a new Dust Bowl. But today, there is a big difference: because of America’s “Big Ag” monoculture system of farming—where massive fields yield only a single crop with no secondary vegetation to hold the soil—topsoil is easily blown away. Texas, in fact, is already reporting dust storms directly related to drought.[3]

Experts are beginning to wonder if the persistent drought conditions are indicative of an “emerging climate pattern.” Indeed, as Leviticus 26:19- 20 brings out, God is cursing America’s weather: heavens like “iron” means no rain—earth like “brass” means bone dry. Food prices have already risen sharply in the past few years as a direct result of U.S. weather conditions; moreover, all it would take is one or two really dry years and America could see painfully real food shortages.

Verse 22 says our highways will become desolate—left untraveled. Ongoing food shortages (verse 26), widespread disease epidemics (verse 25), and financial collapse will quickly lead to unimaginable social unrest— no doubt followed by martial law. No one will be traveling anywhere. Ultimately, as verse 25 brings out, our nations will be overcome militarily. In the ensuing siege, massive starvation will follow. Read for yourself in verse 29 what the horrible result will be. Finally, in verse 33, God says, “And I will scatter you among the nations [as slaves], and will draw out a sword after you [so that you are a prey wherever you go]. And your land shall be a desolation, and your cities waste”—just as Moses had warned.

Deuteronomy 28 adds more detail. Because the curses are not given in a strictly chronological order, we will rearrange the verses for a more logical reading.

When any great nation goes into decline, its economic clout quickly suffers. As we have noted previously, America and Britain are now major debtor nations—and are increasingly subject to the dictates of lesser nations. Once the “head,” we will soon be the “tail” (verses 43-44).

Our nations’ youth—the “fruit of our body” (verse 18)—are cursed in many ways: drug and alcohol abuse, sexual addiction, an obsession with entertainment and materialism, an overall sense of purposelessness. This curse would include the growing scourge of infertility and a declining birthrate—not to mention the horrendous curse of abortion.

The same verse refers to our agricultural structure. Today, America’s food supply is largely produced by a few mega-farms while smaller family farms are being forced out of business—a precarious arrangement that will one day contribute to food shortages and famine. Once the world’s largest exporter of food—mostly wheat, corn, and meat—America now imports more foodstuffs than it exports.

Famine—a cursed “basket and store”—is emphasized in verse 17. The cause—insufficient rain (verses 23-24), as well as blight, disease, and insect infestations (verses 38-40, 42). Will the ongoing destruction of bees as pollinators play a role in future crop failures? The curse of disease is noted in verses 22, 60-61. Eventually, horrible pestilence will consume massive numbers of our peoples (verse 21).

In time, our once-great military might will be gone—and we will flee from before our enemies (verse 25). Ultimately, God will raise up a nation against America and Britain—one “from afar, from the end of the earth as the eagle flies, a nation whose language you shall not understand, a nation fierce of countenance who shall not regard the [aged], nor show favor to the young” (verses 49-50).[4] Emboldened by our weakness, our enemies will take what they please (verses 30-31, 33, 51), including our children (verses 32, 41). “Therefore you shall serve your enemies which the LORD shall send against you in hunger, and in thirst, and in nakedness, and in the want of all things. And he shall put a yoke of iron on your neck until he has destroyed you” (verse 48). Our peoples will starve—to the point of some actually eating their own children! (verses 52-57).

Ultimately, the Anglo-American people will be left “few in number” as they are “scattered from one end of the earth even to the other” (verses 62, 64). Our once great nations will become “an astonishment, a proverb, and a byword” among the nations of the world (verse 37). Why? Because we—as God’s covenant nations of modern-day Israel—“did not obey the voice of the LORD [our] God to keep His commandments and His statutes which He commanded [us].” Because we “did not serve the LORD [our] God with joyfulness and with gladness of heart for the abundance of all things” (verses 45, 47).

Impossible, you say? Is America too powerful to be overthrown, too big to fail? That’s what the Romans once thought. But God is all powerful, and He has sworn to avenge the “quarrel of His covenant” (Lev. 26:25), the covenant through which He set Israel apart as His chosen nation. Make no mistake, God will not be mocked—by individuals or by entire nations. But God has a plan—and the coming fall and captivity of the Anglo-American nations is by design: God must bring corrective punishment on Britain and America (and the Jews) in order to lead us to profound repentance—so that, ultimately, the entire Kingdom of Israel can be used as God’s premier, model nation in the age to come.

Deuteronomy 30 concludes Moses’ warnings to Israel with promises of deliverance and restoration—but only upon repentance.

“And it shall be when all these things have come upon you, the blessing and the curse which I have set before you, and when you shall call them to mind among all the nations where the LORD your God has driven you, and shall return to the LORD your God and shall obey His voice according to all that I command you today, you and your children, with all your heart and with all your soul, then the LORD your God will turn away your captivity. And He will have compassion on you, and will return and gather you from all the nations where the LORD your God has scattered you” (Deut. 30:1-3).

The curses of Leviticus 26 conclude with this wonderful promise of deliverance and restoration in the age to come:

“But, if they shall confess their iniquities and the iniquities of their fathers with … which they sinned against Me, and that they have walked contrary to Me, so that I, in turn, have walked contrary to them and have brought them into the land of their enemies, and if their uncircumcised hearts are then humbled, and they accept the punishment for their iniquity, then I will remember My covenant with Jacob, and also My covenant with Isaac; and also My covenant with Abraham I will remember…. [And] when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not entirely cast them away; neither will I hate them to destroy them utterly and to break My covenant with them, for I am the LORD their God. But for their sakes, I will remember the covenant of their ancestors…” (verses 40-42, 44-45).

The overriding question is, will the peoples of modern Israel truly repent while in captivity—will they truly be humbled to seek God?

“Jacob’s Trouble”

Because we have turned from God, Britain and America are slowly but surely losing the promised birthright blessings—blessings of prosperity, protection, global hegemony. Today, at seemingly every turn, the Anglo- American nations are besieged by rapidly mounting curses. What will be the outcome if our peoples and leaders continue to deny and defy God?

God’s desire is that His chosen people learn to obey Him in every way. To achieve His purpose, God has, out of necessity, planned corrective national punishment for Israel and the Jews. In fact, biblical prophecy describes a time when modern Israel and Judah will face “great distress”— expressly for the purpose of bringing our nations to repentance. Following the principle of duality, this period of intense trouble was foreshadowed anciently by 1) Israel’s fall and captivity under the Assyrians, and 2) the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 69-70 AD. This time of “great trouble” on Israel and Judah is the culmination of the numerous curses brought out in the “blessings and curses” chapters noted above. As per those warnings, God will ultimately bring the modern nations of Israel and Judah into national captivity.

As brought out previously, the prophet Jeremiah was sent to the House of Judah. But he also wrote about the fall of the House of Israel— over a hundred years after the northern tribes had been taken into captivity. As with Ezekiel, Jeremiah’s warnings to Israel might appear to be ill-timed. But, in reality, they were written as advance warnings for modern Israel: America and Britain. In chapter five, for example, Jeremiah quotes God as saying: “Lo, I will bring a nation upon you from afar, O house of Israel…. It is a mighty nation, it is an ancient nation, a nation whose language you do not know, nor [can you] understand what they say.” Stressing their warlike nature, God adds that “their quiver is as an open grave; they are all mighty men.” Moreover, “they shall eat up your harvest and your bread, your sons and your daughters they shall eat up [take as captives]. They shall eat up your flocks and your herds; they shall eat up your vines and your fig trees. They shall beat down your fortified cities with the sword” (verses 15-17). This passage—which is similar in content to Deuteronomy 28:49-52—is directed to the “House of Israel.” Did Jeremiah know the difference between the two houses? Obviously—for in verse 11 we see that both houses are mentioned as independent nations: God says, “For the house of Israel and the house of Judah have dealt very deceitfully against Me.” This point must be emphasized—because we must not imagine, as do most scholars, that this passage was written for the Jews. It was clearly written for the “House of Israel”—which, again, was already in exile when Jeremiah wrote!

It is interesting to note how Jeremiah cleverly intertwines prophecies of Judah’s impending captivity with those pertaining to a latter-day Israel. For example, here in chapter five, he is instructed to “declare this [warning] in the house of Jacob, and cry it in Judah…” (verse 20).[5] Given the fact that his prophecies for the House of Israel can now only be applied to modern-day Israel, this literary “weaving” together of prophecies pertaining to both houses suggests a modern-day captivity for the Jews as well. As we will see, that is precisely the case.

Looking again at Jeremiah 30, we see the same approach. “ ‘For, lo, the days come,’ says the LORD, ‘that I will turn back the captivity of My people Israel and Judah… And I will cause them to return to the land that I gave their fathers, and they shall possess it’ ” (verse 3). Note that it is both Israel and Judah. God did overturn Judah’s original captivity—but Israel has never been restored to the land. Thus, this statement can only refer to a yet future event involving both modern Israel—Britain and America—and the modern Jewish nation. Moreover, as noted earlier, an end-time application is strongly suggested by verse 24: “In the latter days you shall understand it.”

It is in this context that the prophet then announces that a particular time of “great distress” will come upon both Israel and Judah—a time only foreshadowed by Israel’s fall to Assyria and the Jews’ fall to Rome in 69-70 AD. Jeremiah writes: “Alas! For that day [of God’s corrective punishment on modern Israel and Judah] is great, so that [no other time] is like it; it is even the time of Jacob’s trouble; but he shall be saved out of it” (verse 7). This crisis correlates to Daniel’s “time of trouble” (Dan. 12:1) on the “holy people” (Israel, verse 7), which he links to the “time of the end” (verses 4 and 9). In His Olivet discourse, Jesus alludes to Daniel’s prophecy (Matt. 24:15) and warns those of Judea of an impending military invasion (Luke 21:20)—which took place in type in 69-70 AD. Jesus characterizes the time as one of “great” tribulation or affliction, and, like Jeremiah and Daniel, notes that “Jacob’s trouble” will be unprecedented in history as far as the downfall and destruction of nations is concerned (Matt. 24:21).

Importantly, Luke calls this time the “days of vengeance, so that all things that have been written may be accomplished” (verse 22). The word “vengeance” here means more than mere “punishment”—for God is intent on seeing justice done. Indeed, this verse parallels Leviticus 26:25, where God says He will bring about modern Israel’s national captivity in order to “execute the vengeance of the covenant”—i.e., Israel’s wholesale breaking of that covenant. The key phrase “that all things that have been written may be accomplished” refers not only to God “making good” on His numerous warnings to Israel, but to the reality that this time of divine correction will ultimately lead to repentance on the part of the Jews and modern Israel. Such repentance, along with restoration to God’s favor, will then enable all of Israel to be used by God in the age to come.

The Bible indicates that “Jacob’s trouble” will last three and a half years (Dan. 7:25; 12:7; Rev. 11:2; 13:5). Of this time, the final year is the prophetic “Day of the Lord” leading up to Jesus’ return. Isaiah 34 describes this “day” as “the day of the LORD’S vengeance, the year to repay for the fighting against Zion [Jerusalem]” (verse 8). Essentially, the “Day of the Lord” is Christ’s intervention on behalf of captive Israel—wherein He takes vengeance on those bent on the total destruction of Israel and Jerusalem (Isa. 34:1-3). This time of crisis will be so devastating that the Jews and the Anglo-American nations will face the potential of complete destruction. In fact, unless those days were curtailed by the plagues of the “Day of the Lord,” no Israelite would survive (Matt. 24:22).[6]

In particular, God will intervene to stop Israel’s primary enemy— modern Assyria, or Germany. As Isaiah 10 shows, God will punish Assyria for its pride—but only after using them to correct Israel (verses 5-14). As explained in Appendix 9, modern Germany’s origins can be traced to the ancient Assyrians. People today scoff at the notion that Germany could ever again seriously threaten America. But they are wrong for two reasons. First, look again at the “blessings and curses” chapters: God will not bring this “nation of fierce countenance” against the Anglo-American nations until He has first reduced us to less than third-world status through unimaginable financial collapse and violent social unrest—not to mention widespread disease and famine.

Secondly, Germany—while rapidly growing as an economic power in it own right—will not act alone, but will head up what is tantamount to a revived Holy Roman Empire. Described by the prophet Daniel as a powerful war-making empire, this yet future world-dominating union of European nations will be destroyed by Christ at His coming (Dan. 2; 7; Rev. 13; 17; 19). As inconceivable as it may presently seem, there will come a time very soon when even America will be no match for this rapidly-developing European superpower.[7]

Led by modern Assyria, this “beast” system will dominate the entire world for a brief period of time, ultimately subjugating the American and British peoples. It will also occupy the modern Jewish state of Israel—just as foreshadowed by the Roman occupation of Jerusalem in 69-70 AD. As Revelation 11:2 says, Jerusalem will be “trodden under foot” by this Gentile system. But God will not allow the destruction of the very city where He has forever placed His name—nor will He allow His chosen nation to be utterly destroyed. God’s promises to Abraham are immutable: through Christ, He will powerfully act to save Israel during this end-time crisis so that she may yet become the premier, model nation of God in the age to come.

Repentance and Restoration at Last!

Through numerous “dual” prophecies, God warns Anglo-American Israel that unless we—of this end-time generation—repent of our sins and turn to Him with fasting and heartfelt prayer, our peoples will reap the same consequences as did ancient Israel. Similar warnings apply to modern Judah, the Jews. God will bring economic collapse and unimaginable social unrest to our nations; He will bring unheard-of famine and disease upon the land; He will make our cities desolate, empty; He will bring a “cruel one” against us: we will be invaded, besieged, and taken captive once again as slaves. Only a small remnant will survive (Deut. 28:62; Isa. 10:20-22; 11:11, 16). Scripture indicates that only then will our nations repent! Notice:

“Yet I will leave a remnant—those who escape death among the nations where you are to be scattered. And you who escape will remember Me in exile—how I have been grieved by your whorish heart, which has departed from Me, and by your whorish eyes that go after idols. And you will loathe yourselves for the evils you have committed—for all of your abominations. And you will know that I am the LORD, and that I have not said in vain that I would bring this punishment upon you” (Ezek. 6:8-10; author’s paraphrase).

But God gives this comforting promise:

“O My people who dwell in Zion”—or in America and Britain—“do not fear the Assyrians. They will strike you with the rod of defeat, and will lift up the staff of slavery against you just as Egypt once did. But it will only last for a little while—and finally My indignation for your many sins will be satisfied, and My anger will then be turned to Assyria’s destruction. I will stir up a scourge against them like the great slaughter of the Midianites at the rock of Oreb; and as My rod was once lifted up over the Red Sea to deliver you from Egypt, I will likewise deliver you from Assyria. And in that day of My wrath [the Day of the Lord], you will again be released from bondage to slavery” (Isa. 10:24-27; author’s paraphrase).

The good news is that the British and American peoples, along with the Jews, will turn to God in deep repentance—and, as we have seen in numerous biblical passages, God promises a glorious restoration. Indeed, looking toward the future, God calls for Israel to repent while in captivity (Jer. 3:12). In verse 16, we see that Israel will repent and be restored to the land—and will have learned to no longer walk according to “the imagination of their evil heart” (verse 17; KJV). Notice verse 18: “In those [latter] days the house of Judah shall walk with the house of Israel, and they shall come together out of the land of the north to the land that I have given for an inheritance to your fathers.” The “land of the north” refers to Europe, where our peoples will soon find themselves held captive as slaves (compare Isaiah 49:12, which says north and west).

In Jeremiah 16, God summarizes the sins that have caused Israel’s captivity: idolatry, turning away from God and refusing to hear His Word, walking after the imagination of their wicked hearts (verses 10-13). These words well describe modern Israel and the Jews. But promising restoration following repentance, God then says: “Behold, the days are coming when it shall no longer be said, ‘As the LORD lives, Who brought up the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt.’ Rather, it will be said, ‘As the LORD lives, Who brought up the children of Israel from the land of the north, and from all the lands where He had driven them.’ For I will bring them again into the land that I gave to their fathers” (Jer. 16:14-15; author’s paraphrase). This astounding prophecy compares modern-day Israel’s future deliverance from Europe (and other lands) to Israel’s original Exodus from Egypt. In a unique way, the Exodus defined Israel’s relationship with God—for He became their deliverer; likewise, the world will stand in awe as God delivers America and Britain and the Jews from the grip of captivity to the coming European “beast” system. This modern Exodus—led by Jesus the Messiah as typed by Moses—will obviously be conducted on a much larger scale than the original Exodus.

Ezekiel points to the regathering of all of Israel at the outset of the messianic age. Using the symbolism of two sticks—one for the nation of Judah and one for latter-day Joseph and all of the House of Israel—rejoined as one (Ezek. 37:16-19), God gives this wonderful prophecy:

“Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among the nations where they have gone, and will gather them on every side, and will bring them into their own land. And I will make them one nation in the land on the mountains of Israel, and one king shall be king over them all. And they shall no longer be two nations, nor shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all. Nor shall they be defiled with their idols, nor with their detestable things, nor with all of their transgressions. But I will save them out of all their dwelling places, wherein they have sinned, and will cleanse them. And they shall be to Me for a people, and I will be their God.

“And David My servant shall be king over them. And there shall be one shepherd to all of them. And they shall walk in My ordinances and obey My laws, and do them. And they shall dwell in the land that I have given to Jacob My servant, the land in which your fathers have dwelt. And they shall dwell in it, even they and their children, and their children’s children forever. And My servant David shall be their ruler forever. Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them. It shall be an everlasting covenant with them. And I will place them, and multiply them, and will set My sanctuary in their midst forever. And My tabernacle shall be with them. Yea, I will be their God, and they shall be My people. And the nations shall know that I the LORD do sanctify Israel, when My sanctuary shall be in their midst forever” (Ezek. 37:21–28).

Even after having “disowned” modern Israel and the Jews for a time, God declares through Hosea that “the number of the children of Israel shall [yet] be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered. And it shall be in the place where it was [once] said to them, ‘You are not My people,’ there it shall [instead] be said to them, ‘You are the sons of the living God.’ Then the children of Judah [the Jews] and the children of Israel shall be gathered together [as one nation], and shall set over themselves one head [a king of the Davidic line, possibly a reference to David or to Jesus Himself] and they shall come up out of the land [of their end-time captivity]…” (Hosea 1:10-11). Indeed, genuinely repentant and restored to God’s favor, modern-day Israel will ultimately fulfill its purpose as God’s premier nation in the age to come. As Isaiah 49:3 says, God will yet be glorified in Israel!

Israel in the Age to Come

In fulfillment of His promises to Abraham, God established Israel as a nation for the purpose of bringing blessings to other nations (Gen. 12:3). God had planned for Israel to be a model nation—an example to the nations of the blessings that would be poured out on all who worshiped and obeyed Him (Deut. 4:6). As a priestly nation (Ex. 19:6), Israel was to represent God to the world. Regardless of the choices Israel has made, both anciently and in modern times, this is still their God-ordained purpose and calling.

Almost every prophet in the Old Testament has anticipated the time when Israel would live up to this high calling. For example, Isaiah looked forward to a time when God would again choose Israel and restore them to their own land (Isa. 14:1)—when He would give them rest from their sorrows, their fears, and the hard bondage they had experienced during “Jacob’s trouble” (verse 3). Restored from captivity, Israel would “blossom and bud, and fill the face of the world with fruit” (Isa. 27:6). In time, the ruined cities—desolate for perhaps generations—would be rebuilt and once again inhabited (Isa. 61:4).

But most important of all would be the national conversion that will have taken place—which will, in turn, lead to the entire world turning to God. As brought out earlier, Ezekiel describes this awesome reality, which will occur as a result of Christ’s return to rule the world:

“For I will take you from among the nations and gather you out of all countries, and will gather you into your own land. And I will sprinkle clean waters upon you, and you shall be clean. I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from your idols. And I will give you a new heart, and I will put a new spirit within you…. And I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you shall keep My ordinances and do them” (Ezek. 36:25-27).

This is similar in tenor to God’s promise of a new covenant with Israel in the millennial age:

“Behold, the days are coming when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah [then rejoined as one]. Unlike the covenant I made with Israel when I brought them out of Egypt—which they continually broke, although I was like a husband to them—in this new covenant I will write My Law in their hearts. I will be their God, and they shall be My people. No one will admonish his neighbor to ‘know the Lord’—for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest. And I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sins no more” (Jer. 31:31- 34; author’s paraphrase).

The apostle Paul also describes this time: “And so all Israel shall be saved, according as it is written [concerning the Messiah]: ‘Out of Zion shall come the Deliverer, and He shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob [Israel]. For this is My [new] covenant, which I [God] will make with them when I have taken away their sins’ ” (Rom. 11:26-27).[8]

It is a huge injustice to deny the destiny of modern-day Israel. God calls no other nation “My elect” (Isa. 45:4; 65:9, 22); to no other nation has God said, “But you, Israel, are My servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham, My friend, whom I have taken from the ends of the earth, and called you from its uttermost parts. And I said to you, ‘You are My servant; I have chosen you, and have not cast you away’ ” (Isa. 41:8-9).

Without question, in the age to come, the nation of Israel will fulfill its original God-ordained role as a model nation for the world. But it will do so under the direct leadership of the glorified saints—the bride of Christ. As spirit-born immortal children of God, the saints will rule as kings and priests over the earth with Christ (Rev. 5:10; 20:6). Under their leadership in the age to come, “people [from all nations] shall go and say, ‘Come, and let us go up to the mountain [government headquarters] of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob [all of Israel, including the Jews]. And He will teach us of His ways, and we will walk in His paths.’ For out of Zion shall go forth the Law, and the Word of the Lord from Jerusalem” (Isa. 2:3).

At that time, the twelve apostles will each rule over a tribe of Israel (Matt. 19:28). Because of Israel’s example, the knowledge of God’s way of life will cover the earth like the seas (Isa. 11:9). In fact, a rather profound statement made by the prophet Zechariah concerning the age to come shows that all nations will ultimately desire to follow Israel’s lead. “In those days ten men out of all the nations will take hold of the garment of a Jew, saying, ‘We will follow you, for we have heard that God is with you’ ” (Zech. 8:23; author’s paraphrase). In the Hebraic culture of Zechariah’s day, taking hold of another’s garment meant looking to that individual for guidance and protection. The ten men are representative of all nations—thus, the entire world will follow the then-righteous example of modern-day Israel.

What a glorious world that will be! In truth and genuine godliness, a unified Israel—with America and Britain forever the birthright nations of the Abrahamic covenant—will lead the entire world to unparalleled peace, prosperity, and righteousness.

CHAPTER 16 NOTES

1. Other passages verify that Amos was sent to warn the northern nation of Israel of their impending judgment and captivity: “And the LORD said to me, ‘Amos, what do you see?’ And I said, ‘A plumb line.’ Then the LORD said, ‘Behold, I will set a plumb line [symbolic of measuring for judgment] in the midst of My people Israel. I will not again pass by them any more [will no longer overlook their sin]. And the high places of Isaac shall be desolate, and the holy places of Israel shall be laid waste; and I will rise up against the house of Jeroboam with the sword’ ” (Amos 7:8-9). The phrase “house of Jeroboam” refers to the Jeroboam who was king over Israel at the time (verse 10). Not wanting to hear Amos’ ominous prophecy, Amaziah (Jeroboam’s chief priest at Bethel) warned the prophet, “O seer, go, flee for yourself into the land of Judah; and eat bread there, and prophesy there. But do not prophesy again any more at Bethel; for it is the king’s temple, and it is the king’s royal house” (verses 12-13). Bethel was a chief religious center of the northern kingdom (I Kings 12:28-30). Amos answered Amaziah: “[The] LORD said to me, ‘Go, prophesy to My people Israel.’ Now therefore hear the word of the LORD. You say, ‘Do not prophesy against Israel, and do not drop words against the house of Isaac.’ [But] thus says the LORD … ‘Israel shall surely go into exile out of his land’ ” (Amos 7:15-17). Thus, Amos’ prophecy was clearly for the northern tribes of Israel—which means it is also for America and Britain today.

2. Notice that Jeremiah’s prophecy in chapter 30 includes not only deliverance and restoration for Israel and Judah (verse 3, etc.), but a resurrected David as king (verse 9). The notion of a resurrection places this prophecy in the latter days, at the time of Christ’s return (I Thess. 4:16-17). Moreover, since David was king during the period when the 12 tribes were unified as a single kingdom, this prophecy points to a reunion of the northern and southern kingdoms (see Ezek. 37:21-28).

Jeremiah continues his prophecy in chapter 31, where we see references to the “mountains of Samaria” (verse 5) and to Ephraim (verses 6, 18, 20, etc.)—clearly signifying its application to the northern kingdom. References to Zion signify its application to Judah. Thus, as a latter-day prophecy, it refers to the Anglo-American and Jewish peoples. The prophecy ends with the promise of a renewed covenant relationship between God and a reunited Israel (verses 31-34).

3. www.naturalnews.com/044180_severe_drought_Dust_Bowl_California.html; www.naturalnews.com/044617_Dust_Bowl_Texas_ farmers_drought.html

4. Modern “Assyria” (see Appendix 9).

5. While it is possible that Jeremiah actually traveled north to witness to the Israelite exiles as they migrated out of the Middle East, his warning is clearly intended for modern Israel.

6. It is commonly assumed that this verse refers to the potential destruction of all mankind. The context, however, deals with Israel. As Luke 21:23 says, it is a time of trouble “upon this people”—Israel. Hence, Jeremiah’s reference to Jacob’s trouble (Jer. 30:7). This time of distress for Israel is “cut short” or curtailed through the plagues of the Day of the Lord—else captive Israel would be fully destroyed. Inspired by Satan, the modern Assyrian “beast” will seek to obliterate Israel from the face of the earth. After all, Satan knows that God’s entire plan for the age to come hinges on His chosen nation. Thus, those days are “shortened” for the sake of the elect. While the term does at times refer to the church, in this context it refers to Israel (see Isa. 45:4; 65:9, 22; etc., where God calls Israel His elect). Compare to Daniel 12:1, where Israel is delivered from her time of trouble.

As indicated by Revelation 6:15-17, the “Day of the Lord” is the “great day” of God’s “wrath” on the Gentile nations. As the seventh “seal,” the year-long period is composed of seven “trumpet plagues” (Rev. 8).

7. While no one knows exactly what events will bring about a powerful “United States of Europe,” some factors are becoming clear. Russia’s recent power grab in Ukraine has Brussels now moving to form a viable “military response capability.” Convinced that American resolve is now a thing of the past, European leaders realize they must develop their own defenses. Economic and social difficulties continue to plague the EU, which will undoubtedly worsen. In answer to growing fears and social instability, the Bible indicates that a powerful and charismatic leader will eventually emerge in Europe. This military-political leader, known biblically as the “beast” (Rev. 13), will use deceit to achieve great power and will work in tandem with an equally powerful Catholic leader who will ignite mass religious fervor through “lying wonders” (II Thess. 2:9; Rev. 13:14). Together, they will lead a revived Holy Roman Empire, called “Babylon the Great” (Rev. 17, 18).

Promising peace and universal prosperity, this European church-state union will exercise worldwide political and economic dominance for a short time. However, the Anglo-American nations will not prosper in connection with this system. Ultimately, this European “beast” will overpower America and Britain, taking our peoples captive. Prior to this, devastating economic conditions, disastrous weather changes, and internal civil strife will bring our nations to the point of collapse.

8. Paul’s “quote” is based on Isaiah 59:20 and Jeremiah 31:31-34.

Epilogue

We began this book by asking, “Where in the Bible is America to be found? What about Great Britain?” We noted that their apparent absence from Scripture has long puzzled scholars. But as we have shown, these two great nations—which have profoundly changed the world in innumerable ways—are descended from the so-called “lost” ten tribes of ancient Israel. As recipients of the Abrahamic “birthright” blessings, the Anglo-America nations are, in fact, discussed in scores of biblical prophecies addressed to Israel.

The rise of the British Empire and the United States of America to world prominence has been phenomenal. But their accelerating demise is also proving exceptional. Today, our nations stand at a crossroad: if the Anglo-American peoples continue on their present course, the end will be disastrous. Unfortunately, prophecy indicates that this is precisely what will happen. Through the prophet Hosea, God says: “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.” He goes on to say that we have “rejected [true] knowledge” and “forgotten the law of [our] God” (Hosea 4:6). Of course, God is referring to spiritual knowledge—the Word of God.

Foretelling of our times, the prophet Isaiah was inspired to write that “none calls for justice, nor does anyone plead for truth; [instead, your leaders] trust in vanity and speak lies…. They conceive mischief and bring forth iniquity… [and] their works are works of iniquity…. Their feet run to evil, and they make haste to shed innocent blood; their thoughts are thoughts of iniquity; wasting and destruction are in their paths. They have not known the way of peace, and there is no justice in their ways. They have made crooked paths for themselves; whoever goes therein shall not know peace. Therefore justice is far from us; nor does righteousness overtake us” (Isa. 59:4-9).

Through the prophet Jeremiah, God laments, “For My people are foolish [and] have not known Me; they are stupid children, and they have no understanding. They are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge…. To whom shall I speak, and give warning, that they may hear? Behold, their ears are not circumcised, and they cannot hearken. Behold, the Word of the LORD is to them a reproach; they have no delight in it” (Jer. 4.22; 6:10).

Indeed, we have rejected the knowledge of God and His ways. The more our peoples have prospered, the more our sins have increased (Hosea 4:7-8). As indicated by verse 11, immorality and substance abuse have sapped and destroyed our national spirit. As nations, we look to our “lovers” (alliances with other nations) instead of God (Hosea 2:5, 13; etc.). We have “thrown off” what is good, and counted God’s ways as a “strange thing” (Hosea 8:3, 12). In our pride we will not seek God—until we are forced to do so (Hosea 7:10).

America’s lack of conscience was made apparent in the aftermath of 9-11. Immediately following the terrorist attacks, church attendance spiked; Americans everywhere were moved to seek God. But within a few months, it was back to life as usual. There was no revival of American Christianity, no humbling of the nation before God, no introspective look into how we might have brought God’s judgment on ourselves. Clearly, however, God was sending a warning to America—a warning that has gone unheeded.

In his intriguing book The Harbinger, Jonathan Cahn draws a striking parallel between America’s response to the 9-11 attacks and ancient Israel’s response to initial Assyrian attacks. He bases his analogy on Isaiah chapter nine, in which the people of Israel—with “pride and arrogance of heart”—say: “The bricks have fallen down, but we will [re]build with cut stones; the sycamores are cut down, but we will [plant] cedars instead” (verses 9-10). The nation of Israel was under divine judgment. But rather than acknowledge their sin and return to God, they defiantly vowed to rebuild “bigger and stronger” so that they could withstand future attacks. By foolishly ignoring God’s warning, they eventually fell to Assyria.

Likewise, after the 9-11 attacks, no one acknowledged that America was under judgment; no one called for national repentance or fundamental change; no one asked, “What is God trying to tell us?” To be sure, our politicians cried “God bless America”—but nothing was done to secure God’s blessing. On 9-11, America’s territorial integrity was breached; God had removed His “hedge” of protection. And our response—defiance. Like Israel of old, we said, “We will rebuild”—we will be stronger, invincible.[1]

At the 2013 Presidential Inaugural Prayer Breakfast, Cahn spoke on this very subject. Citing Isaiah nine, he warned that America’s response to 9-11 was as good as saying, “God, you won’t humble us, you won’t cause us to return. We will continue on our course. We will continue to abandon your ways. We will defy you even more than before. By our own efforts, we will rebuild and come back stronger than before.”[2] Indeed, it is as verse 13 says, “The people do not turn to Him Who strikes them, nor do they seek the LORD of hosts.”

The fact that America is of Israelite origin makes Cahn’s assessment all the more astounding. We have driven God out of our institutions, our churches, even our lives. What will happen to America and Britain if our peoples continue down this path?

In His mercy, perhaps God will yet give America and Britain time to repent—to “put away the evil” and “learn to do good”—to “seek judgment” and “reprove the oppressor” (see Isa. 1:16-19). As God says through the prophet Jeremiah, “If at any time I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck it up and to pull it down, and to destroy it; if that nation, against whom I have spoken, will turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do to them” (Jer. 18:7-8). As individuals and nations, God sets before us “life and death, blessing and cursing”—and commands us to “choose life” (Deut. 30:19).

What will you do? As Cahn rightly proclaims, “the signs of warning and judgment are manifesting in the land. The shadow of judgment is upon us.”[3] Will you hear and answer God in heartfelt repentance?

“If My people, who are called by My name,

shall humble themselves and pray, and seek My face,

and turn from their wicked ways,

then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin

and will heal their land.”

II Chronicles 7:14

NOTES ON EPILOGUE

1. Jonathan Cahn, The Harbinger, pp. 51-55. While Cahn’s central message is most appropriate, this author does not endorse all of his conclusions.

2. Jonathan Cahn, “Message to America,” p. 6. Cahn, a messianic Jewish rabbi, gave the keynote address at the 2013 Presidential Inaugural Prayer Breakfast (Jan. 21, Washington, DC). Until recently, the entire text of Cahn’s address was available on his site, www.hopeoftheworld.org. Currently, it may be found at www.patriotaction.net/profiles/blogs/how-dowe-pray-for-our-nation.

3. Cahn, “Message to America,” p. 12

Appendices

APPENDIX ONE

Problems Associated with “British Israelism”

British Israelism (sometimes called Anglo-Israelism) is a movement centering on the belief that the varied peoples of northwestern Europe, the British Isles, North America, and Australasia are the descendants of the so-called “lost” tribes of Israel. The concept includes the belief that the British royal family is directly descended from the line of King David. As this book has shown, these claims are correct. Indeed, the Anglo-American nations can be traced to the ancient House of Israel and are apparently the “birthright” peoples of the Abrahamic promises; moreover, the present British monarchy did apparently originate with the ancient royal line of David. However, there are troubling aspects of British Israelism that obscure these issues and bring disparagement to this profound truth. This appendix will primarily examine one of the key teachings of British Israelism—the greatly flawed idea that the British are the “manifestation” of the Kingdom of God on earth.

First, a little historical background is in order. Scholars generally trace the origins of British Israelism to the 1870s, when British Israelite organizations began proliferating throughout parts of the British Empire and America. There were, however, much earlier proponents of the teaching prior to it becoming established as a movement. In fact, versions of the idea can be found in various works dating from the 1500s. The most influential early writers of the British Israelite movement were arguably Richard Brothers and John Wilson. Writing and preaching under the late 18th-century influence of millenarianism—the religious belief in an imminent thousand-year age of peace ushered in by the second coming of Christ—Brothers articulated the first distinct British Israelite ideology. Decades later, Wilson adopted and promoted his teachings—focusing on the Anglo-Saxon-Scythian connection to ancient Israel. Wilson published Our Israelitish Origins in 1840. In 1884, Edward Hine departed England for the United States—where he promoted the idea that America was modern-day Manasseh and the British were modern-day Ephraim. Key organizations included the British- Israel Association and the Anglo-Israel Association, both formed in 1875. The UK-based British-Israel-World Federation was formed in 1922 and continues to promote the movement through Covenant Publishing, its Web site, and Covenant Nations magazine.

For the most part, teachings among associations have been uniform, with few major differences. But in the late 1800s, a protracted dispute arose over the interpretation of Genesis 48:19—where Jacob says Ephraim would become a “multitude of nations” and Manasseh would become a single “great nation.” Traditionally, the earliest British Israelite proponents—John Wilson, Edward Hine, J. H. Allen, etc.—identified Ephraim with the British Empire and Manasseh with America. (For example, an 1886 publication on this topic was Ephraim England by Robert Douglas.) However, a number of British Israelites from the early 20th century began to identify Ephraim with America and Britain with Manasseh. The resultant rift eventually subsided, and most British Israelites today continue to traditionally identify Ephraim with Britain and America with Manasseh. The alternate view remains a minority position (see Appendix 10).[1]

It should be noted that, today, no British institution—including the monarchy, Parliament, or the Church of England—officially recognizes the teachings of British Israelism. Thus, it remains a relatively obscure idea espoused by a handful of unorthodox groups scattered throughout several of the English-speaking nations.

The Political Use of British Israelism

British Israelism was never intended to be a political movement. But during certain periods in British history, its adherents clearly influenced the politics of the day. At the heart of such influence was the teaching that “the British Empire and the Church of England are the modern-day manifestation of the true Kingdom of God” and that “the British people are chosen by God to rule the earth.”[2]

Following what they call the “two house theory,” British Israelites are well aware that the Bible speaks of an eventual reunion of the House of Israel with the House of Judah. They frequently appeal to Ezekiel’s vision of the “valley of dry bones”—along with the symbolism of two sticks joined as one—to demonstrate that the Jews must eventually fully join with Britain. Unfortunately, they typically do not see this “two house” reunification as belonging to the messianic age; rather, they see it as presently ongoing (Ezekiel 37 is discussed in Chapter 16).

This point is central to British Israelism—and, in fact, was once used to political advantage. In the mid-1600s, proponents of British Israelism utilized their “two house” argument to persuade Oliver Cromwell—“lord protector of the Commonwealth” after the English Civil War—to allow Jews to return to England. Jews had been banned from England as a result of the 1290 Edict of Expulsion under Edward I. Appealing to his pride and sense of nationalism, British Israelites convinced Cromwell that the British, via the Anglo-Saxons, were the modern descendants of the northern “lost” tribes of Israel and that the Jews represented the southern tribe of Judah. These two houses of Israel, they argued, must be reunited as part of the British Empire in order for the Empire to fulfill her God-ordained role of ruling the world. Cromwell, a Puritan credited with positive reforms in the Church of England, agreed and Jews were readmitted to England starting in 1655. At first glance Cromwell’s actions might appear noble, as if he had in mind to advance the cause of the British Israelites. But, as reality would have it, he had a political motive: allowing Jews to return to England would bring a badly needed infusion of money into the economy—and British Israelism gave him just the rationale he needed.[3]

Is the United Kingdom the Kingdom of God?

The teaching that the British Empire was the “manifestation” of the Kingdom of God on earth has been paramount in British Israelism. Today, in spite of the Empire’s demise, the movement continues to cling to this flawed concept. Presently, the United Kingdom—in conjunction with the Church of England—is regarded in a similar light. Thus, according to the magazine Covenant Nations, the stated purpose of the British-Israel-World Federation is to “proclaim the identity of the Kingdom of God in the modern era; that it is to be found only in the Anglo-Saxon and Celtic peoples of the world, its primary base being our British Isles.”[4] The magazine links the Church of England to the “kingdom identity,” stating that “the Kingdom of God upon Earth is a continuing literal Realm with a great and enduring constitutional Protestant throne.”[5]

The 1707 Act of Union merged the parliaments of Scotland and England—formally creating the United Kingdom of Great Britain. Both kingdoms had already come under the same monarch through the “Union of the Crowns” in 1603. In typical British Israelite fashion, Michael A. Clark, one of the principals of the Federation, links this fateful union to the Kingdom of God: “The Union of the Crowns in 1603, when James VI of Scotland [was crowned as] James I of England, marked a watershed towards the development of the Kingdom of God upon earth that has perhaps never been fully understood, even by students of the Kingdom Identity.” Clark references the prophecies of Ezekiel 37; but rather than seeing a literal future resurrection and unification of all Israel, he gives the text a figurative present-day application: “This is a progressive coming together of the bones and body—a resurrection not in a sudden instant, but over a long period of time…. [It] is the coming together of two peoples [Judah and Israel] gathered from being dispersed among the other peoples of the then-known world into a land of their own.” To Clark, this “land of their own” is the British Isles and the dispersed are still being gathered in.[6] The 1707 Act of Union was considered a milestone in this “progression,” wherein “the breath of life truly came back into the body of the whole House of Israel.” The event was the “fulfillment of a prophetic resurrection for the Israel of God.”[7]

Other Federation writers view Ezekiel 37 as primarily spiritual, in which Judah and Israel (Britain) are reunited through “faith in Christ.” Thus, many British Israelites are keenly focused on bringing Jews to Christ.[8]

While it is true that God will use a restored and reunited Israel as the foundation for His worldwide kingdom in the messianic age, this attempt to equate the British Empire (or the UK) with the Kingdom of God is plainly contrary to numerous biblical passages. For starters, Jesus plainly said that His kingdom was not of this cosmos—this present society (John 18:36). Rather, the Kingdom of God is to be established at Jesus’ return, as a climax to the final global conflict of this evil age (Dan. 2:44; 7:14; Rev. 11:15; 19:15). Jesus illustrates in Matthew 13:31-33 that His kingdom will, in time, fill the earth—not fall into dismal decline as has the British Empire. Jesus will sit on David’s throne ruling over a kingdom that will know no end (Luke 1:32-33)—it will increase, never decrease (Isa. 9:7). Moreover, in God’s kingdom, His law will be taught around the world from Zion (Isa. 2:3)—in stark contrast to the liberal secular ideology that now grips the UK.

Defying logic and the facts, many British Israelites continue to anticipate some kind of “restoration” for the British Empire—so that, in Clark’s own words, it can ultimately “expand to the four corners of the world.”[9] But only the true Kingdom of God will one day expand to the four corners of the world. For now, isn’t it enough to acknowledge and appreciate the truth about “British Israel”—that God uniquely chose the Isles not only to preserve the Davidic throne, but to share in the astounding “birthright” blessings of Joseph?

Has Britain Proclaimed the True Gospel?

If the handful of nations that comprise the United Kingdom are the current “manifestation” of the Kingdom of God on earth, one would expect the Church of England to be at the forefront of preaching the Gospel to the world. Indeed, according to proponents of British Israelism, God raised up Britain for that very purpose. On its “mission statement” page, Covenant Nations magazine proclaims that “the spread of the Christian message is the divinely appointed task of the Britannic peoples throughout the world.”[10] As a Methodist minister and supporter of British Israelism, the renowned Dr. Dinsdale Young once said, “Why has God set the British people aside? Why has He put such a crown of glory upon their heads?... They are called to spread the Gospel…. I believe that a very strong argument for the British- Israel position might be based on this fact.”[11]

The problem with this assertion is that the Church of England has never proclaimed the true Gospel. As the official state church of first the British Empire and then the United Kingdom, the Church of England has over time become mired in tradition, ritual, and politics. At best, it has only taught a pseudo-gospel focusing exclusively on the atoning work of Christ. Certainly, this is a vital component of the Gospel. But Jesus Himself, as did the apostles, preached the advance “good news” of the reality and certainty of the messianic Kingdom of God—a literal world-ruling kingdom (Dan. 2:44; Matt. 24:14; Mark 1:14; Luke 4:43; Acts 1:3; etc.).

Like their tepid Protestant counterparts in America, it seems that the Church of England has been ignorant of the true Gospel message that Jesus and the apostles proclaimed. Why has this essential message been absent from the very church that is considered to be central to the British Israelism movement?

APPENDIX 1 NOTES

1. Historical information taken from www.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Israelism.

2. Gregory S. Neal, “Imperial British Israelism: Justification for an Empire,” www.revneal.org/writings/british.htm

3. “Answering Critics of the British-Israel (or Anglo-Israel) Belief,” Canadian British-Israel Association, www.israelite.ca/research/critics.html

4. “Still Under Guarantee,” Covenant Nations, vol. 2, no. 8, p. 8

5. “Are You a Kingdom Protestant?” Covenant Nations, vol. 2, no. 5, p. 16

6. Concerning “a land of their own,” Clark draws from a biblical passage that is widely misapplied by those teaching on the subject of the Israelite origins of the Anglo-American nations. In II Samuel 7:10, we read: “Moreover I will appoint a place for my people Israel, and 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 beforetime” (KJV). This rendering has led many to assume that God was speaking of a yet future place other than the Promised Land—i.e., the British Isles and America. When studied in a more modern translation, however, the context (particularly verses 8-9) clearly shows that God was simply reiterating through the prophet Nathan what He had already done for David and Israel. The verbs used in verse 10 are in the perfect tense, meaning they should be translated as having already occurred or as presently occurring (see Clarke’s Commentary, etc., on this verse). Following the rendering of the perfect tense verbs of verses 8-9—“I took you from the sheepcote”; God had been with David wherever he went; I “have made” you a great name—verse 10 should likewise read: “I have appointed a place for my people Israel, and have planted them so that they might dwell in a place of their own and no longer be distressed [as in Egypt]. Moreover, neither do the children of wickedness afflict them as before [as during the time of the Judges (verse 11)].” Completing the contextual thought, verse 11 correctly uses the past tense: “I have caused you to [enjoy] rest from all of your enemies.” Young’s Literal Translation renders this verse similarly. A careful comparison to II Kings 21:8 will show that the place God had planted Israel was linked forever to Jerusalem and was the very land He had promised to the patriarchs—and that Israel’s permanence in the land was based on the condition of obedience. In the age to come—as a restored Israel expands around the globe— America and Britain will be restored as the birthright nations of Joseph. However, they will never surpass the original land of promise in preeminence and glory.

7. Michael A. Clark, “The Union of Two Kingdoms,” British-Israel-World Federation, www.britishisrael.co.uk/showart.php?id=17

8. Jory S. Brooks, “The Gathering of the Godless,” www.ensignmessage.com/godlessgathering.html

9. Clark, www.britishisrael.co.uk/showart.php?id=17

10. Covenant Nations, vol. 2, no. 5, p. 4

11. “Dinsdale Young and the British-Israel Movement,” Covenant Nations, vol. 2, no. 5, p. 21

APPENDIX TWO

Modern Locations of the Twelve Tribes of Israel

Determining the geographical regions ultimately settled by many of the tribes of Israel is largely a matter of speculation. The table below reflects a consensus of key researchers who have studied the complex genealogical histories of the Israelite tribes as they migrated into northwest Europe. Their conclusions are based primarily on identifying those clans that represent the “determining element” of a particular land. Biblical clues, where available, have also been taken into consideration.

Ephraim

Britain, including some former colonies

Manasseh

United States of America

Judah

Jews, in Israel and around the world

Reuben

France (mostly northern areas)

Dan

Ireland, Denmark, Scandinavian areas

Simeon

Scattered among the Jews, British Isles

Levi

Scattered, mostly among the Jews

Issachar

Finland, Scandinavian areas

Zebulun

Netherlands

Gad

Switzerland (French-speaking areas)

Asher

Belgium (mostly northern areas)

Naphtali

Norway, Sweden

Benjamin

Norway, Iceland, British Isles

APPENDIX THREE

Jesus’ Divine Right to the Davidic Throne

God unconditionally promised David that his lineage would never fail or be cut off (Jer. 33:17)—thus guaranteeing that the Messiah would be born as the “seed of David” (Jer. 23:5; 33:15). Jesus’ connection to David is paramount if He is to inherit the Davidic throne. The messianic genealogies presented in Matthew and Luke show that this promise was fulfilled, as both trace the Christ back to David. However, neither genealogical account is clear-cut, leaving us with certain questions. For example, most scholars recognize that Luke’s account deals with Mary’s family line—yet why is she not mentioned? Matthew’s account, which deals with Joseph’s line, is often seen as pointless since he was not Jesus’ actual father. What, then, is the purpose of Matthew’s account?

There are two specific requirements for one being eligible to inherit the Davidic throne: 1) one must be of the blood line of David; and 2) one must be the recipient of “divine appointment.” Jesus the Christ fulfills both requirements. Moreover, as we will demonstrate, God took the matter a step further, doubly connecting Jesus to David while unequivocally verifying His divine conception.

It is important to reiterate here the fact that David’s throne was set up by God—and has been allowed to continue, by God’s choice, through Solomon’s line (I Chron. 28:5; 29:23). Thus, it is God’s to give—by “divine appointment”—to the one of His choosing.

Before going on to examine the details of Jesus’ genealogy, we must establish the historical background of the Davidic line at the time of Judah’s fall. Of particular importance is the curse God placed on one of the last kings of the nation—Jechoniah. As we will see, this curse complicates the messianic genealogy, while simultaneously adding an element of surprise.

The Curse of Jechoniah

As the last righteous king of the beleaguered nation of Judah, Josiah is remembered for his sweeping reforms (II Chron. 34:29-33; 35:26-27). Josiah’s sons, however, were determined to take the Jewish nation back into the depths of sin and rebellion. After Josiah died in battle, his son, Jehoahaz, reigned in his place for a mere three months before being replaced—at the insistence of Egypt—by his brother, Jehoiakim. Under Jehoiakim, who ruled for only 11 years, Judah became a vassal state to Babylon. After being taken as a captive to Babylon, his son, Jechoniah (also known as Jehoiachin or Coniah), reigned briefly before being taken to Babylon as part of the first wave of the Jews’ captivity. King Nebuchadnezzar subsequently replaced Jechoniah with another of Josiah’s sons, Zedekiah (Jer. 37:1). As the final Davidic king ruling over the nation of Judah, Zedekiah was also eventually taken to Babylon where he died (Jer. 39:5-7).

From this point, the royal lineage becomes somewhat complicated. From all appearances, the Davidic throne ended with Zedekiah, as all of his sons were killed (Jer. 52:10). (One of Zedekiah’s daughters, however, was used to preserve the royal line and throne—see Chapter 12.) Moreover, Jechoniah—who had at least one son (I Chron. 3:17; Matt. 1:12)—was under a God-ordained curse stating that none of his seed would have a right to sit on David’s throne: “Thus says the LORD, ‘Write this man [Jechoniah] down as [if he were] childless, a man who will not be blessed in his days. For no man of his seed shall be blessed, sitting on the throne of David and ruling any more in Judah” (Jer. 22:30).

As the last surviving Davidic king, Jechoniah was taken to Babylon where he was allowed to live in comfort and favor until his death. Of course, David’s throne was never restored over Judah; but had it been restored, none of Jechoniah’s descendants could have inherited it. Jechoniah’s grandson, Zerubbabel, was among the Jews who returned to Palestine to rebuild Jerusalem and the temple. Zerubbabel served as governor of Judah, but not king, and is listed in the family lineage of Joseph, Mary’s husband (Matt. 1:11-12, 16).

Jesus’ Genealogical Accounts

When we examine the genealogy of Jesus in Matthew, we see that the writer tells the story from Joseph’s perspective—focusing on him being a just man and on his visit by an angel. Following the genealogical listing itself (verses 1-17), Matthew immediately moves to the fact that Jesus was divinely conceived in Mary’s womb by the Holy Spirit of God (verse 18). This begs the question: What is the point in bringing out Joseph’s family line if he is not really Jesus’ father?

Interestingly, Dr. Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum makes the observation that Matthew was actually demonstrating the impossibility of Jesus being anything other than divinely conceived.[1] Jumping through the lineage as given by Matthew, we see Abraham, David, Solomon, Jechoniah, and finally, Joseph. It seems that Matthew is drawing our attention to the fact that Joseph is of the cursed line of Jechoniah—as if to emphasize that no son of Joseph could have the right to the throne of David. If Jesus had actually been a son of Joseph, He would have been disqualified from sitting on David’s throne. Matthew deliberately gives us the Jechoniah-Joseph connection, then proceeds to emphasize that Jesus’ real father is God Himself. All of this serves to verify the foundational truth of Jesus’ begettal by God through the Holy Spirit.

At Joseph’s expense, Matthew effectively confirms Jesus’ divine conception; however, we should not entirely dismiss Jesus’ relationship with Joseph. As was the custom in Hebrew culture, a man would typically adopt his stepson, making him his legal son. If Joseph had adopted Jesus as his legal son—and Luke 2:48 certainly indicates that he did so—such a maneuver would have given Jesus a legitimate claim to the throne of David through the line of Solomon. Accordingly, the fact that Joseph was of the cursed line of Jechoniah becomes a moot point, as the curse applies only to blood lines, not legal lines.

Still, a direct blood-line connection to David is required. Indeed, as we have seen, the Scriptures promise that the Messiah will sit on David’s throne as a son of David (Jer. 23:5; 33:15; Isa. 11:1) We find this direct link to David in Luke’s genealogical account.

In Luke three, we find the same story told from Mary’s perspective. This time, she is visited by an angel, while Joseph takes on a secondary role in the narrative. It is apparent that Luke is presenting Mary’s genealogy. But why is Mary not mentioned? The answer, according to Hebrew custom, is that the name of a woman was not to be mentioned in a genealogical table (although Matthew repeatedly ignores this custom). Rather, the name of the woman’s husband was to be used.

In the KJV, Luke 3:23 reads: “Jesus … being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.” This makes it read as if Jesus was the son of Joseph, who was the son of Heli. However, Matthew has already informed us that Joseph’s father was Jacob (Matt. 1:16). The problem in this rendering is with the parentheses, which are not part of the original Greek. If we reposition the final parenthesis, the text could read: “Jesus … being (as was supposed, the son of Joseph) the son of Heli.” Using this configuration, Jesus is called the son of Heli because Heli was his maternal grandfather (Mary’s father), his nearest male relative.

Another valid explanation is that Joseph’s name (representing Mary) was inserted as if he were the son of Heli—who was, in fact, his father-inlaw. As such, the text could read: “Jesus … being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son-in-law of Heli.” The absence of Mary’s name is in keeping with Jewish practices on genealogies, and it was not unusual for a son-in-law to be listed in his wife’s genealogy.

Thus, Mary’s genealogy in Luke connects Jesus directly to David through Nathan (verse 31), a rather obscure son of David (II Sam. 5:14). It is irrelevant that Jesus is not descended from the royal dynasty of Solomon. Because of sin, the dynasty established through Solomon could not be perpetual. Indeed, the perpetuity of David’s throne does not depend on Solomon or his lineage. Jesus’ blood-line right to the throne comes through Nathan. Solomon’s royal line—which even today continues to occupy the throne of David—will end when Jesus assumes that throne.

Divine Appointment

As messianic genealogies are concerned, we have seen that: 1) Jesus is the literal seed of David through Mary’s family line; and 2) Jesus has, by adoption, a legal connection to Solomon’s line, giving Him a legal right to the Davidic throne. However, David had many sons—and there are any number of Davidic descendants who could potentially claim a right to his throne. The matter, however, is settled in the final biblical requirement for qualifying for David’s throne: divine appointment. Recall that the throne of David originated with God. Thus, it is His to give to whom He chooses. In announcing the news of Jesus’ birth to Mary, God revealed Jesus’ divine right to David’s throne: “He [Jesus] shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God shall give Him the throne of David, His forefather; and He shall reign over the house of Jacob into the ages, and of His kingdom there shall be no end” (Luke 1:32-33).

APPENDIX 3 NOTES

1. Dr. Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, Yeshua’s Right to David’s Throne, Ariel Ministries, www.ariel.org

APPENDIX FOUR

The Three “Overturns” of Ezekiel 21:27

As brought out in the Introduction to this book, “cherry-picking” passages to “prove” one’s point is being unfaithful to the Word of God, and only serves to discredit one’s writing. A good example can be found in how Ezekiel 21:27 has been misapplied by virtually all who write on the subject of the preservation of the Davidic “throne.” Relying primarily on the KJV, the traditional view is that the three “overturns” of this passage refer to three occasions when the “throne” of David was transferred to new locations. In the KJV, the verse reads: “I will overturn, overturn, overturn it: and it shall be no more, until he come whose right it is; and I will give it [to] him.” The meaning “read into” the passage is: “I will overturn, overturn, overturn the throne; and it shall be no more overturned until he comes whose right it is; and I will then give it to him.”

The first “overturn” is said to have occurred when the throne was relocated from the land of Judah to Ireland; the second took place when the throne was later moved from Ireland to Scotland; and the final “overturn” refers to when the throne was moved to England. Accordingly, the throne is to remain in England—“be no more overturned”—until it is finally relocated to Jerusalem under the Messiah.

Indeed, the throne of David was reestablished in Ireland soon after the fall of Jerusalem (see Chapters 11 and 12). Moreover, it is true that the British monarchy—including the present Queen of England—is descended from the kings of Ireland by way of Scotland. These facts do suggest some kind of “movement” of the throne.[1]

But is Ezekiel 21:27 a prophecy of three “relocations” of the Davidic throne, or has this passage been conveniently “cherry-picked” as a prooftext? Is it possible that this popular “interpretation” has been carelessly “read into” the text and that this passage actually has an entirely different meaning? We can only arrive at the truth if we examine the passage 1) in context; 2) without preconceived notions; and 3) by being completely honest with the Hebrew.

Ezekiel begins by stating that Zedekiah’s wicked rule was coming to an end—emphasized by God’s command to remove the diadem and the crown (verses 25-26). In the middle of verse 26 is a key statement, one that helps to establish the context or overall tone of the passage: “this shall not be the same” (KJV). The Hebrew literally reads “this, not this”—i.e., things would not remain as they had been. Radical change was coming, things were going to be turned “upside-down.” The ensuing upheaval would be unprecedented and result in the abasement of what had been lofty or high, and the exalting of what had been lowly or humbled.

Verse 27 is somewhat complicated, and many translators admit that its meaning is vague. Some translations render the opening phrase as “I will overturn, overturn, overturn it” (KJV, etc.); others use the term overthrow or ruin (“I will make it a ruin, a ruin, a ruin”); a few prefer the more literal meaning of the Hebrew, perverted. It is apparent that the Davidic throne is being discussed—but exactly what was to happen to the throne? Was it to be “overturned,” “overthrown,” or “ruined” in the sense of being destroyed? Was it to be “overturned” in the sense of being transferred elsewhere? Or is there yet another answer that makes better sense?

The Hebrew word translated “overturn” is avvah—and occurs only here in Ezekiel 21:27. According to Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon, avvah (a noun) is the intensive form of the verb avah, which means to bend, twist, distort or pervert something in the sense that it is no longer what it should be.[2] The verb avah is used in 17 places in the Old Testament and never means to destroy or transfer. In every place where avah is used, the meaning is clear that a distortion or perversion has occurred—a deviation from what had been considered the norm.

The first thing we should note is that avvah, as used by Ezekiel, is a noun. However, the KJV (etc.) renders avvah as if it was a verb—“I will overturn, overturn, overturn it.” This not only violates the Hebrew text, it suggests an unintended meaning—repetitive action, that three “overturns” are to occur. Most modern translations correctly render the term as a noun.

Moreover, because the KJV incorrectly renders avvah as a verb, it ignores the only verb actually used in the clause, the Hebrew suwm—“(I) will make”—which is used throughout the Old Testament as make, set, appoint, ordain, establish, etc. Correctly translated, there should be three nouns followed by a single verb: “A ruin, ruin, ruin I will make it!” Clearly, this verse cannot point to repetitive action, as in “three sequential overturns.” Rather, the passage shows that God was going to bring the throne itself into a condition or state completely contrary to what was originally intended—hence, the Hebrew avvah. Indeed, the entire tone of the passage is negative, adverse. After all, to remove the throne from the land of Judah would be a perversion or a deviation from what God had originally planned. The triple use of avvah is understood by scholars (Bullinger, etc.) as being a literary form of emphasis, as employed in numerous biblical passages (see Isa. 6:3; Jer. 7:4; 22:29; etc.).[3]

The idea that avvah can mean “overturn” in the sense of bringing about a “transfer” is contrary to how its verb root, avah, is used. Remember, avvah is used only here in Ezekiel 21; thus, we can best understand its meaning by looking at how its verbal root, avah, is used. In the 17 places where the root is used—rendered variously in the KJV as iniquity, perverse, perversely, perverted, amiss, turn, crooked, bowed down, troubled, wickedly, and wrong—the meaning is clear that a distortion or perversion has occurred. Moreover, there are Hebrew words that already have the meaning of “transfer.” One in particular, abar, is rendered “translate” (KJV) in II Samuel 3:10 in reference to the transfer (NIV, NKJV) of the kingdom and throne from Saul to David.

Likewise, avvah cannot mean “ruin” or “overthrow” in the sense of destroy (as per some translations). Several Hebrew words are used widely with this meaning. And as we have seen, God has unequivocally promised that David’s throne would not be destroyed, but would be active across all generations.

In short, the Hebrew avvah or avah do not mean that David’s throne was to be “transplanted” elsewhere or destroyed. Rather, what is indicated, using repetition for intensity, is a massive deviation from what God had originally planned—for what was to happen to the throne was a tragic perversion of what God had intended for David and the nation of Judah from the beginning.

Properly rendered, the next clause tells us that the upheaval would be unprecedented in the history of Judah. The KJV rendering—“and it shall be no more”—is markedly vague. As previously noted, it is taken to mean that the throne would “be no more overturned” until the Messiah comes. But this connotation is clearly not supported by the Hebrew. The phrase in Hebrew is composed of three parts: 1) a construct meaning “even this” or “indeed this”—used for emphasis; 2) the negative particle lo, meaning not or never; and 3) the verb hayah, meaning to come to pass or to take place. Here, hayah is in the perfect mood, which relates to past action. Thus, the simple meaning is, “Indeed, this has never happened!”

Based on the text’s structure, the phrase is actually a parenthetical statement—an exclamation of sorts, obviously designed to add an element of gravity or to reflect emotion on God’s part. If we omit the phrase, the verse could sensibly be rendered: “I will make it a ruin, a ruin, a ruin—until He comes whose right it is; then I will give it to Him.” But when the phrase is parenthetically added in, it echoes the statement in verse 26 that radical change was coming: “I will make it a ruin, a ruin, a ruin—indeed, such has never occurred!—until He comes whose right it is; then I will give it to Him.”

The final clause of Ezekiel’s prophecy—“until He comes to whom it rightfully belongs; to Him I will give it” (NIV)—is clearly messianic and reminiscent of Genesis 49:10. Thus, the throne would be removed from the land of Judah, but would never be removed from the tribe of Judah.

Below is a paraphrased rendering that accurately captures the intent of Ezekiel’s prophecy:

“Remove the turban and the crown from Zedekiah! From this time on, nothing will remain the same! I will exalt that which has been humbled, and abase that which was exalted. As for the throne, I will make it a ruin, tarnished, disgraced— indeed, such has never occurred!—until He comes Who has the right to it; then I will give it to Him.”[4]

Admittedly, “ruin” is not the best translation for avvah. But its root meaning—to pervert or distort—works poorly in English as well. David’s throne was not utterly ruined or perverted; by using avvah, God was trying to express the harsh reality that circumstances concerning the throne were about to radically change—in a way that was completely contrary to what He had originally planned or intended. In short, a major deviation was to occur—hence, avvah.

Because of sin, the throne had long ceased to reflect the glory of God or the glory of the kingdom under David and Solomon. Shame, disgrace, and dishonor had become attached to it. And now, the “throne” would go into a sort of “exile.” There would be an extended suspension of the throne in Judah—something utterly unheard of.

But consider that there was (and is) a divine plan at work. The nation of Judah would go into captivity—and return some 70 years later without a king. Subsequently, for most of the Jews’ turbulent history, they would be subjugated by Gentile nations. What would have happened to the Davidic throne if it had been restored after the Jews returned from Babylon? Could the throne have survived under the Persians? The Syrians? The Romans? What kind of persecution would the Davidic throne suffer today if it were openly and apparently functioning in Jerusalem? Would it even be possible?

It would seem that sending the “throne” into “exile” was the one sure way to preserve the throne and the royal line—by keeping it “hidden” (in plain sight) from the world. Today, the British monarchy enjoys a great deal of national and international attention. But the world does not know that the British throne is actually David’s throne. Most Brits do not know. Again, what kind of persecution might result if the world knew the truth concerning David’s throne?

Indeed, the Davidic “throne” was transferred to another location (the British Isles) for preservation and safekeeping—where it would actively rule over a portion of modern Israel. Ezekiel 21 hints at this transfer—but only because of its reference to “exalting” and “abasing.” However, a three-step “relocation” process is simply not supported by the Hebrew. Clearly, the purpose of the passage is to express the tragic fate of the throne in relation to Judah—to proclaim that the throne was coming to an end in the land of Judah and that it would be returned to Jerusalem only when it was to be claimed by its rightful heir.

Still, history does indicate that whereas the Davidic throne was first resettled in Ireland, it now stands in London. But Ezekiel 21 cannot be used to demonstrate how it got there. Frankly, the details of how the throne ended up in England are sketchy, often contradictory, and subject to interpretation. Moreover, the entire history of the Davidic throne in the Isles is linked to a mysterious, yet biblically significant, “coronation stone” (see Appendix 5). In the end, our focus should be on what we can prove—that God has, true to His promises, preserved the Davidic throne and royal linage; that the throne has been, for now, delivered to the British Isles for safekeeping; and that David’s throne will soon be reestablished in Jerusalem under the Messiah.

APPENDIX 4 NOTES

1. Following the establishment of the first Davidic king in Ireland (see Chapter 12), a succession of Jewish-Irish kings continued for about a thousand years. Around 500 AD, the Irish prince Fergus Mor McEre (Fergus the Great) was highly successful in his military efforts to annex parts of western Scotland. Fergus soon established a significant kingdom and was proclaimed “King of Scotland.” This was the second of the so-called “overturns” or transfers of the Davidic throne. While this event may well signify “movement” of the throne toward England, it was not a literal “overturn” of the throne. Remember, the throne of David came to an end in Judah as it was relocated to Ireland; but the Davidic throne in Ireland did not come to an end as a result of Fergus’ occupation of Scotland—it continued under his brother, Muircheartach, King of Ireland. As E. Raymond Capt writes, Fergus had “proposed to style himself king of Scotland” (Jacob’s Pillar, p. 43). Fergus’ actions hardly constitute an actual “overturn” of the Davidic throne. In reality, his new Scottish realm was but an expansion of Irish dominance. Much later, in 843 AD, King Kenneth MacAlpin completed the Irish conquest of Scotland.

The third so-called “overturn” ostensibly occurred in 1296 AD when King Edward I of England conquered the Scots and became “overlord” of Scotland. However, after major military defeats and pressure from the Pope, England renounced its claim on Scotland in 1327. Scotland continued its independence for 276 more years until the two kingdoms were united in 1603. That year, James VI of Scotland was crowned in Westminster Abbey, London, becoming King James I of England (Queen Elizabeth is his descendant). Essentially, England’s expansion into Scotland brought the Scottish throne to an “end” in that it became “joined” to the English throne.

While the idea of three distinct “transfers” of the Davidic throne remains historically vague, the relationship between the Irish, Scottish, and English thrones is highly significant—and the present British monarchy clearly springs from the ancient Irish dynasty to which the Davidic throne was first entrusted.

2. Dr. William Gesenius, Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon; entries for Strong’s no. 5754 (avvah) and 5753 (avah)

3. Bullinger says that such triple repetition of a word or phrase is a figure of speech “for great emphasis” (E. W. Bullinger, The Companion Bible; “Ezekiel 21:27”). Moreover, the number three is said to point to completeness and to express the certainty of a matter (Bullinger, Number in Scripture, p. 107).

4. The following translations do a better-than-average job of rendering Ezekiel 21:27 according to the original Hebrew:

“Remove the turban, take off the crown; things shall not remain as they are. Exalt that which is low, abase that which is high. A ruin, a ruin, a ruin—I will make it! (Such has never occurred.) Until he comes whose right it is; to him I will give it.”—New Revised Standard Version

“Off with the diadem! Away with the crown! All is overturned; raise the low and bring down the high. Ruin! Ruin! I shall bring about such ruin as never was, until one comes who is the rightful ruler; and I shall install him.”—Revised English Bible

“They will take away your diadem and remove your crown. Everything will be changed; the low will be raised and the high brought low! Ruin! Ruin! I shall bring such ruin as never was before, until the rightful ruler comes, on whom I shall bestow it.”—New Jerusalem Bible

APPENDIX FIVE

Jacob’s Pillow Stone—The Prophetic “Stone of Destiny”

The entire history of the Davidic throne in the British Isles is linked to a mysterious, yet biblically significant, “coronation stone” called, by the Irish, the “stone of destiny.” Beginning with the Milesian-Zarahite prince Eochaidh (see Chapter 12), every monarch of Ireland, Scotland, and Britain has been crowned on this very stone, including the present queen, Elizabeth II. This can hardly be a coincidence. As this appendix will show, the stone was delivered to the Isles by Jeremiah the prophet when he brought King Zedekiah’s daughter, Tephi, to Ireland to marry into the Judah-Zarahite royal line. The stone was subsequently relocated to Scotland, where it was used in the coronation of Scottish kings. Finally, it was moved in 1296 AD to Westminster Abbey in London. There, King Edward I had a special “coronation chair” built around the stone. Every king or queen of Britain has since been crowned in that chair.

Until the late 1950s, there was a plate attached to the chair near the stone with the inscription “Jacob’s Pillar Stone”—an obvious reference to Genesis 28:18. In 1996, the stone was returned, by request, to Scotland, where it is presently stored in Edinburgh Castle. The coronation stone will be returned to Westminster Abbey upon the crowning of the next monarch of Great Britain.

The stone measures about 26 inches long, 16 inches wide, and 10 inches thick. Its battered surface is marked by a crack running lengthwise. Iron rings are attached to each end through which a pole can be inserted to transport the stone (this was the common manner in which the tabernacle furnishings were carried; see Exodus 25; etc.).

But what is the origin of this mysterious stone? Was it really Jacob’s “pillar”? Did Jeremiah really bring the stone to Ireland—and why?

The Irish “Lia-Fail”

Setting aside myth and legend, established Irish history indicates that Jeremiah visited Ireland several years after the fall of Jerusalem to Babylon. In his company were Tephi, heiress to the Davidic throne, and Baruch, the prophet’s personal assistant and scribe. He also brought several significant items to the Isles—including a stone the Irish Israelites subsequently named Lia-Fail or “Stone of Destiny.” According to E. Raymond Capt, this is all verified in the annals of Ireland. “Many of the ancient Irish records, when making reference to an ‘eastern king’s daughter,’ also mention an old man; ‘a patriarch, a saint, a prophet,’ called ‘Ollam Fodhla,’ and his scribe-companion called ‘Simon Brug, Brach, Breack, Barech, Berach,’ as it is variously spelled [in the accounts]. Reportedly, they carried with them many ancient relics. Among these were a harp, an ark or chest, and a stone called, in Gaelic, ‘Lia-Fail’ (pronounced Leeah-Fail), meaning ‘Stone of Fate’ or ‘Hoary of Destiny.’ ”[1] Capt, along with numerous other researchers, believes Lia-Fail is the same stone the patriarch Jacob anointed with oil at Bethel (Gen. 28:18-19). Capt writes: “In the ‘Chronicles of Eri’ by Milner, we find Eochaidh, the husband of Tea Tephi, associated with the stone Lia-Fail. The account is titled, ‘The Story of Lia-Fail,’ and states: ‘In the early days [of Israel’s sojourning] it [the stone] was carried about by priests on the march in the wilderness…. Later, it was borne by the sea from east to west, to the extremity of the world [at] the sun’s going [a Roman expression referring to Britain]. Its bearers had resolved, at starting, to move on the face of the waters in search of their [Israelite] brethren. Shipwrecked on the coast of Ireland, they yet came safe with Lia-Fail…. Eochaidh sent a [wagon] for Lia-Fail, and he himself was placed thereon [to be crowned].”[2]

As brought out in Chapter 12, Jeremiah was used of God to arrange a royal marriage between Tephi—the daughter of the last king of Judah—and Eochaidh, a Milesian-Zarahite prince of Ireland. This union not only healed the longstanding breach between the Pharez and Zarah lines of Judah, it preserved the line of Solomon and the Davidic throne. But how is the “stone of destiny” related to maintaining the throne of David?

The stone was eventually housed in an area called Tara, at the “Fort of the Kings,” near Ulster. At Tara, every subsequent king of Ireland was crowned while seated (or standing) on Lia-Fail. John Fox writes that Irish history “reveals that a continuous succession of ancient Irish kings were crowned on Lia-Fail for 1083 years.”[3] Around 503 AD, the Irish prince Fergus Mor McEre (Fergus the Great) was highly successful in his military efforts to annex parts of western Scotland. Fergus soon established a significant kingdom in Scotland and wanted to be officially recognized. As Capt notes, Fergus’ intention was to “style himself king of Scotland.”[4] Understanding the significance of the “stone of destiny,” Fergus had Lia- Fail brought to Scotland for his coronation as king. The stone was never returned to Ireland, but was kept in a sanctuary on the Isle of Iona. Like the Irish, every subsequent Scottish king was crowned on Lia-Fail (“Lea Gael” to the Scots). In 843 AD, the Scottish king Kenneth McAlpin moved the stone to Scone—hence, the stone’s later name “Stone of Scone.”[5]

In 1296 AD—when King Edward I of England conquered the Scots and became “overlord” of Scotland—Lia-Fail was moved to Westminster Abbey in London. There, King Edward promptly had a special “coronation chair” built around the stone. The Scottish and English kingdoms were subsequently united in 1603 when James VI of Scotland was crowned at Westminster Abbey—becoming King James I of England. Every king or queen of Britain has since been crowned in that very chair, and all British monarchs are considered Scottish.

Ultimately, the relationship between the Irish, Scottish, and English royal lines is rather complex. However, it has been through these thrones that the Davidic royal line has been preserved. Moreover, it appears that the significance of the Davidic throne itself centers on the meaning behind the “Stone of Destiny.”

Judah’s Kings Crowned on a Unique “Pillar”

Why would Jeremiah have brought this mysterious stone all the way to Ireland unless it had profound significance? Is it possible that Lia-Fail was the very “pillar-stone” associated with the coronation of all the kings of ancient Judah—and was thus central to Jeremiah’s divine commission to “build and plant” (Jer. 1:10)?

The British coronation ceremony appears to be taken directly from the Bible—from the coronations of David and Solomon. Today, a new monarch is anointed with oil by the Archbishop of Canterbury, trumpets are sounded, and the people shout “God save the King” (compare to I Samuel 10:24; I Kings 1:39; etc.).[6] While a “coronation stone” is not explicitly mentioned in the Bible as a part of the crowning ceremony, there are unmistakable references that are usually overlooked. For example, when wicked Queen Athaliah usurped the throne of Judah, she had the remaining royal heirs put to death. Six years later, she discovered she had missed one of the heirs—Joash, who had been hidden as an infant. Ultimately, Joash was installed as king and Athaliah was executed (II Kings 11). But notice the description of Joash’s coronation, as witnessed by Athaliah herself: “And [Jehoiada, the high priest] brought forth the king’s son [Joash], and put the crown … upon him. And they made him king and anointed him, and clapped their hands and said, ‘Long live the king!’ And when Athaliah heard the noise of the guard and of the people, she came to the people into the Temple of the LORD. And she looked, and behold, the king stood by a pillar as usually was done, and the rulers and the trumpeters were by the king. And all the people of the land rejoiced, and the priests blew with silver trumpets. And Athaliah tore her clothes, and cried, ‘Treason! Treason!’ ” (verses 12-14).

In II Chronicles 23:13, it says Joash “stood at his pillar.” But both accounts are poorly translated. The words by and at are the same Hebrew preposition, which is frequently translated on or upon. Moreover, in II Kings 11, the definite article is used—Joash “stood on the pillar.” In II Chronicles, the text reads, “stood on his pillar.” Thus, it was not just any pillar, but the pillar—one set apart for this purpose.

Notice that it was apparently routine to crown kings on this stone— the KJV reads, “as the manner was” (II Kings 11:14).

In a related example, King Josiah—known for his many righteous reforms—pledged before all the people to follow God’s way as revealed in the “book of the covenant.” He did so “standing upon the pillar” (as per the Hebrew text of II Kings 23:1-3). Thus, this passage shows the importance attached to this unique pillar stone.

But was this “coronation” pillar the future “Stone of Destiny”—the esteemed Lia-Fail of Ireland? Was it the “stone of Jacob”—the one he anointed at Bethel? If so, what makes it so special?

Jacob’s “Pillow” Stone

In Genesis 28, we read of Jacob’s journey to the area of Padan Aram in search of a wife. Along the way he spent the night at a place called Luz, using a stone for a pillow. That night Jacob had an unusual dream, wherein God reaffirmed to Jacob the earlier promises made to Abraham and Isaac. He said, “The land on which you lie I will give to you and to your seed. And your seed shall be like the dust of the earth, and you shall spread abroad to the west and to the east and to the north and to the south. And in you and in your seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed. And, behold, I am with you, and will keep you in every place where you go, and will bring you again into this land, for I will not leave you until I have done that which I have spoken of to you” (verses 13-15).

Jacob awoke and said, “Surely the LORD is in this place, and I did not know it.” Frightened, he added, “How fearful is this place! This is nothing but the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven!” (verses 16- 17). Jacob is inspired. He takes the “pillow” he had been sleeping on and sets it up as a “memorial stone”—and anoints it with oil. Then he renamed the place Bethel—“house of God.” Verses 20-22: “Then Jacob made a vow, saying, ‘Since God will be with me, and will keep me in the way that I go, and will give me bread to eat and clothing to put on, and I come again to my father’s house in peace, then shall the LORD be my God. And this stone which I have set for a pillar shall be [symbolic of] God’s house. And of all that You shall give me, I will surely give the tenth to You.”

The physical dimensions of the Coronation Stone (see above) make it about the right size and shape for a pillow—yet no such stone would exist naturally. Its rectangular shape indicates that it had been quarried for building purposes—and apparently discarded. But why? Remember, the Stone of Destiny has a crack running its length. Such a crack would have rendered it unacceptable for building purposes; hence it would have been rejected. Moreover, such a stone would have made a perfect “pillar”—or marker stone—if stood on its end. Obviously, Jacob wanted to be able to locate this spot later.

Indeed, some two decades and a dozen children later, the patriarch was commanded to return to Bethel (Gen. 35:1). Once there—apparently with his entire household—Jacob built an altar to God and pledged to follow in His way. While at Bethel, God appeared to Jacob—changing his name to Israel and adding detail to the Abrahamic promises. “And God said to him, ‘Your name is Jacob. Your name shall not be called Jacob any more, but Israel shall be your name.’ And He called his name Israel. And God said to him, ‘I am God Almighty. Be fruitful and multiply. A nation and a company of nations shall be from you, and kings shall come out of your loins. And the land which I gave to Abraham and Isaac, I will give to you, and to your seed after you I will give the land’ ” (verses 10-12). It is most interesting that God added the promise of “many kings” right in the place where Jacob had set up his “pillar”—the stone that would become the Coronation Stone of all the kings of Judah.

On this trip, Jacob once again sets up a pillar to honor God—pouring upon it a “drink offering” and anointing it with oil. Apparently, this second pillar was intended to be larger and permanent. Though the Bible does not say so, it is likely that at this time Jacob reclaimed the earlier “pillow” stone—with the intention of keeping it always.

The “Rock” of Israel

After Jacob’s death, the Bethel-stone remained the possession of his sons; it is likely that the tribe of Judah became its guardian, since the stone would come to be linked to royalty. Given the importance of the stone, there is no doubt that it accompanied the children of Israel on their journey from Egypt to the Promised Land.

As noted above, the Stone of Destiny has two “pole rings” used for transporting the pillar. The upper portion of each ring is worn thin, clearly indicating that the stone was carried for long distances. If the stone was only a “place marker” or a well cover, such rings would be unnecessary—and the wear on the rings would certainly not exist. Moreover, there is a groove worn between the two rings where such a pole would fit, indicative of the gradual erosion one would expect to find on a stone thus transported over an extended period. After all, Jacob’s esteemed pillar would not only have been taken to Egypt, it would have also been carried throughout their forty years of wandering in the wilderness. Presumably, it stayed in Jerusalem from the time of David until the fall of the nation in 586 BC.

Interestingly, the particular geological material that makes up the Coronation Stone (calcareous sandstone) apparently cannot be found in the British Isles—but it can be found in the Middle East. Capt writes: “One of the most significant facts about the Coronation Stone is that no similar rock formation exists in the British Isles. Professor [Charles] Totten, the eminent professor of science at Yale University [in the late 1800s], after making a thorough examination of the stone, made the following statement: ‘The analysis of the stone shows that there are absolutely no quarries in Scone or Iona [Scotland] [from which] a block so constituted could possibly have come, nor yet from Tara [Ireland].’ ” Capt also cites a professor Edward Odlum—a geologist at Ontario University in the early 1900s—who conducted a microscopic examination of the stone. Odlum could find no similar material in the Isles, but he did find a stratum of sandstone in the vicinity of Bethel that is geologically identical to the Coronation Stone![7]

As the children of Israel wandered in the wilderness for 40 years, the Scriptures suggest that a highly favored rock accompanied them. In Exodus 17, we see that the Israelites were in need of water—and Moses turned to God for help. God instructed Moses to strike a certain rock on which He would stand (verses 5-6). This was not just a rock in the wilderness—it was, as per the Hebrew, “the rock”—indicating a specific one. Did God direct Moses to Jacob’s Bethel-stone, a rock everyone recognized? Likewise, in Numbers 20, God again directs Moses to speak to “the rock” in the presence of the people (verses 8-11). The indication here is that the people were quite familiar with this unique rock and aware of the miracles associated with it. Again, was this Jacob’s pillar stone? Later, as the children of Israel passed through the area of Edom, they promised to refrain from drinking the water of the land (verse 17). This suggests that they had a ready supply of water— perhaps via the same rock.

The apostle Paul makes a veiled reference to a rock that “followed” Israel (I Cor. 10:4)—using it as a symbol of Christ.[8] He was undoubtedly comparing Jacob’s pillar—the rock that literally accompanied the children of Israel, miraculously giving them life-saving water—to the spiritual Rock of Israel, Jesus the Messiah, Who offers mankind the living water of eternal life (John 4:14). Jesus, like Jacob’s cracked pillar, was rejected of men (I Pet. 2:4-8)—yet chosen of God.[9] Indeed, Jacob’s Bethel pillar-stone is thoroughly messianic, pointing us to the living Stone of Israel. The “Stone of Destiny” is uniquely tied to the ongoing preservation of the Davidic throne because Jesus’ destiny is to ultimately sit on that very throne (Luke 1:32-33)—leading all mankind to eternal life.

APPENDIX 5 NOTES

1. E. Raymond Capt, Jacob’s Pillar, p. 31. Capt also states: “The arrival in Ireland of the Bethel Stone rests upon the authority of the ancient records of Ireland and the traditions which abound there” (p. 29).

2. Capt, p. 32

3. John Fox, The World’s Greatest Throne, p. 30

4. Capt, p. 43

5. Fox, p. 30

6. Interestingly, the royal crown of Great Britain contains 12 jewels made from the same type of stones that were in the breastplate of the high priest (Ex. 28:15-21).

7. Capt, p. 59

8. I Corinthians 10:6 shows that Paul was making an analogy—“these things were our examples.” The Greek is tupos—meaning type or figure; “these things” refers to being “baptized” in the cloud and in the sea, eating “spiritual” food (manna), and drinking “spiritual” water from a rock that “followed” them. God gave these literal, physical blessings to Israel in the wilderness, yet they still sinned and displeased Him (verse 5). The point Paul is making is that whereas Israel only had the physical type, we have the spiritual reality. Baptism, manna, water, and the rock are all types pointing us to the Messiah. Thus, we are to be all the more diligent to please God and not neglect these spiritual blessings (verses 5-12). The rock that accompanied Israel was no doubt Jacob’s pillar—a type of Christ, God’s greatest blessing on “spiritual Israel,” the church.

9. There is a tradition that Jacob’s pillar was to be included as a cornerstone in the building of Solomon’s Temple. After all, Bethel means “house of God.” But the builders rejected the stone because of its crack. If this story is true, it is all too fitting: The Jewish leaders of Jesus’ day rejected Him as the Messiah—the spiritual Cornerstone of the age to come—because He failed to conform to their ideals (see Matt. 21:42-45; Acts 4:10-12; Eph. 2:20-21; I Pet. 2:4-8).

Moreover, the Coronation Stone is quite an ordinary looking stone, not something one would normally make a “royal” fuss about. Indeed, the pillar has no “form” or “comeliness”—no “beauty” that it should be particularly desired—just as was true of Jesus (Isa. 53:2). Thus, both Jacob’s stone and Jesus—type and antitype—were “despised” and “rejected of men” (verse 3).

APPENDIX SIX

The Scriptures—God’s Gift to Britain and America

All across America and the United Kingdom, the Bible has become a ubiquitous aspect of modern life. Indeed, Bibles can be found in virtually every home—yet they are taken for granted; they are not read, not studied. Moreover, it is extraordinary that the Anglo-American peoples possess, in great numbers, Israel’s Bible—the Old Testament. Why is that? While it is true that mainstream Christianity downplays the Old Testament in favor of the New, the fact remains that America and Britain have uniquely inherited the very Scriptures God gave to ancient Israel. Why?

The answer lies in the great purpose God has for modern Israel. Just as God originally raised up the nation of Israel to be a shining example of His way of life to the world, America and Britain have been charged with that same responsibility. God began revealing His plans for Israel shortly after He delivered them from Egypt. He told them: “You have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles’ wings and brought you unto Myself. Now therefore, if you will obey My voice indeed, and keep My covenant, then you shall be a special treasure to Me above all people; for all the earth is Mine. And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Ex. 19:4-6). As a nation, Israel would function like a “priest”— directly representing God to the world.

But in order to accomplish this, Israel would need a law—a moral and civil code to live by. Moreover, by their own adherence to that law, Israel would demonstrate to the nations that obedience to God is the only way to lasting peace and prosperity. This simple, yet incredibly profound, “law” was to become the envy of every nation. Just prior to Israel going on to possess the Promised Land, Moses said: “Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as the LORD my God commanded me, so that you should [keep them] in the land where you go to possess it. And you shall keep and do them, for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes and say, ‘Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.’ For what nation is so great whose God is so near to them, as the LORD our God is, whenever we call upon Him? And what great nation has statutes and judgments that are so righteous as all this law which I set before you today?” (Deut. 4:5-8).

The entire book of Deuteronomy is primarily a restatement of the laws, commandments, statutes and judgments of God—given to Israel as they were about to go into the land. The point is this: Before God could bless Israel with national greatness, His Word needed to be fully established as their moral foundation.

But as this book has shown, the promises of national greatness that God gave to Abraham were to ultimately be fulfilled not through ancient Israel, but through end-time Israel—specifically the “birthright” tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh, who would carry name “Israel” in the modern era. As modern Israel, it was God’s intent that America and Britain exemplify the same moral laws that God originally gave to their Hebrew ancestors. They were to be that shining example to the world in the “latter days.”

This idea has been shared by many Anglo-America leaders. In fact, the British generally believed that God had blessed them with an empire so that they, in turn, might be a blessing to all mankind. As James Morris notes, “It was not merely the right of the British to rule a quarter of the world … it was actually their duty…. They would so distribute across the earth their own methods, [moral] principles and liberal traditions that the future of mankind would be reshaped.”[1] In 1765, Sir William Blackstone introduced his Commentaries on the Laws of England, which not only advanced the development of English common law, but served as the premier legal reference for the nation and much of the Empire. Of utmost importance was the fact that Blackstone’s work was based principally on the laws and precepts of the Bible.[2] Thus, the British were able to promote and exemplify many of the living principles of the Bible to much of the world. Moreover, as we will see, England has played a chief role in the early development of the Bible itself—as well as its subsequent dissemination.

In America, the sentiment was perhaps even stronger. Many of our founding fathers likened America to a new Israel—a new land being settled for the first time, all predicated on divine providence. In his book Joshua and the Promised Land, Roy May writes: “Promised Land imagery figured prominently in shaping English colonial thought. The pilgrims identified themselves with the ancient Hebrews [and] viewed the New World as the New Canaan. They were God’s chosen people headed for the Promised Land.” For example, in 1613 the Virginian minister Alexander Whitaker preached that “God hath opened this passage unto us, and led us by the hand unto this work.” Most particularly, “the [pilgrims] who disembarked in Massachusetts in 1620 believed they were establishing the New Israel. Indeed, the whole colonial enterprise was believed to have been guided by God.”[3]

This image of being God’s “chosen people” called to establish a new “Israel” became central to how early America defined itself. In fact, the idea was so entrenched that, in 1776, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson pressed unsuccessfully for “Promised Land” imagery to be incorporated into the nation’s Great Seal. Throughout the Revolutionary War period and beyond, the idea was forcefully proclaimed from the pulpit. For example, in 1788 at Concord, New Hampshire, Samuel Langdon preached, “We cannot but acknowledge that God hath graciously patronized our cause and taken us under His special care, as He did His ancient covenant people.”[4]

Leaders such as George Washington understood that God alone had established America for a great purpose. In a 1778 letter to Thomas Nelson, Jr., he wrote that “the hand of providence has been so conspicuous in all [of] this….” Numerous subsequent leaders have made similar comments. In his famous “The Bible and Progress” speech given in 1911, Woodrow Wilson (then governor of New Jersey) said, “America was born to exemplify that devotion to the elements of righteousness which are derived from the … Holy Scriptures.”[5] In other words, America was raised up to model God’s righteous way of life through adherence to the moral principles found in the Scriptures. We were to be a light, a shining example, to the world—just as God had wanted for ancient Israel. The Puritan minister John Winthrop had the same vision: “We shall be as a City upon a Hill, the eyes of all people are upon us….”[6]

Perhaps no other American leader—at least in modern times—has expressed this vision so vividly as has Ronald Reagan. From his earliest days as a public speaker, Reagan never made a speech that didn’t somehow invoke America’s greatness and destiny. One theme remained constant: America was a “shining city on a hill”—a metaphor clearly meant to imply that America was to be a model nation to the world. In 1952, Reagan spoke of America as a “place in the divine scheme of things that was set aside as a promised land.” In 1964 he said to the nation, “You and I have a rendezvous with destiny”—and said America was the “last best hope” of the world. In his January 11, 1989, farewell address to the nation, he repeated his vision of America as a “shining city on a hill”—adding that, for now, “she’s still a beacon” to the world.[7] But today, America and Britain no longer exemplify biblical morality—no longer shine like a “city on a hill.”

To repeat, God gave ancient Israel His Word through Moses—before He blessed them with greatness, before He put them in a position of being His model nation. Likewise, God planned to give modern Israel His Word in written form—before He bestowed on them the fullness of the Abrahamic “birthright” blessings. It was imperative that a moral foundation be firmly in place before all the eyes of the world were on Britain, and later on America. Moreover, as modern-day Israel, God would need a standard by which He could judge Britain and America. This standard is realized in the Scriptures, particularly in the Ten Commandments and their subsequent magnification by Jesus as seen in Matthew 5-7.

And that is why there are so many Bibles throughout the Anglo- American nations! The Scriptures are indeed God’s unique gift to America and Britain. But when—how—did this gift come to modern Israel?

Britain’s Struggle for Religious Freedom

In the centuries following the collapse of the Roman Empire, Europe remained under the domination of the Catholic Church. Largely defined by poverty, ignorance and warfare, much of this period has traditionally been called the “Dark Ages.” But in the latter half of the 15th century, three landmark events occurred. First, the fall of Constantinople in 1453 brought an influx of scholars into western Europe, and these scholars brought Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. Secondly, in 1456, Johannes Gutenberg perfected the use of moveable type, leading to the birth of mass printing. This would eventually enable the widespread dissemination of knowledge— and the extensive printing of the Scriptures. Third, in 1492, Christopher Columbus “discovered” the New Word, thus beginning the unbroken connection between Europe and the Americas.

At this time England was enjoying a relatively stable government under Henry VII. The next century would prove most remarkable: Catholic control of England would be overthrown; literacy would begin to spread; and England would develop into a considerable naval power. But not to be overlooked is that throughout Europe—even as the continent made the transition from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance Period—Christians had long been deprived of access to the Word of God. In fact, under Catholic decree it was forbidden to give laity access to the Scriptures. Yet it was in England that the battle was ultimately fought and won for the right of the common man to have a Bible in his own language. At the forefront of this extraordinary achievement was William Tyndale, who during this period brought Britain the first complete Bible—in English.

Long before the Reformation officially began in Germany in 1517, various Christian fellowships throughout Europe existed outside the realm of the Catholic Church. These valiant believers despised the heresies and hypocrisies of Rome and refused to honor the pope—and untold numbers of them were martyred for their rejection of Orthodoxy. England as well had its own brave Christians who challenged Catholicism. As we will see, Tyndale was foremost among these English “reformers.”

Even after the Reformation was well under way, being a non-Catholic Christian was risky, especially in Spain, Italy or other staunchly-Catholic areas of Europe. But little England would prove to be different: eventually shaking off Catholic control and embracing Protestantism, the Isle in time became a refuge for those who could reach it. How all of this happened bears witness to the hand of God working out His great plan.

England’s infamous Henry VIII (who reigned from 1509 to 1547) was staunchly Catholic. But the king wanted to divorce his wife, Catherine of Aragon, so he could marry the younger Anne Boleyn in hopes of securing a male heir. The pope denied him permission. Henry reacted by “divorcing” England from Roman Catholicism—declaring himself head of the still-verymuch- Catholic Church of England. Parliament officially endorsed Henry’s new position in 1534. (Interestingly, Great Britain’s monarchs still retain the vaunted position, “Head of the Church of England.”)

However, England’s new “pope” continued the Catholic tradition of persecuting those who rejected the state religion. While Protestantism made substantial gains during this time, Henry’s reign was, nevertheless, one of considerable difficulty for Protestants. As it turned out, even his death was a serious setback for Protestantism—because it ultimately led to his daughter, Mary I, taking the throne in 1553. Mary was a fervent Catholic, and her legendary persecution against Protestants earned her the name by which she is still remembered—Bloody Mary. Ironically, the persecution of dissenters during Mary’s five-year reign caused a backlash against Catholicism. For many, apparently, the moral depravity behind the idea of state-enforced religion had become all too graphic.

Mary was succeeded on the throne by her half-sister Elizabeth I, who turned England back to Protestantism. A sense of religious liberty was felt across the land; for the first time in the nation’s history, to be English was to be Protestant. Rome continued to campaign for a revival of Catholicism on the Isle, excommunicating anyone loyal to the queen. While Elizabeth and most of England simply ignored the pope, her reign was dominated by the threat of a Catholic restoration through war with Spain. But God had other plans. In 1588, Spain set out to conquer England and restore it to the fold of the Catholic Church—but its vast armada was destroyed by storm winds off the coast of England. The Spanish were defeated, guaranteeing that England would not come back under the domination of Roman Catholicism.

All of England could see the hand of God in this miraculous victory. The benchmark event gave the British renewed confidence and a sense that God had a great purpose for the nation. Religious zeal began to flourish among the common people, and a newfound interest in the Scriptures soon resulted in the 1611 translation of the King James Version of the Bible.

The Reformation had reshaped England like no other nation; almost the entire country proudly became Protestant, making the Isle a ready refuge for those fleeing Catholic persecution. Indeed, the stage was set for future religious freedom in Britain—at least on a certain level.

William Tyndale—A Man with a Divine Mission

With the development of his movable type printing press, Johannes Gutenberg printed the first Bible (in Latin) in 1455—making hand copying obsolete. Then, in 1516, Erasmus of Rotterdam (1466-1536) published his groundbreaking Greek-Latin New Testament. David Daniell writes: “This was the first time that the Greek New Testament had been printed. It is no exaggeration to say that it set fire to Europe. Luther (1483-1546) translated it into his famous German version in 1522. In a few years there appeared translations from it into most European vernaculars. They were the true basis for the popular reformation [in Europe].”[8] It was largely Erasmus’ translation that inspired Martin Luther to challenge the papacy, effectively initiating the Reformation in Germany in 1517.

Similarly, the success of the Reformation in England hinged on the circulation of Scripture—in English. Thus, without question, the single most important figure in the Reformation in England was William Tyndale—who published the first English version of the Bible, Old and New Testaments, translating directly from the Greek and Hebrew. As Daniell notes, Tyndale’s “translations have been the best-kept secret in English Bible history”[9]

It is evident that God prepared Tyndale for this most profound work. He was born about 1494 in Gloucestershire, took his BA at Oxford in 1512 and his MA in 1515, and apparently spent time in Cambridge. In addition to Latin and Greek, he had mastered six other languages. Most importantly, Tyndale possessed a singular passion—to translate the Word of God into English and make it available to all. He believed everyone—from the lowly plowboy to the king sitting on the throne of England—should have access to the Scriptures.

Tyndale’s first accomplishment was to translate the New Testament into English from Erasmus’ 1516 Greek version. Then, while in Germany in 1526, he published an English New Testament by translating directly from the Greek. He later published a revised version in 1534. Having been denied permission by Catholic authorities (as well as by Henry VIII) to translate the New Testament, Tyndale worked in secret, avoiding church authorities. In time, England was flooded with thousands of copies of his outlawed New Testament—fanning the flames of the Reformation.

Tyndale quickly became the most hated enemy of both the Catholic Church and Henry’s royal court. But while church officials publicly burned thousands of copies of Tyndale’s New Testament (and his other books), nothing could stop the influx of Bibles into England.

In 1530, Tyndale translated and printed the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Old Testament. This marked the first time any part of the Old Testament had been translated directly from the Hebrew into English. He published a second edition in 1534, adding other parts of the Old Testament. Tyndale was arrested in May of 1535 and imprisoned near Brussels, where he remained until his execution in October, 1536. During the months of his detention, Tyndale was able—with the help of his loyal friend John Rogers—to continue work on his Old Testament. After Tyndale was killed, Rogers fell heir to all of his notes and unpublished translations of the Old Testament. At risk to his own life, Rogers finalized Tyndale’s work, making his complete Old Testament ready for printing.

As he was being martyred, Tyndale uttered this final prayer: “Lord, open the King of England’s eyes!” And God did just that. Henry soon began to see the need for the common man to have access to the Scriptures. Thus, in 1537, not even two years from Tyndale’s death, Henry authorized the printing—and distribution among England’s congregations—of the Thomas Matthew Bible, which was, in reality, William Tyndale’s complete Old and New Testaments. As documented by Daniell, the title was chosen (probably by Rogers) to hide the fact that it was Tyndale’s work.[10] Years later, in 1553, Rogers was burned at the stake under Bloody Mary’s reign of terror.

God’s timing is always perfect. With the ascension of Elizabeth I to the throne, Protestantism in England flourished. Over time, Tyndale’s works became exceedingly popular. In 1603, Elizabeth was succeeded by James I—who in 1611 authorized the King James Version of the Bible. Ironically, Tyndale’s work formed the basis for James’ version, which incorporated 90 percent of Tyndale’s passages without revision—and, unfortunately, without acknowledgment. (The complete Geneva Bible—published in Geneva in 1560 by scholars who had fled England during Mary’s rule—incorporated some 95 percent of Tyndale’s work. It was this Bible that the earliest pilgrims carried with them to the New World. Moreover, it was largely King James’ dissatisfaction with the Geneva Bible that led him to commission his 1611 version.)

It is most apparent that God used little England in a powerful way to bring the world the written Word of God. In fact, the Foreign Bible Society, based in London, has been responsible for the Bible being translated into virtually every language and for making copies available for the first time to people all over the world. But more to the point of this appendix, God’s written word had to be commonly accessible in order to establish the moral foundation of what would become a worldwide phenomenon—the rise of latter-day Anglo-American Israel. As modern Israel, Britain and America were to have a strong moral influence on the world—which they did, for a time. Moreover, God would use those same biblical precepts as the standard by which He would judge Britain and America.

British Intolerance Gives Way to American Liberty

As de facto guardians of the Word of God, Britain was to assume the lead in proclaiming the Gospel to the world. Unfortunately, this is precisely where the British have failed. Even after the Reformation had virtually run its course, genuine religious liberty continued to evade England. The state-run Church of England—albeit fully Protestant—tolerated little dissension from its brand of orthodoxy. Consequently, it was not at all uncommon for unorthodox groups—Puritans, Unitarians, Anabaptists, Sabbatarians, etc.— to be heavily persecuted.

Over time, the Church of England became mired in tradition, ritual and politics. It never recognized the profound opportunity at hand: utilize the resources of the British Empire to reach the world with the Gospel. To be sure, the British have sponsored thousands of mission projects around the world and distributed millions of Bibles. The Anglican church has raised up churches, schools and related organizations throughout the Empire. But like the Catholic Church, the Church of England has embraced a pseudo-gospel focusing solely on the atoning work of Christ. Like their tepid Protestant counterparts in America, the Church of England has been ignorant of the true Gospel message that Jesus and the apostles proclaimed—i.e., the advance news of the Kingdom of God as a literal world-ruling kingdom (Dan. 2:44; Matt. 24:14; Mark 1:14; Luke 4:43; Acts 1:3; etc.).[11]

For those unorthodox groups that made an effort to proclaim the true Gospel—particularity Sabbatarian churches that took the Scriptures more literally—the atmosphere of religious intolerance created by the Church of England made it all but impossible to be effective. Sabbath-keeping in the British Isles can be traced back to the Celtic church in England.[12] This was the norm until Catholicism became established in Britain in the 500s AD and found fertile ground for rapid growth. Many of the Christians of Britain were, up until that time, Sabbath-keeping Unitarians who kept the biblical food laws and holy days.[13] But by the mid-600s, Sabbatarians had become a minority and found themselves under rising persecution. Like their faithful counterparts throughout much of Europe, Sabbath-keepers across Britain found refuge in sparsely-populated areas, virtually going underground.

The Reformation period brought renewed hope for Sabbath-keepers, but such hope ultimately proved to be an illusion. While the lengthy reign of Elizabeth I (1558 to 1603) fostered a new sense of open-mindedness to non-Orthodox beliefs, she was compelled by Parliament to approve the 1559 Act of Uniformity, which made Sunday attendance compulsory (the penalty for failure to conform was a significant fine). The ruling was apparently aimed at poor church attendance in general as opposed to being a strike against Sabbatarians. Nevertheless, Sabbath-keepers were particularly singled out.

In about 1580, Robert Browne—a nonconformist who broke with the Church of England—began preaching a message of separatism. By the time Browne was exiled from England in 1582, his “Separatist” movement had gained a considerable following—and included many Sabbath-keepers. One of the results was the formation of Sabbatarian churches in several parts of London—most notably under John Robinson and William Bradford. Facing unrelenting persecution, Robinson and Bradford led Sabbath-keepers from Scrooby, Gainborough, and Southwark to relocate to Amsterdam, Holland, in 1608. However, some 12 years later, the former Londoners began to face similar persecution in Holland for their Sabbath-keeping.

After much difficulty and many setbacks, Robinson was able in 1620 to bring his followers—known in history as the Mayflower pilgrims—to a new land, America. Thus, settling in Plymouth, Massachusetts, the pilgrims formed the first Sabbatarian community in the New World. Unfortunately, some 20 years later, the group was forced to flee to Rhode Island—not because of their belief in the Sabbath, but because they refused to accept Trinitarian ideas.

Meanwhile, back in England, Sabbatarian leaders continued to face persecution. A notable example is that of John Trask, who came preaching Sabbath-keeping in London in 1617, drawing a sizable following. Within a year, Trask was arrested and charged with sedition—pulling the king’s subjects away from the church and into “Judaism” (this follows Martin Luther’s anti-Semitic tactic of disparaging Sabbath-keeping by labeling it Jewish). Sadly, Trask recanted and was released after three years in prison.

In 1618, “a violent controversy broke out among English theologians as to whether the Sabbath of the fourth commandment was in force and … on what ground the first day of the week [Sunday] was entitled to be observed [and referred to] as the Sabbath.”[14] Moreover, debate over the Puritan teaching that Sunday should legitimately be called the “Sabbath”—a highly destructive theology for Sabbatarians—reached a boiling point by 1640.[15] In spite of such controversies, it is interesting that Sabbatarian views actually gained in popularity during this period. Londoner James Ockford, for example, is credited with fueling the Sabbatarian movement in 1650 via his highly-persuasive writings. In fact, around this time “it occurred to many conscientious and independent thinkers … that the fourth commandment required of them the observance, not of the first, but of the specified seventh day of the week….” However, most Christians remained convinced that “the [Sabbath] day had been altered by [the] divine authority” of the church. Still, Sabbatarians “became numerous enough to make a considerable figure for more than a century in England.”[16] One researcher writes: “That the Sabbatarians were then a distinct body, and that they had been such for some time previously to 1654, is seen from the fact that there were then about one hundred fifty adherents belonging to several groups in London. The Mill Yard Seventh-day Baptist organization exists in London to this day, and its [existing] records go back to 1673, when they had seventy members.”[17] Other records trace the origin of the Mill Yard church to Trask in 1617.[18]

The English Civil War (1642-1649) between King Charles I and his Parliamentary opponents ultimately brought some relief to Sabbath-keepers. English general Oliver Cromwell led Parliament to its victory, resulting in Charles’ execution. With the loss of their “head,” the powers of the Church of England were greatly diminished. Subsequently, Cromwell became “Lord Protector of the Commonwealth” (1653 to 1658)—and, as head of state, instituted many Puritan-styled reforms in the Anglican church. During this period, tolerance for Sabbath-keepers was much improved. Cromwell was hailed as a champion of those who opposed the state persecution of minority faiths, especially Sabbath-keepers.[19] However, with the subsequent collapse of Cromwell’s regime and the restoration of Charles II to the throne in 1660, Sabbath-keeping quickly fell once more into disfavor. Charles had promised toleration—but promptly reneged. A particularly horrific example of “royal malice” against those who taught the Sabbath occurred in 1661. John James, who years earlier had preached at the Seventh-day Baptist church at Mill Yard, was executed ostensibly for uttering “treasonable words against the king.”[20] As a deterrent to Sabbath-keepers, James’ severed head was hung on a pole outside his meeting hall.

Thus, Sabbath-keepers began leaving Britain in great numbers. “By and large, from this period, Sabbath-keeping incurred an almost enforced migration to America.”[21] One well-known Sabbatarian, Stephen Mumford, came directly to America from London in 1664. Later, in 1671, Mumford formed the first Seventh-day Baptist church at Newport, Rhode Island.[22]

Supposedly, the 1689 Act of Toleration granted freedom of religious worship throughout Britain. But while the Church of England surrendered the idea of imposing one faith on the nation, it was little consolation to the hundreds of Sabbatarians who had fled to safety in America. It must be noted, however, that the demise of Sabbath-keeping in England was not totally because of persecution. In 1702, there were still about 18 Seventh-day Baptist churches in England. But by the mid-1700s, their zeal had vanished as numerous once-staunchly Sabbatarian evangelists took up leading positions in Sunday-keeping churches. “They took upon themselves the responsibility, after a time, of making the Sabbath of no practical importance, and of treating its violation as no very serious transgression of the law of God. Doubtless they [had] hoped to win men to Christ and His truth by this course; but, instead of this, they simply lowered the standard of divine truth into the dust.”[23]

The migration of Sabbatarians to America was again evidence of the hand of God at work. Among these Sabbath-keeping groups could be found a remnant of the apostolic church founded by Jesus. Thus, the true Church of God was now in a place where it could grow and spread the true Gospel of the Kingdom of God. By 1802, the first Seventh-day Baptist Conference had formed—with 8 churches, 9 ministers, and 1130 members. Organizing decades later, Seventh Day Adventists groups also saw tremendous growth, along with the Church of God, Seventh Day.[24]

As a republic, the United States was founded chiefly on the ideal of religious tolerance. Though they would always be a tiny minority compared to Sunday-keeping Protestants and Catholics, Sabbath-keeping groups in America have mostly found wide acceptance. In fact, over the past 50 years, U.S.-based Sabbatarian groups have been able to preach the Gospel of the Kingdom of God around the world with unprecedented success—something that could never be done in or from Britain.[25] Today, the Church of England, while all but impotent, still influences what ideologies are allowed to be disseminated. Meanwhile, atheism, secularism, and humanism are fast sweeping the nation (see Appendix 8 for the current state of religion in the UK and in America).

America and Britain—Judged by the Bible

For over 400 years, the King James Version has remained the best-known translation around the world—the standard by which all other Bible translations are compared. Although the Scriptures have been published in practically every language, the English version remains the most significant, with Britain and America printing and distributing hundreds of millions of copies around the world.[26]

But why has the Bible been so predominant in Britain and the United States? Almost every Anglo-American home has several Bibles. Why?

Once held in high regard, the Bible is now considered by the British to be among the “top 50 most-interesting books”—a sad commentary on the growing distain for Christianity in the UK. In the United States, however, the Bible is perennially a best seller. Indeed, Americans say the Bible is the one book that has most influenced their lives. But why has the Bible been held in such high regard by the Anglo-American nations? Why did the men who framed the American Constitution lean so heavily on the wisdom and insight of the Scriptures? Is it because the book tells not only the story of our distant ancestors, but also reveals our future?

Again, we have Israel’s Bible—why?

Through the widespread availability of the Bible, God has given the English-speaking nations of Israelite descent an understanding of what He expects of us. Importantly, the way of life laid out in the Bible is clearlydefined— so that we are without excuse!

“For this commandment which I command you today is not hidden from you, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven that you should say, ‘Who shall go up to heaven for us, and bring it to us, so that we may [understand] it and do it?’ Neither is it beyond the sea that you should say, ‘Who shall go over the sea for us to bring it to us, so that we may [understand] it and do it?’ But the word [of God] is very near you, in your mouth [by reading it] and in your heart [in your understanding], so that you may do it” (Deut. 30:11-14).

To be sure, no one can claim to “not understand” what God requires of modern Israel. This passages leaves no room for excuses: God’s way of life as defined by the Ten Commandments (and additional statutes) is quite clear if we are willing to listen and obey. But the problem today is the same problem our ancestors had—an unwilling heart!

“Behold, I have set before you this day life and good, and death and evil, in that I command you this day to love the LORD your God, to walk in His ways, and to keep His commandments and His statutes and His judgments so that you may live and multiply. And the LORD your God shall bless you in the land where you go to possess it [including the land of America and the British Isles]. But if your heart turn away so that you will not hear, but shall be drawn away and worship other gods and serve them, I denounce to you this day that you shall surely perish; you shall not prolong your days on the land…. I call heaven and earth to record this day against you that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing. Therefore, choose life, so that both you and your seed may live” (verses 15-19).

God established a solid moral foundation for modern Joseph before bestowing greatness on Britain and America. These common moral values, based on the Bible, were fundamental in the development of our nations. Moreover, this moral foundation was to be exemplified to all nations—like a “light shining on a hill.” For a time, the world stood in awe of our example. But today, we continue to bring shame and disgrace to the name of our Creator.

Modern Joseph—Britain and America—is now under judgment. But God’s criterion for judgment is not “religion” per se; it does not hinge on denominationalism or on a specific doctrinal worldview—for America in particular has been home to a variety of faiths (including the Jewish faith, which honors the moral teachings of the Old Testament). Rather, God’s judgment centers on how we as a people have lived—and are now living. We once had a common moral code based on the Scriptures. Whether you were Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, or even non-religious—there was one standard by which to live.

Now, because of our foolish rejection of the Bible—God’s unique gift to Britain and America—we are being cursed at every turn. Unless our peoples repent and return to God’s Word, it will mean our destruction as modern-day Israel.

APPENDIX 6 NOTES

1. James Morris, Pax Britannica: The Climax of an Empire, p. 26

2. Shane Idleman, “America: ‘Christian Nation’—Fact or Fiction?” See www.oneplace.com/es/ministries/regaining-lost-ground/read/articles/america-christian-nationfact-or-fiction--14596.html. Also see Leonard Ransil, “The Total Truth Solution for a Fractured America” (Section 4, Chapter 28: America Founded on a Christian Worldview, Our Founding Documents); www.lennysax.startlogic.com/TT-America’s_War-Founding_Documents.html. Both writers document the importance of Blackstone’s work.

3. “Manifest Destiny: America the New Israel,” excerpted from Joshua and the Promised Land by Roy May. See www.gbgm-umc.org/umw/joshua/manifest.html.

4. “Manifest Destiny: America the New Israel”

5. “Quotes from America’s Leaders,” www.earstohear.net/Heritage/quotes.html

6. “Manifest Destiny: America the New Israel”

7. www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/reaganquotes

8. David Daniell, Tyndale’s New Testament, p. 58. Quoted in “A Tribute to William Tyndale,” by Fred R. Coulter; available at www.cbcg.org/franklin/SA/SA_William_Tyndale_Tribute.pdf.

9. Daniell, p. vii; quoted in “A Tribute to William Tyndale”

10. David Daniell, Biography of William Tyndale, p. 335. On the last page of the Old Testament, Rogers intentionally placed the initials “W.T.” in large print—“which may be intended to stand for the larger presence of William Tyndale in the whole” (p. 335). Quoted in “A Tribute to William Tyndale.”

11. The Protestant “Gospel” has always centered on the atoning work of Christ. As such, it focuses on His death and resurrection. Certainly, this is a vital component of the Gospel. But Jesus Himself, as did the apostles, preached the “good news” of the reality and certainty of the messianic Kingdom of God—a literal world-ruling kingdom.

Today’s Christianity has excluded Jesus’ own message—of a literal kingdom—from the Gospel while crafting a false gospel by “cherrypicking” texts from Paul’s writings and misapplying them. Martin Luther, for example, ignored Jesus’ teachings in the gospel accounts and based his teachings solely on Paul’s letters. Calvin did likewise. Their idea was that Jesus preached a “Jewish” message up to the cross, after which Paul took the real “gospel of grace” to the Gentiles. Acts 20:24-25 shows otherwise.

C. S. Lewis wrote: “The epistles are for the most part the earliest Christian documents we possess. The gospels came later. [But Jesus preached before the epistles were written.] They [the four gospels] are not the gospel, the statement of Christian belief…. [The] epistles are more … central [to Christian belief] than the gospels.” Such language clearly sets up an imaginary dichotomy between the gospel accounts and the writings of Paul—yet Paul taught “all things which are written in the Law and in the Prophets” (Acts 24:14); he upheld the very “words of our Lord Jesus Christ” (I Tim. 6:3). This would have included a literal kingdom-gospel just as described by the prophets (Dan. 2:44; etc.) and just as taught by Christ.

Billy Graham wrote: “What is the gospel?” Jesus “came to do three days work, to die, be buried, and be raised.” “He came not primarily to preach the gospel … but he came rather that there might be a gospel to preach.” What utter biblical ignorance! What about Mark 1:14-15 and Luke 4:43—both of which emphasize the message of a literal kingdom?

Note Graham’s obvious focus on the messenger, not His message. Clearly, the evangelical “Gospel” of modern Christianity denies Jesus’ own message in favor of a distorted view of Paul’s writings. But a “Christianity” that is not rooted and anchored in the exact message of the historical Jesus—a message of a literal kingdom that would bring salvation—is only a false faith.

Such “Christian” writers have apparently never noticed that Jesus sent the apostles out to preach the Gospel of the Kingdom of God (Luke 9:2, 6) while having no understanding of His future death and resurrection. It was only after the apostles had returned from this early evangelical tour that Jesus began to hint at His coming death (verse 22). Much later, the apostles still did not “get it” concerning Jesus’ death and resurrection (Luke 18:31- 34)—they “understood none of these things.” Indeed, it was only toward the end of His ministry that Jesus began to speak openly of His death (Matt. 16:21). Prior to that time He only vaguely hinted at His death—and even after His death the disciples still did not understand about His resurrection (John 20:9).

How could this be? How can one be called on to preach the Gospel and yet have no understanding of Jesus’ atoning sacrifice? If the Gospel is all about Jesus and His redemptive death and resurrection, what Gospel did the apostles proclaim in Luke 9? The true Gospel of a literal kingdom!

The Gospel of the kingdom is exactly that—the advance “good news” of the coming establishment of the world-ruling Kingdom of God. The Gospel’s link to salvation rests in the fact that it is only within the context of that kingdom that salvation is offered. Paul does link the Gospel of the kingdom to grace (see Acts 20:24-25). But a message of grace does not exclude or deny the vital message of a literal kingdom. Paul is only relating the fact that the establishment of the Kingdom of God is an expression of God’s saving grace or favor.

12. James C. Moffatt wrote that it was “customary in the Celtic churches of early times, in Ireland as well as Scotland, to keep Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath, as a day of rest…” (The Church in Scotland, p. 140). Numerous other sources attest to the Celts keeping the Sabbath in England from before the fall of the Roman Empire. See “Sabbath Keepers Throughout History,” www.remnantofgod.org/sabhist.htm.

13. Wade Cox, “General Distribution of the Sabbath-keeping Churches,” p. 25; www.ccg.org/english/s/p122.html

14. Cox, p. 26

15. James N. Andrews, History of the Sabbath (1887), ch. 27, p. 6 (digital version). The quote is from Chamber’s Cyclopedia, vol. 8; “Sabbath.” See at www.dedication.www3.50megs.com/historyofsabbath/hos_twenty seven.html. The title of chapter 27 is “The Sabbath from the 17th to the 19th Century.”

16. Andrews, p. 2

17. Andrews, p. 6

18. www.giveshare.org/churchhistory/sdb/sdbhist3.html

19. Cox, p. 27

20. Andrews, pp. 7-8. Another notable example is that of Francis Bampfield of London, an eminent Church of England clergyman who defected in 1662 to preach the observance of the Sabbath. He was subsequently imprisoned for nine years and later died of natural causes shortly after being jailed a second time in 1682 (pp. 8-9).

21. Cox, p. 27

22. Andrews, p. 10. Even in America, Mumford ran into intolerance. He and his family and a small group of followers initially fellowshipped with non- Sabbatarian Baptists. Eventually, however, they were labeled as “apostates” and compelled to separate over the Sabbath issue (pp. 10-11). Thus, in 1671, Mumford formed the first Seventh-day Baptist church at Newport, Rhode Island.

23. Andrews, pp. 9-10

24. Andrews, p. 11

25. Moreover, the climate of religious freedom in America has encouraged and enabled billions of dollars to be expended on worldwide mission work and the teaching of Christian principles to other nations. This is just one of the many ways in which Genesis 12:3 has been fulfilled: “And in you”—in Abraham’s offspring, Ephraim and Manasseh—“shall all families of the earth be blessed.”

26. It has been estimated that, as of 2007, over seven billion Bibles have been produced and distributed around the world—in almost every language. Moreover, this figure does not include digital versions. Why are there so many Bibles in the world? As the time of Jesus’ return draws near, God has seen to it that mankind is essentially without excuse when it comes to having an understanding of basic morality. The Bible is a living testimony to numerous truths, not the least of which is how God expects people to live. (See The Holy Bible in its Original Order, page x: “Why Are There So Many Bibles in the World?”)

APPENDIX SEVEN

America Rapidly Losing Economic Superiority to China

As a result of American greed and materialism—facilitated by the deceptive aims of “globalization” and “free trade”—the United States no longer enjoys unrivaled economic clout. Our technological edge is all but gone—sacrificed as thousands of jobs and vital industries have steadily been transferred overseas—and our exploding national debt, coupled with an enormous trade deficit, continues to eat away at the value of the dollar. Once upon a time, the world ran in lockstep with American trade policy; today, America must increasingly play by rules set down by relatively insignificant nations. What’s more, rival nations are now calling for the abandonment of the U.S. dollar as the key global trading currency!

Several biblical passages refer to Israel’s foolish obsession with her many “lovers”—modern-day military and trade alliances.[1] One such “lover” for America has been China—our biggest trading partner. It is obviously a love-hate relationship: we hate that China is a communist nation with a dismal human rights record, but we love the cheap goods and cheap labor at our disposal. But for China, the honeymoon is now over. Today, having grown strong through our weakness, China stands as a major rival to American economic hegemony.[2] But even more importantly, China is now coming to see that a declining U.S. dollar spells disaster for their own economy. In short, they can no longer afford to support America’s addiction to materialism. With that in mind, China has for some time been looking for ways to obtain some kind of “return” for their investment in America. The following Investmentwatch article explains: [3]

Does China Plan to Establish Chinese Cities
And Special “Economic Zones” all Over America?

What in the world is China up to? Over the past several years, the Chinese government and large Chinese corporations (which are often at least partially owned by the government) have been systematically buying up businesses, homes, farmland, real estate, infrastructure and natural resources all over America. In some cases, China appears to be attempting to purchase entire communities in one fell swoop. So why is this happening? Is this some form of economic colonization that is taking place?

Some have speculated that China may be intending to establish special “economic zones” inside the United States modeled after the very successful Chinese city of Shenzhen. Back in the 1970s, Shenzhen was just a very small fishing village, but now it is a sprawling metropolis of over 14 million people. Initially, these “special economic zones” were only established within China, but now the Chinese government has been buying huge tracts of land in foreign countries such as Nigeria and establishing special “economic zones” in those nations. So could such a thing actually happen in America?

Well, according to Dr. Jerome Corsi, a plan being pushed by the Chinese Central Bank would set up “development zones” in the United States that would allow China to “establish Chinese-owned businesses and bring in its citizens to the U.S. to work.” Under the plan, some of the $1.17 [now $1.28] trillion that the U.S. owes China would be converted from debt to “equity.” As a result, “China would own U.S. businesses, U.S. infrastructure and U.S. high-value land, all with a U.S. government guarantee against loss.” Does all of this sound far-fetched? Well, it isn’t. In fact, the economic colonization of America is already far more advanced than most Americans would dare to imagine.

Rather than just sitting on all of that money, China has been lending much of it back to us—at interest. We now owe China more than a trillion dollars, and our politicians are constantly pleading with China to lend more money to us so that we can finance our exploding debt.

Today, the U.S. government pays China approximately 100 million dollars a day in interest on the debt that we owe them. Those [who] say that the U.S. debt “does not matter” are being incredibly foolish.

So thanks to our massive trade deficit and our exploding national debt, China is systematically getting wealthier and the United States is systematically getting poorer. And now China is starting to use a lot of that wealth to aggressively expand their power and influence around the globe.

But isn’t it more than a bit far-fetched to suggest that China may be planning to establish Chinese cities and special economic zones in America?

Not really. Just look at what has already happened up in Canada. It is well known that the Chinese population of Vancouver, Canada, has absolutely exploded in recent years. In fact, the Vancouver suburb of Richmond is now approximately half Chinese. The following is an excerpt from a BBC article: “Richmond is North America’s most Asian city—50 percent of residents here identify themselves as Chinese. But it’s not just here that the Chinese community in British Columbia (BC)—some 407,000 strong—has left its mark. All across Vancouver, Chinese-Canadians have helped shape the local landscape.”

A similar thing is happening in many communities along the West Coast of the United States. In fact, Chinese citizens purchased one out of every ten homes that were sold in the state of California in 2011. But in other areas of the United States, the Chinese are approaching things much more systematically. For example, as I have written about previously, a Chinese group identified as “Sino-Michigan Properties, LLC” has purchased 200 acres of land near the town of Milan, Michigan. Their stated goal is to build a “China City” that has artificial lakes, a Chinese cultural center, and hundreds of housing units for Chinese citizens.

In other instances, large chunks of real estate in major U.S. cities that are down on their luck are being snapped up by Chinese investors. Just check out what a Fortune article from a while back says has been happening over in Toledo, Ohio: “In March 2011, Chinese investors paid $2.15 million cash for a restaurant complex on the Maumee River in Toledo, Ohio. Soon they put down another $3.8 million on 69 acres of newly decontaminated land in the city’s Marina District, promising to invest $200 million in a new residential-commercial development. That September, another Chinese firm spent $3 million for an aging hotel across a nearby bridge with a view of the minor-league ballpark.

“Toledo is being promoted to Chinese investors as a 5-star logistics region. From Toledo it is very easy to get to Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Columbus, and Indianapolis…. With a population of 287,000, Toledo is only the fourth largest city in Ohio, but it lies at the junction of two important highways—I-75 and I-80/90. ‘My vision is to make Toledo a true international city,’ Toledo’s Mayor Mike Bell told the Toledo Blade.”

But some of these deals appear to be about far more than just making “investments.” According to the Idaho Statesman, a Chinese company known as Sinomach (which is controlled by the Chinese government) was actually interested in developing a 50-square-mile self-sustaining “technology zone” south of the Boise airport…. Officials of the China National Machinery Industry Corp. have broached the idea—based on a concept popular in China today—to city and state leaders.

The article suggested that this “technology zone” would be modeled after similar projects that already exist in China, and that Chinese officials were conducting similar negotiations with other U.S. states as well….

Sinomach is not looking only at Idaho. The company sent delegations to Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania this year to talk about setting up research and development bases and industrial parks. It has an interest in electric transmission projects and alternative energy as well. The “technology zone” proposal follows [the] model of science, technology and industrial parks in China—[which are] often fully contained cities with all services included.

Thankfully, the deal in Idaho appears to be stalled for now; but could we soon see China establish special “economic zones” in other communities all around America? The Chinese certainly do seem to be laying the groundwork for something. They have been voraciously gobbling up important infrastructure all over the country. The following comes from a recent American Free Press article: “In addition to already owning vital ports in Long Beach, Calif., and Boston, Mass., the China Ocean Shipping Company is eyeing major ports on the East Coast and Gulf of Mexico. China also owns access to ports at the entry and exit points of the Panama Canal.

“And due to fiscal woes plaguing many American cities and states, U.S. legislators have been actively seeking out Chinese investors. In one of the worst cases, Baton Rouge, La., Mayor Kip Holden offered the Chinese government ownership and operating rights to a new toll way system if the Chinese would provide the funding to build it.”

Does it make sense for the Chinese to own some of our most important ports? Isn’t there a national security risk? Sadly, there isn’t much of anything that our politicians won’t sell these days as long as someone is willing to flash a lot of cash.

Unfortunately, the sad truth is that China is absolutely mopping the floor with the United States on the global economic stage. China is rising and America is in an advanced state of decline. Global economic power has shifted dramatically and most Americans still don’t understand what has happened.

The following are 44 more signs of how dominant the economy of China has become [over the past few years]:

1. A Chinese firm recently made a $2.6 billion offer to buy the movie theater chain AMC.

2. A different Chinese firm made a $1.8 billion offer to buy aircraft maker Hawker Beechcraft.

3. In December it was announced that a Chinese group would be purchasing AIG’s plane leasing unit for $4.23 billion.

4. It was recently announced that the Federal Reserve will now allow Chinese banks to buy up American banks.

5. A $190 million bridge project up in Alaska was awarded to a Chinese firm.

6. A $400 million contract to renovate the Alexander Hamilton bridge in New York was awarded to a Chinese firm.

7. A $7.2 billion contract to construct a new bridge between San Francisco and Oakland was awarded to a Chinese firm.

8. The uniforms for the U.S. Olympic team were made in China.

9. 85 percent of all artificial Christmas trees are made in China.

10. The new World Trade Center tower is going to include glass that has been imported from China.

11. The new Martin Luther King memorial on the National Mall was made in China.

12. In 2001, American consumers spent $102 billion on products made in China. In 2011, American consumers spent $399 billion on products made in China.

13. The United States spends about $4 on goods and services from China for every dollar that China spends on goods and services from the U.S.

14. According to the New York Times, a Jeep Grand Cherokee that costs $27,490 in the United States costs about $85,000 in China, thanks to all the tariffs.

15. The Chinese economy has grown seven times faster than the U.S. economy over the past decade.

16. The United States has lost a staggering 32 percent of its manufacturing jobs since the year 2000.

17. The United States has lost an average of 50,000 manufacturing jobs per month since China joined the World Trade Organization in 2001.

18. Overall, the United States has lost a total of more than 56,000 manufacturing facilities since 2001.

19. According to the Economic Policy Institute, America is losing half a million jobs to China every single year.

20. Between December 2000 and December 2010, 38 percent of the manufacturing jobs in Ohio were lost, 42 percent of the manufacturing jobs in North Carolina were lost, and 48 percent of the manufacturing jobs in Michigan were lost.

21. In 2010, China produced more than twice as many automobiles as the United States did.

22. Since the auto industry bailout, approximately 70 percent of all GM vehicles have been built outside the United States.

23. After being bailed out by U.S. taxpayers, General Motors is currently involved in 11 joint ventures with companies owned by the Chinese government. The price for entering into many of these joint ventures was a transfer of state-ofthe- art technology from General Motors to the communist Chinese.

24. Back in 1998, the United States had 25 percent of the world’s high-tech export market and China had just 10 percent. Ten years later, the United States had less than 15 percent and China’s share had soared to 20 percent.

25. The United States has lost more than a quarter of all of its high-tech manufacturing jobs over the past ten years.

26. China’s number one export to the U.S. is computer equipment.

27. The number one U.S. export to China is “scrap and trash.”

28. The U.S. trade deficit with China is now more than 28 times larger than it was back in 1990.

29. Back in 1985, the U.S. trade deficit with China was just $6 million for the entire year. For the month of November 2012 alone, the U.S. trade deficit with China was $28.9 billion.

30. China now consumes more energy than the United States.

31. China is now the leading manufacturer of goods in the entire world.

32. China uses more cement than the rest of the world combined.

33. China is now the number one producer of wind and solar power on the entire globe.

34. Today, China produces nearly twice as much beer as the United States.

35. Right now, China is producing more than three times as much coal as the U.S. does.

36. China now produces 11 times as much steel as the United States does.

37. China produces more than 90 percent of the global supply of rare earth elements.

38. China is now the number one supplier of components that are critical to the operation of U.S. defense systems.

39. A recent investigation by the U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services found more than one million counterfeit Chinese parts in the Department of Defense supply chain.

40. 15 years ago, China was 14th in the world in published scientific research articles. But now, China is expected to pass the United States and become number one very shortly.

41. China now awards more doctoral degrees in engineering each year than the United States does.

42. According to one study, the Chinese economy already has roughly the same amount of purchasing power as the U.S. economy does.

43. According to the IMF, China will pass the United States and will become the largest economy in the world in 2016.

44. Nobel economist Robert W. Fogel of the University of Chicago is projecting that the Chinese economy will be three times larger than the U.S. economy by the year 2040, if current trends continue.

Without the “globalization” of the world economy, none of this would have ever happened. But instead of admitting our mistakes and fixing them, our politicians continue to press for even more “free trade” and even more integration with communist nations such as China. In fact, according to Dr. Jerome Corsi, the U.S. government has already set up 257 “foreign trade zones” all over America. These “foreign trade zones” are apparently given “special U.S. customs treatment” and are used to promote “free trade”….

Sadly, we are probably going to see a whole lot more of this in the years ahead.

According to Corsi, a professor of economics at Tsighua University in Beijing named Yu Qiao has suggested the following plan as a way to transform the debt that the United States owes China into something more “tangible”:

1. China would negotiate with the U.S. government to create a “crisis relief facility” or CRF. The CRF would be used alongside U.S. federal efforts to stabilize the banking system and to invest in capitalintensive infrastructure projects such as a high-speed railroad from Boston to Washington, D.C.

2. China would pool a portion of its holdings of Treasury bonds under the CRF umbrella to convert sovereign debt into equity. Any CRF funds that were designated for investment in U.S. corporations would still be owned and managed by U.S. equity holders, with the Asians holding minority equity shares “that would, like preferred stock, be convertible.”

3. The U.S. government would act as a guarantor, “providing a sovereign guarantee scheme to assure the investment principal of the CRF against possible default of targeted companies or projects.”

4. The Federal Reserve would set up a special account to supply the liquidity the CRF would require to swap sovereign debt into industrial investment in the United States.

Apparently, the Bank of China really likes this plan and would like to see something like this implemented. In the years ahead, perhaps many of you will end up working in a special “economic zone” for a Chinese company on a project that is being financially guaranteed by the U.S. government.

If that sounds like a form of slavery to you, the truth is that you are probably not too far off the mark. The borrower is the servant of the lender, and we should have never allowed ourselves to get into so much debt. Now we will pay the price.

Things did not have to turn out this way. Unfortunately, we made decades of incredibly foolish decisions and we wrecked the greatest economic machine that the world has ever seen. Now the future for America looks really bleak…[end of article].

China Now “Moving Away” from U.S. Dollar

According to a report by the International Business Times (IBT), China’s official news agency, Xinhua, is calling for the deAmericanization of the global economy. Remember, Xinhua is an official mouthpiece for the communist Chinese government. The announcement came as a response to the October 2013 political battle over the U.S. debt ceiling. The Xinhua editorial said, “As U.S. politicians of both political parties are still shuffling back and forth between the White House and Capitol Hill without striking a viable deal to bring normality to the body politic they brag about, it is perhaps a good time for the befuddled world to start considering building a deAmericanized world.” It was concern over a potential U.S. default that primarily drove Chinese criticism, along with concerns of another possible downgrade in U.S. credit ratings. Indeed, from the Chinese perspective, the budget impasse had the potential to threaten the value of their considerable dollar holdings. China is the biggest foreign owner of U.S. Treasuries—$1.3 trillion worth. The communist nation also holds about $3.5 trillion in other dollar-denominated assets.

The ongoing devaluation of Beijing’s massive dollar holdings has China worried enough to call for a worldwide move away from the dollar. In fact, the Xinhua editorial revealed China’s strategy of divesting itself, over time, of U.S. holdings. According to the IBT, the editorial “called for an end to the use of the U.S. dollar as the international reserve currency” in order to safeguard the international community from “the side effects of domestic political turmoil in the United States.”[4]

Because of America’s undisciplined spending and massive debt accumulation—along with the government’s printing of fiat money—the U.S. dollar is steadily losing value. Thus, it is increasingly being perceived as a too-risky investment. What other nations will follow China’s lead in abandoning the dollar?

About a month after the Xinhua editorial, China backed up its words by announcing that it will stop stockpiling U.S. dollars. A press release by the central bank of China said it is “no longer in China’s favor to accumulate foreign-exchange reserves.”[5] As of late 2013, China’s foreignexchange reserves were valued at approximately $3.6 trillion—the biggest chunk made up of U.S. dollars. Due to the massive trade imbalance between China and America, the Chinese have accumulated an enormous amount of dollars. Throughout this process, Chinese products have been less expensive on the world market, the Chinese yuan has been held artificially low, and the U.S. dollar has been artificially “propped up.”

But now, the state-run People’s Bank of China has determined that it is no longer in China’s interest to increase its holdings of foreign-exchange reserves—and this chiefly means U.S. dollars. The move appears to be aimed at strengthening the yuan. Thus, Chinese policymakers are now expected to rein in dollar purchases that limit the yuan’s appreciation. According to analysts, a stronger yuan means China will no longer need to hold vast amounts of foreign-exchange reserves.

What will this mean for America? Our trade alliance with China has kept the dollar artificially high. This will no longer be the case: the value of the dollar will now go down and everything will get more expensive. The ubiquitous phrase “made in China” will no longer mean an item is cheap.

According to a recent CNBC news report, China’s move to no longer stockpile dollars likely signals that the Chinese are also preparing to draw back from buying our government debt.[6] America is heavily dependent on foreign nations lending us money. Right now, China owns nearly $1.3 trillion of our debt. If China stops purchasing our treasury bonds, what other nations will follow suit? Who will finance our debt? Needless to say, such a scenario would spell financial disaster for the United States.

The world’s financial and political lines are being subtly redrawn. Change is coming—big change—and most Americans have absolutely no idea what this is going to mean. As demand for the U.S. dollar and for U.S. debt diminishes, everything will become much more expensive; the enviable American standard of living will soon become a thing of the past.

In materialistic greed, America has lusted after economic “lovers.” We have rejected God and His Word—and are now cursed (Deut. 28:44). Decades of foolish decisions are starting to catch up with us. As one writer cleverly put it, when it comes to economics, “China has been playing chess while the United States has been playing checkers.”[7]

APPENDIX 7 NOTES

1. See Jer. 30:14; Ezek. 16:36-37; 23:5, 9, 22; Hosea 2:5, 7, 10, 12, 13; 8:9

2. Presently, America’s economy is twice the size of China’s. But due to current economic policies, U.S. growth is almost at a standstill. Meanwhile, China is growing rapidly—and is set to likely surpass the U.S. within a decade.

3. www.investmentwatchblog.com/does-china-plan-to-establish-chinesecities-and-special-economic-zones-all-over-america/#jyPJPaHzMpYPvaF8.99

4. Jijo Jacob, “Debt Ceiling: China Calls for World to be De- Americanized” (Oct. 13, 2013). From www.ibtimes.co.uk/china-debt-ceilingshutdown-xinhua-de-emericanised-513431.

5. Michael Snyder, “China Announces that it is Going to Stop Stockpiling U.S. Dollars” (Nov. 21, 2013). From www.theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/china-announces-that-it-is-going-to-stop-stockpiling-u-s-dollars. Snyder references www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-20/pboc-says-nolonger-in-china-s-favor-to-boost-record-reserves.html.

6. Snyder, referencing www.cnbc.com/id/101217067

7. Snyder, www.theeconomiccollapseblog.com

APPENDIX EIGHT

The Failure of Christianity in Britain and America

In the area of private “religious practice,” Britain and America are, and have been for some time, in a state of serious decline. Today, church attendance is at an all-time low, and the number of Anglo-Americans who profess to being Christian is rapidly dropping. Young people in particular are dropping out of church at an astounding rate, and significant numbers are abandoning Christianity altogether. Considering that the future of our nations hinges on the moral strength of our youth, what will be the long-term outcome of these trends? Perhaps more significant is the fact that even among self-professed Christians, morality is at an all-time low. As revealed by numerous surveys, it appears that there is little in terms of lifestyle and conduct to distinguish a “Christian” from a non-Christian.

Considering our Christian heritage—and that most Anglo-Americans still claim to be Protestant Christians—why have our nations experienced such a massive moral decline? Where has the church been? Why has Christianity been largely ineffective at stemming the tide of worldliness that plagues even churchgoers? Could it be that the church itself has unwittingly played a key role in the moral demise of our peoples?

Christianity in America and Britain—the Facts

To understand modern Christianity’s significance in the decline of America and Britain, we must come to realize two things: First, we must acknowledge the reality that Protestantism in Britain and America has utterly failed to meet the spiritual needs of its followers—which, as a consequence, has caused millions of churchgoers to abandon the church or even Christianity itself. Secondly, we must understand that even among self-proclaimed Christians—particularly those age 18 to 29, as this group has been intensely studied—there is a gigantic lifestyle gap between what is believed or professed and what is actually practiced. This gap—viewed by young adults outside the church as outright hypocrisy—has only served to marginalize Christianity as a religion of any value. The question must be asked: “If a nation’s religion is a failure—because it has become ineffective or is simply not genuinely practiced—does that not factor heavily in God’s judgment on that nation?”

In her book Quitting Church, Julia Duin argues that “something is not right with church life” today. She says that modern churchgoers are increasingly disappointed by what they consider to be a lack of genuine spirituality—that organized religion has become dysfunctional. She argues that today’s churches seem focused on culture—fads, image, creative marketing and “packaging”—and that worship services often border on entertainment. Meanwhile, she adds, teachings are becoming liberalized and lack relevance to real life.[1]

The result has been a steady decline in church attendance. Duin, who has spent much of her career researching Christianity in America, writes: “It’s no secret that the percentage of Americans in church on any given Sunday is dropping fast.” How fast? According to a survey sponsored by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago, religious attendance in America fell from 41 percent in 1971 to 31 percent in 2002. That’s ten percentage points in 30 years. However, studies conducted in 2005 by sociologists suggest the average attendance is much lower, around 18 to 20 percent. One of the researchers, Dave Olson, in a report published in the April 2006 issue of Christianity Today, said that significantly fewer Americans—and this goes for the British as well—are actually participating in traditional churchgoing practices.[2]

Yet 90 percent of Americans still claim to believe in God.

According to Duin, research suggests that, at current dropout rates, only about four percent of American teens will end up as Bible-believing adult churchgoers (compare this to 35 percent of baby boomers and 65 percent of their World War II-era grandparents).[3] As a lead researcher for Christianity Today, Drew Dyck writes that the May 2009 Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life reports that “young Americans are dropping out of religion at an alarming rate of five to six times the historic rate.” Dyck also notes that, according to Rainer Research, approximately 70 percent of America’s young people drop out of church between the ages of 18 and 22. Similarly, the Barna Group estimates that 80 percent of those reared in the church will be “disengaged” by the time they are 29.[4]

A similar phenomenon is occurring in Britain. According to a 2007 study conducted by the Tearfund organization, only 15 percent of the British population attends church regularly. Where are the remaining British? Some 33 percent are what the study calls “de-churched”—those who claim to be Christians but choose to no longer attend church. Astonishingly, another 33 percent consider themselves to be non-Christians.[5]

It seems Christianity in the United Kingdom is not just in decline, it is dying out. The religion magazine Neue reports that in the UK “the number of nonreligious [individuals] may be greater than is currently indicated” by surveys, and researchers suspect that “many of those who mark themselves as believers on a census may do so by default rather than out of devotion.” Admittedly, the surveys reveal a certain level of incongruity. For example, in England and Wales, 61 percent “have a religion,” but only 29 percent “identify themselves as religious.” This indicates that people like to claim a religious affiliation—perhaps for the sake of appearance—when they are not really religious at all. The surveys also reveal that more than half of those who identify themselves as Christians don’t actually believe in salvation through Christ. In fact, 27 percent of Brits who claim to be Christian do not believe Jesus was a real person; another 25 percent said they were unsure.[6]

What is important about these statistics is not so much that they reveal a decline in church participation, but that they reveal a decline in the number of people claiming to actually be Christian.

What’s behind all the empty pews? In a word—irrelevancy. Duin notes that for the estimated 78 million American Protestants who have become church dropouts, church has just become too boring. “Church has nothing to do with their actual lives. What’s preached and talked about is irrelevant to their daily existence in the twenty-first century.” She says there is a disconnect between what is coming from the pulpit and people’s real lives. Duin quotes Mike McManus, a syndicated Christian writer: “They’re not preaching on real issues—divorce, chastity, cohabitation—that people are facing. There’s an avoidance of the big issues people are facing.”[7] The bottom line is that Christianity’s popular “bumper-sticker Jesus” is just not relevant to the real problems and stresses people are facing.

Chuck Baldwin, an outspoken Christian minister and author, has long lamented Christianity’s failure to be relevant to modern life. Calling today’s mainstream church “the opiate of entertainment an feel-good-ism,” he writes that when it comes to influencing societal conditions, culture and the political philosophy of the nation, “America’s churches are the largest block of irrelevant, impotent and insignificant institutions in the entire country.”[8]

Baldwin unflinchingly charges today’s ministry as the cause, calling them complacent “hirelings” that “lust after ease and social acceptance.” He says they willfully and blindly “bask in their ignorance.” Quoting the 19thcentury revivalist Charles Finney, Baldwin writes: “If there is a decay of conscience, the pulpit is responsible for it. If the public press lacks moral discernment, the pulpit is responsible for it. If the church is degenerate and worldly, the pulpit is responsible for it. If the world loses its interest in Christianity, the pulpit is responsible for it. If Satan rules in our halls of legislation, the pulpit is responsible for it. If our politics become so corrupt that the very foundations of our government are ready to fall away, the pulpit is responsible for it.”

According to Baldwin, most of what comes from today’s pulpits lacks relevance to real-life problems, challenges and experiences. Rather than being shepherds and watchmen, he says today’s pastors are more like cheerleaders and CEOs. “Our churches are not ‘the pillar and ground of the truth’ (I Timothy 3:15, KJV); they are centers of social interaction, recreation, and feel-good indoctrination. Preachers are not reprovers, rebukers, and exhorters (II Timothy 4:2); they are ear-ticklers, entertainers, and expositors of irrelevance…. The result: ineffective, impotent, weak, unprepared and sheepish Christians.”

The bottom line is that Christianity’s popular “feel-good gospel” is just not relevant to the real problems and stresses people are facing. The widely-promoted bumper sticker “Honk If You Love Jesus!” pretty well sums it up. Unconsciously, those who remain a part of today’s organized Christianity end up just “playing church”—claiming to be Christian while living like non-believers.

Christianity—Seduced by Worldliness

While most Americans consider themselves to be Christians, the nation’s popular culture, its government and educational institutions, its laws, its entertainment industry, and especially its news media have clearly become not only un-Christian, but anti-Christian. A veritable tug-of-war has taken place between Christianity and secular culture—and, by all accounts, the church isn’t winning.

A key reason, according to David Kupelian, is that when the church should have been at the forefront in the nation’s “culture wars,” it too was seduced by worldliness. In his book The Marketing of Evil, Kupelian quotes Francis Schaeffer—widely regarded in theological circles as one of the most influential evangelical thinkers of modern times—who takes the unpopular position that mainstream Christianity has drawn back and failed to engage in a meaningful way in the ongoing battle for American culture. Schaeffer writes: “Most of the evangelical world has not been active in the battle, or even been able to see that we are in a battle.” In describing the “failure of the evangelical world to stand for [the] truth,” he says the church has “accommodated” the world—tried to fit in. Schaeffer adds that it has been “the weakness and accommodation of the evangelical group on the issues of the day that has been largely responsible for the loss of the Christian ethos” over the past few decades. Such accommodation, he writes, is nothing less than “worldliness”—and has led to the further breakdown of America’s moral base.[9]

Kupelian suggests that such “accommodation” by church leaders was ostensibly an attempt to gain new converts, the idea being that you have to go where the unconverted are, act like them, look like them—all in hopes of winning their trust. But this approach is completely contrary to biblical instruction. He gives the following example: “[Youth] pastors at some point started to dispense with their formal attire and instead appeared before teenagers without coat and tie, so as not to appear a stuffed shirt. That’s a reasonable accommodation. But what happens when the youth leader’s strategy of going tie-less turns into his dressing like a rap singer, talking jive, and wearing earrings? That’s what’s happening in Christian pop culture today”—as pastors try to fit in with the world.”[10]

Whereas Kupelian and others use the notion of “accommodation” to explain where Christianity’s has gone awry, Kevin Swanson uses the idea of synthesis—the attempt to mix biblical ideals with worldly philosophies (also called syncretism). In his recent book Apostate, he argues that in the “war of ideas”—an ongoing cultural crisis that covers every aspect of life, including music and entertainment, education, politics, economics, etc.—Christians must be extremely careful not to synthesize their beliefs with the humanistic ideas of the world. He writes that “when Christianity abandons the centrality of God”—by trying to accommodate or synthesize with the non-Christian world—“it [quickly] loses [the] critical, distinctive element of the Christian worldview”—which is strictly biblical.[11]

The result is an irrelevant and powerless church.

Indeed, no other worldview will do. “For thousands of years, it was pastors and fathers in villages and homes who shaped the culture.” But today, “the media [have] replaced the church and the family as the dominant means by which society transfers information, inculcates worldviews, and forms [its] culture.”[12] Ideally, with a thoroughly biblical worldview, the church will lead or create culture. But if it fails to do so, the church will be absorbed by popular culture—to the extent that it practically ceases to exist. This is exactly where Christianity in America and Great Britain finds itself today: rather than leading or setting culture, the church now simply reflects culture. Thus, like the culture that now dominates it, the church is rapidly being infested with paganism, polytheism, relativism and even nihilism. As Swanson says, “The [thoroughly] synthesized church [now] finds itself under the unhappy curse of being both compromised and irrelevant.”[13]

To put this another way, the church has followed the dubious path of “contextualization.” Accordingly, the Gospel is preached in the “context” of popular culture. The original framework in which Jesus and the apostles preached the Gospel has become passé; what matters now is that the Gospel conveniently fits into modern society. So, whether it’s music, entertainment, dress, language, morals, or even attitudes, contextualism allows the church to borrow (synthesize) from the world whatever it needs in order to be comfortable, to appear effective, and to be appealing. Swanson writes: “If culture is the living out of a [particular] worldview, then Christians will live as Christians only if they are well acquainted with their own [Bible-based] worldview…. As long as the church tries to contextualize [popular] culture … it will be powerless to impact that culture.”[14]

But whatever the motive—fear of rejection, doubtfulness, need for acceptance and approval—wanting to fit in and be like the world is just the opposite of what Jesus instructed His followers. Notice: “I have given them Your words, and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world” (John 17:14; also verse 16). The world will despise you if you practice true Christianity because you will be so completely different in every aspect of your life—because you will refuse to “fit in” and participate in today’s popular culture. As Paul writes, you will refuse to be “conformed to this world” (Rom. 12:2). James adds: “Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their afflictions, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world” (James 1:27).

Why has Christianity been so easily seduced by those who market popular culture? Kupelian argues that it is because “a hidden, selfish part of [churchgoers] wanted to embrace” the falsehoods of popular culture.[15] Indeed, we want to fit in, to be of this world. It is just as God said through Jeremiah—“My people love to have it so” (Jer. 5:31). It is just as Ezekiel said—“their heart goes after their covetousness” (Ezek. 33:31).

“Accommodation” has truly been modern Christianity’s “Achilles heel.” This is why Christianity in Britain and America has utterly failed: there is no heart in the people or their pastors to truly seek and obey God on His terms! It is much easier to simply fit in—to accommodate the non-Christian world. But as long as “Christians” are immersed in popular culture—or in any culture based on a non-biblical worldview—their thinking and way of living will never conform to the Word of God.

The “Christian” Lifestyle Gap

Recent research polls have brought to light some astounding facts concerning the conduct of Christians—particularly those age 18 to 29, as this group has been intensely studied. Overall, there appears to be a gigantic lifestyle gap between what is believed or professed and what is actually practiced. As we will see, most Christians—especially in the young adult group—are indistinguishable from non-Christians in almost every area of life. In his book Your Jesus Is Too Safe, Jared Wilson notes that “in American culture, it has often become hard to distinguish between the body of Christ and the culture of society.” He says Christians often quote such passages as “Judge not lest you be judged,” or “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone” because we want to “justify how we live without the pesky burden of what Jesus requires of us.”[16]

In his compelling book Revolution, George Barna laments the considerable “disconnection between what research consistently shows about [the conduct of] churched Christians and what the Bible calls us to [actually] be.” If Christians are what they claim to be, adds Barna, “their lives should be noticeably and compellingly different from the norm.”[17]

According to Barna’s 2005 data, of the 77 million Americans who claimed to be churchgoing “born again” Christians, fully half of them admitted that they had not “experienced a genuine connection” with God over the past year. Moreover, less than 10 percent claimed to possess a “biblical worldview”—i.e., a core set of convictions and beliefs that they have proven as absolute truth (the other 90 percent claimed only a “patchwork” of theological views).[18]

Is it any wonder, then, that “worldliness” is as much a problem inside mainstream Christianity as it is outside? A good indication of the depth of the problem can be seen in how self-professed Christians approach divorce. The divorce rate for those who profess to be Christian and who claim to follow the teachings of the Bible is exactly the same (around 50 percent) as those who do not. Today, most divorces are unjustified—a matter of convenience. Marriage vows mean almost nothing. Are we really to believe that all of these “Christian” divorces are justified before God— when He says He hates divorce (Mal. 2:16)?

Then there’s the glaring problem of premarital sex and abortion among self-professed Christians. In his article “(Almost) Everyone’s Doing It,” Tyler Charles writes: “A surprising new study shows Christians are having premarital sex and abortions as much (or more) than non-Christians.” He notes that “a recent study reveals that 88 percent of unmarried [American] young adults (ages 18-29) are having sex…. [But] the number doesn’t drop much among Christians. Of those surveyed who self-identify as ‘evangelical,’ 80 percent say they have had sex”—yet 76 percent of the same group believe sex outside of marriage is wrong. The stats get worse: “Of those 80 percent of Christians in the 18-29 age range who have had sex before marriage, 64 percent have done so within the last year [2011] and 42 percent are in a current sexual relationship.” Only 20 percent say they have never had sex.[19]

Among non-evangelicals (such as Baptists, etc.), the statistics are worse still: 53 percent of Christians in the 18-29 age group say they are currently in a sexual relationship, with only 12 percent claiming to have never had sex (these last two figures for Christians are almost identical to the national averages for non-Christians).

So much for biblically mandated abstinence!

The same studies also looked at abortion. According to Charles, of the approximately one million abortions that take place in the United States each year, a shocking 65 percent are obtained by women who claim to be either Protestant or Catholic. The remaining 35 percent are obtained by non-Christians. That’s 650,000 abortions each year obtained by Christians. Yet 77 percent of evangelicals believe that abortion is morally wrong (compared to 56 percent of the general population).[20]

For Christianity in America, these are damning statistics.

Dyck labels the issue for what it is: moral compromise. He writes that many Christians experience an unbearable level of “conflict between belief and behavior. Tired of dealing with a guilty conscience and unwilling to abandon their sinful lifestyles, they drop their Christian commitment. They may cite intellectual skepticism or disappointments with the church, but these are smokescreens designed to hide the [real] reason. [In effect,] they change their creed to match their deeds….”[21]

This is reminiscent of what we see in the parable of the “sower.” In Matthew 13, Jesus says that some who joyfully begin their walk with God later find that they “have no root”—no real, lasting commitment (verses 20-21). Others start off strong only to allow the “cares of this world” to choke out their relationship with God (verse 22). Indeed, most young adults who abandon the faith do so in order to adopt a lifestyle that falls outside the bounds of Christian morality. Ultimately, they desire worldliness more than godliness.

David Kinnaman has researched this phenomenon for decades. In his book unChristian, he writes about the palpable “lifestyle gap” between what Christians profess to believe and how they actually live. Kinnaman argues that Christianity in America has a well-deserved hypocritical image. “Our lives don’t match our beliefs. In many ways, our lifestyles and perspectives are no different from those of anyone around us.”

Kinnaman’s extensive research compared “born-again” Christians to non-Christians in over one hundred variables related to values and behavior. (Kinnaman focused on those who self-identified in surveys as being “born again” because—unlike those who self-identify as simply “Christian”—they claim to have a deeper commitment to Christ.) He writes: “In virtually every study we conducted, representing thousands of interviews [over a period of several years], born-again Christians fail to display much attitudinal or behavioral evidence of transformed lives.”[22]

Not surprisingly, he found that the Christians were distinct in certain areas of religious behavior: they owned more Bibles, went to church, participated in church events, donating money to religious causes, etc. But that was where the distinction ended. “[When] it came to non-religious factors—the substance of peoples daily choices, actions and attitudes—there were few meaningful gaps between born-again Christians and [non- Christians]. Christians emerged as distinct in the areas people would expect—some religious activities and commitments—but not in other areas of life.”

Kinnaman continues: Based on 2007 data, “we found that most of the lifestyle activities of born-again Christians were statistically equivalent to those of [non-Christians]. When asked to identify their activities over the last thirty days, born-again believers were just as likely to bet or gamble, to visit a pornographic Web site, to take something that did not belong to them, to consult a medium or psychic, to physically fight or abuse someone, to have consumed enough alcohol to be considered legally drunk, to have used an illegal, nonprescription drug, to have said something to someone that was not true….” In the area of inappropriate sexual behavior—including looking at online pornography, viewing sexually explicit magazines or movies, or having a sexual encounter outside of marriage—Kinnaman “found that 30 percent of born-again Christians admitted to at least one of these activities in the past thirty days, compared to 35 percent of other [non-Christian] Americans. In statistical and practical terms, this means the two groups are essentially no different from each other.”[23]

Astonishing—no difference.

What happened to believers not being conformed to this world, but being transformed by a renewed mind (Rom. 12:2)? What about putting on the “new man” created in righteousness and holiness (Eph. 4:24)? What about developing the mind of Christ (Phil. 2:5), overcoming sin and the world’s influence (I John 2:13-14; Rev. 2:26; etc.)? How can there be no difference between Christians and non-Christians? Is Christianity nothing but a social club, where members are “Christians” in name only?

Even in ancient Israel, God put a difference between the holy and the unholy, the clean and the unclean (Lev. 10:10). Paraphrasing God’s words to Judah and Jerusalem—and to Anglo-American “Christians” today: “Your pastors have misrepresented My teachings and have disregarded what was holy to Me. They have put no difference between what is holy and what is worldly, neither have they taught the difference between what is morally clean and what is morally unclean…. Alas, I am profaned among those who call themselves Christians!” (Ezek. 22:26).

It is truly as Kupelian says: “Christians, like everybody else, have been seduced by the marketers of evil.”

A Form of Religion

At the heart of the problem is that modern Christianity in Britain and America espouses the name of Christ but adheres to few of His teachings. A “Christianity”—really a “Church-anity”—has developed that unconsciously makes a show of religion with little to no substance. Evidence of this can be seen in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Immediately following the attacks, church attendance spiked; Americans everywhere were inspired and moved to seek God. But within a few months, attendance began returning to “normal” as people went back to life as usual. There was no grand revival of the Christian faith, no humbling of the nation before God, no introspective look into how we might have brought God’s judgment on ourselves—just a pretense of religion, enough to soothe our collective conscience.

This is reminiscent of the prophet Isaiah’s warning concerning those “who say to the seers [pastors], ‘See not,’ [don’t tell us about God’s coming judgment on our nation] and to the prophets [teachers], ‘Do not prophesy to us right things [such as the need to obey God’s commandments], speak to us smooth things, prophesy illusions’ ” (Isa. 30:10). Tell us things to make us feel good about ourselves; tell us what a great church we have; tell us God is pleased with us as Christians.

The church itself is to blame: “Church-anity’s” narrow-minded rush to increase membership rolls has led to the development of spiritually weak, ill-prepared followers. Instead of emphasizing personal transformation and practical faith according to Scripture, young people in particular have been sold a feel-good religion—one that fails miserably when stacked up against the pulls and temptations of society. As Dyck rightly notes, “the Christian life is hard to sustain in the face of so many temptations.” But the church itself has failed to equip believers to fight the good fight. “I realized that most [who leave the church] had been exposed to [only] a superficial form of Christianity that effectively inoculated them against authentic faith.”[24]

Kinnaman has come to a similar conclusion: “It is easy to embrace a costless form of Christianity in America today … [with only] a superficial understanding of the gospel…. [But] in a lightweight [i.e., emotionally-based] exposure to Christianity, where a decision for Christ is portrayed as simple and costless, [the experience] will fail to produce lasting faith.”[25]

This particularly describes the experience of many young people. As Kinnaman notes, “Most teenagers in America enter adulthood considering themselves to be Christians and saying they have made a personal commitment to Christ. But within a decade, most of these young people will have left the church and will have placed [their] emotional connection to Christianity on the shelf. For most of them, their faith was merely skin deep.”[26]

Today’s so-called Christianity is based largely on carefully selected New Testament passages (mostly from Paul’s writings) that are twisted to make them appear to teach a “soft Christianity”—a costless “faith” void of works and indifferent to clear biblical teachings on morality. Thus, “getting saved” is typically based on a fleeting emotional experience wherein the new “believer”—who is usually too young to fully understand what it means to “count the cost” (Luke 14:28)—is enamored with a popularized feel-good -about-yourself “Jesus.”

And when all you have is a “feel-good” religion, morality is the first thing out the window.

In fact, for the past few decades Christianity has been spawning a new generation of plastic Christians—those whose belief in Jesus amounts to nothing more than a get-out-of-hell-free card. As Kupelian notes, “Christianity has been dumbed down into a bumper-sticker religion…. This dumbed-down version of Christianity doesn’t require honest introspection or courage or self-denial or patience. The only ingredient it needs is a guilty person who’s sick of feeling guilty, wants relief, wants to feel better about himself, and desires an ‘insurance policy’ to keep him out of hell. But even the most insincere person wants to feel better about himself, wants relief from guilt, and fears death.... [Thus,] the trivialization of Christianity into a mantra of belief—but separated from works, from obedience to God’s laws, and even more fundamentally, separated from basic honesty, integrity, love of truth, and true repentance—has ushered in a generation of shallow, ineffectual and invisible Christians.”[27] In reality, modern Protestantism has reduced obedience to God’s laws to a nebulous definition of “love”—so that God’s will can be interpreted in a thousand different ways.

The inevitable result is a counterfeit “religious experience”—leading to what Duin calls a “costless Christianity that’s easily maintained.”[28] It’s easily maintained because it’s devoid of works or real obedience to God’s Word. Jesus corrected the religious hobbyists of His day for this very same approach: “Hypocrites! Isaiah has prophesied well concerning you, saying, ‘This people draw near to Me [God] with their mouths, and with their lips they honor Me’ ”—they say all the right things, call Jesus “Lord, Lord,” sing praises to God every Sunday morning—“ ‘but their hearts are far away from Me. [Thus,] they worship Me in vain, teaching for doctrine the commandments of men’ ” (Matt. 15:7-9). Jesus applied Isaiah’s prophecy to the scribes and Pharisees of His day, but the passage is just as applicable to today’s Anglo-American “Christianity.”

Likewise, the prophet Jeremiah wrote: “An astounding and horrible thing has happened in the land. The prophets [pastors] prophesy [teach] falsely … and My people love to have it so…” (Jer. 5:30-31). They love to hear “soft doctrine”—“smooth things”—but nothing that will prick their consciences.

Ezekiel also wrote of such “churchgoers”: “[The] children of your people are … speaking to one another, each man to his brother, saying, ‘I pray you, come and hear what is the word [preached] which comes forth from the LORD.’ And they come to you [pastors] as the people [have traditionally] come, and they sit before you as My people [on Sunday mornings], and they hear your words. But they will not do them.”

Why? “For with their mouth they show much love”—again, they say all the right things, they sound like Christians—“but their heart goes after their covetousness” (Ezek. 33:30-31). They still covet this world and its culture—while fooling themselves into thinking they are somehow real “Christians.” Indeed, churchgoers love to talk about Jesus as their Lord. But not every person who does so will enter the Kingdom of God—only the ones who do the will of the Father (Matt. 7:21; Luke 6:46).

As a whole, modern “Christianity” has failed to meet the spiritual needs of its members. Rather than being a sanctuary for the spiritual growth and development of its followers, “Church-anity” seems narrowly fixated on image, public relations and membership drives. Unwittingly, its leaders have created a “Christianity” that emphasizes form over substance. Meanwhile, as corruption, politics and negligence plague churches, congregations are slowly but steadily consumed by worldliness. Having lost touch with the real-life issues churchgoers are facing, pastors and church leaders seem oblivious to the reality that so-called “Christians” today are no different than unbelievers.

Considering the state of “Christianity” in modern-day Ephraim and Manasseh, how will God judge our nations?

APPENDIX 8 NOTES

1. Julia Duin, Quitting Church, p. 18

2. Duin, pp. 11-12

3. Duin, p. 37

4. Drew Dyck, “The ‘Leavers’: Young Doubters Exit the Church,” www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010/november/27.40.html?start=1

5. “Churchgoing in the UK,” www.whychurch.org.uk/trends.php. Based on a ten-year census study concluded in 2011, the UK magazine Standpoint concluded that “Britain’s historic national religion is in freefall.” The census revealed that since 2001 those claiming to be Christian has dropped from 72 percent to 59 percent. It also showed that the overall number of Christians in England and Wales has dropped from 37 million to 33 million. See “A Census that Revealed Our Troubling Future,” Douglas Murray, Standpoint (March 2013); www.standpointmag.co.uk/features-march-13-census-thatrevealed-a-troubling-future-douglas-murray-immigration-multiculturalismrace-ethnicity?page=3

6. “Endangered Religion,” Neue (June-July 2011)

7. Duin, pp. 20, 32

8. Chuck Baldwin, “Ear Tickling, Entertainment, and Irrelevant Exposition,” www.NewsWithViews.com; www.chuckbaldwinlive.com

9. David Kupelian, The Marketing of Evil, p. 226, quoting The Great Evangelical Disaster by Francis Schaeffer

10. Kupelian, p. 228

11. Kevin Swanson, Apostate: The Men Who Destroyed the Christian West, pp. 10, 35

12. Swanson, p. 271

13. Swanson, p. 33

14. Swanson, p. 283

15. Kupelian, p. 240

16. Jared Wilson, Your Jesus Is Too Safe, pp. 6, 14

17. George Barna, Revolution, p. 31

18. Barna, pp. 32-33

19. Tyler Charles, “(Almost) Everyone’s Doing It,” Relevant (Sept. 2011)

20. Charles, “(Almost) Everyone’s Doing It.”

21. Dyck, “The ‘Leavers’: Young Doubters Exit the Church”

22. David Kinnaman, unChristian, pp. 46-47

23. Kinnaman, p. 47

24. Dyck, “The ‘Leavers’: Young Doubters Exit the Church”

25. Kinnaman, pp. 75-76

26. Kinnaman, p. 74

27. Kupelian, pp. 235, 239

28. Duin, p. 116

APPENDIX NINE

Germany—Modern Counterpart to Ancient Assyria

The great Assyrian Empire fell in 612 BC. The generally accepted theory among historians is that what remained of Assyria was subsequently absorbed into the Babylonian and Median Empires. Thus, it is assumed that the Assyrians no longer exist as a people—or do they? As this appendix will show, a remnant of the Assyrian people actually survived the destruction of their empire and reestablished themselves in Europe. We know them today as the modern Germans.

Ancient Assyria was the principal enemy of the northern House of Israel—ultimately destroying Samaria and taking the Israelites captive. As Assyria’s modern-day counterpart, Germany has been a thorn in the sides of both America and Britain—in two world wars. Today, Germany is again on the rise and is rapidly emerging as a dominant player on the world scene. Astonishingly, the Bible predicts that history will repeat itself: Germany, this time leading a powerful European super-state (Dan. 7:7, 23-24; Rev. 13:1-2; 17:12-13, 17), will resume its ancient Assyrian role as adversary of modern Israel. Indeed, the future of the Anglo-American nations—as well as the modern Jewish nation of Israel—is bound to that of Germany.

As brought out in Chapter 16, there is a definite duality to many of the biblical prophecies dealing with the nation of Israel. In Isaiah chapter 10, for example, we see that God chose to use the nation of Assyria as His “rod” of correction on the rebellious House of Israel (verses 5-6)—allowing Israel to be taken into captivity by that warring nation. But the chapter also indicates a second, much later captivity for Israel—also at the hands of the Assyrians. Isaiah speaks of a time when the Messiah will rule in righteousness from Jerusalem—clearly in the age to come (Isa. 11:1-10). Within that context, he writes:

“And it shall come to pass in that day”—the time of Christ’s return to deliver Israel and establish the Kingdom of God— “the LORD shall again set His hand, the second time, to recover the remnant of His people…. And He shall lift up a banner for the nations, and shall gather the outcasts of Israel and gather together the scattered ones of Judah from the four corners of the earth…. And there shall be a highway for the [return of the] remnant of His people, those left from Assyria, as it was to Israel in the day that he came up out of the land of Egypt” (verses 11-12, 16).

The prophet’s reference to a “second time” contrasts this latter-day deliverance with Israel’s original liberation from Egyptian slavery. But there are significant differences. In this modern-day captivity, Israel and Judah are mentioned independently—the “outcasts of Israel” and the “scattered ones of Judah.” Moreover, they are rescued not from Egypt or the Middle East, but from the “four corners of the earth”—indicating that this future exile is widespread. Finally, note that this latter-day remnant of captives are “left from Assyria.” To be sure, God will once again use the Assyrians—the “rod of His anger”—to bring corrective punishment on modern Israel: the Jewish nation and the Anglo-American peoples.

Back in Isaiah 10, God gives this comforting promise: “O My people who dwell in Zion”—or in America and Britain—“do not fear the Assyrians. They will strike you with the rod of defeat, and will lift up the staff of slavery against you just as Egypt did. But it will only last for a little while—and finally My indignation for your many sins will be satisfied, and My anger will then be turned to Assyria’s destruction. I will stir up a scourge against them like the great slaughter of the Midianites at the rock of Oreb; and as My rod was once lifted up over the Red Sea to deliver you from Egypt, I will likewise deliver you from Assyria. And in that day of My wrath [the Day of the Lord], you will again be released from bondage to slavery” (Isa. 10:24-27; author’s paraphrase).

As emphasized in Chapter 16, the northern ten tribes of Israel were never restored from their Assyrian captivity. Accordingly, this prophecy, and others like it, can only refer to a future captivity of modern Israel—the Anglo-American peoples, along with the Jews. Clearly, God has a future role for “Assyria.”[1] Thus, contrary to historians, Assyria was not assimilated by other nations—its descendants must exist as a modern state.

History of Ancient Assyria

The original Assyrian nation developed from the ancient city-state of Ashur, which was named for its founder Asshur, a son of Shem[2]—one of Noah’s three sons (Gen. 10:1, 22; Asshur was a brother of Arphaxad, the progenitor of Abraham, Gen. 11:10–26). There is a connection between Nimrod, who was of Ham, and Assyria (Ashur and Assyria are essentially the same word; in fact, Asshur can refer to the man, the city, Assyria, or the Assyrians’ chief deity, which they worshipped as the god of war). In the KJV, Genesis 10:11 seems to say that Asshur built Nineveh, which became the foremost city of Assyria. But a widely-accepted alternate translation indicates that Nimrod was the founder: “Out of that land [Babylon] he [Nimrod] went forth to Assyria, and [he] built Nineveh.” Moreover, Micah 5:6 apparently refers to Assyria as the “land of Nimrod.” In his Old Testament History, Charles Pfeiffer writes that Nimrod “moved northward [from Babel] to [help] colonize Assyria, building Nineveh and other cities there.”[3]

Nevertheless, Asshur is credited with developing the region into a powerful empire—Assyria. Josephus writes: “Ashur lived at the city [of] Nineve; and named his subjects Assyrians, who became the most fortunate nation, beyond others.”[4] Assyria literally means “land of Asshur” and denotes strength or power. As Josephus indicates, Assyria became a “most fortunate nation”—wealthy, militarily powerful, and dominant in the ancient Middle East.

Assyria eventually went into significant decline. Consequently, for about the next 1200 years, Egypt dominated the Middle East. But Assyria did not disappear. Around 1000 BC, the “neo-Assyrian” Empire began to emerge. This is the empire that would eventually conquer northern Israel, taking her tribes into captivity. By 800 BC, a resurgent Assyria was ready to dominate most of the then-known world. A new dynasty, commencing with Tiglath-pileser III in about 745 BC, brought Nineveh to the world stage. The Encyclopedia Britannica notes: “Under Tiglath-pileser III arose the second Assyrian empire, which differed from the first in its greater consolidation. For the first time in history, the idea of centralization was introduced into [state] politics…. The Assyrian forces became a standing army, which, by successive improvements and careful discipline, was molded into an irresistible fighting machine.”[5]

Almost every historian has noted the warmongering nature of the ancient Assyrians. In his History of the World, James McCabe writes that the Assyrians were a “fierce, treacherous race, delighting in the dangers of the chase and in war. The Assyrian troops were notably among the most formidable of ancient warriors.”[6] The Cambridge Ancient History adds: “The might of Assyria is the characteristic feature of the new period which opens after the Iron Age has fully set in. She is a military state with a strong will and a deliberate [annexationist] policy, expanding in all directions, and forming one of the most remarkable empires of antiquity.”[7]

Ultimately, God used the Assyrians as the “rod of His anger”—to take the rebellious House of Israel into captivity. Shalmaneser V initiated a three-year siege (completed under Sargon II) in which Samaria fell in 722 BC. As a nation, Israel ceased to exist; its entire population was deported and relocated in distant lands—in Halah, Habor, Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes (II Kings 17:5-6).

But the mighty Assyrian Empire was soon to go into decline, having stretched itself militarily too thin. A growing Babylon and Media—aided by Israelite Scythians warriors—were bent on her destruction, which finally came in 612 BC with the fall of Nineveh. From this point historians believe the Assyrians disappeared from history, being mostly assimilated into the newly-dominant Babylonian Empire. There is evidence, however, that many Assyrians—including some of her nobles and military leaders—survived and migrated to the north.

Assyrian Migration Into Europe

Following the fall of Nineveh, a sizeable remnant of Assyrians fled to the west, taking refuge at an old fortress at Harran. Directly northwest of Nineveh, Harran was located near the Euphrates in what is today northern Syria.[8] Pfeiffer writes: “The Assyrians retreated westward to the ancient city of Harran, but it too fell to the Babylonians and their allies [in] 610 BC.” The Assyrian king, Ashur-uballit II, tried to retake Harran but failed. Thus, “the fall of Harran was the final death blow to the Assyrian Empire.”[9]

Describing the end of the empire in stark detail, the prophet Nahum says her survivors were “scattered upon the mountains” (Nahum 3:18). This indicates that the Assyrians ultimately fled almost directly north to the only safe haven left—the mountains that spread across what is today Armenia and Georgia. Indeed, the Caucasus had served as a sanctuary for migrating Israelites just a few decades earlier. Concerning an earlier time, we read in II Kings 19 that Sennacherib, king of Assyria, was killed by his sons—who then fled “into the land of Armenia” (verses 36-37). Again, this shows that the rugged land between the Black and Caspian Seas was favored as a place of refuge.

The historian Sylax, from around 530 BC, wrote that “the [southern] coast of the Black Sea … is called Assyria.”[10] But the Assyrian Empire never reached as far north as the Black Sea; Sylax could only be referring to “transitional” settlements along the coasts of the Black Sea that suggest an Assyrian migration out of the Middle East. From the Caucasus region, the Assyrians apparently migrated further north, to the upper shores of the Black Sea. Pliny the Elder (23–79 AD) wrote in his Natural History that, in his time, the “Assyriani” lived north of the Black Sea.[11] This indicates an Assyrian migration into Europe. (Few tribes migrating out of the Middle East attempted to relocate to the east—for that overcrowded region was dominated by barbaric clans that were already beginning to invade Europe.) Aware of the various Celtic, Scythian, and Hunnish tribes that were steadily moving from the east into Europe, the Latin scholar Jerome (340-420 AD) wrote that “Assur also is joined with them.” Remember, Assur is another name for Assyria. Apparently, Jerome was an eyewitness to the Assyrian migration into Europe from areas around the Black Sea.[12]

It is evident that an Assyrian remnant survived the destruction of Nineveh and eventually made its way to the Caucasus-Black Sea region. Centuries later, these Assyrian clans—along with other so-called “Germanic” tribes, including Israelites—migrated into central and western Europe. Historians typically fail to connect displaced Assyrian survivors with the ancient tribes migrating into Europe from the east. But a number of researchers are now willing to consider the possibility that Assyrians did migrate into western Europe—and that they may well be predecessors of the modern Germans. For example, Steven Collins, whose work has been cited numerous times in this book, has come to the conclusion that “the Germanii … were originally Assyrians.”[13] Moreover, in his 300-page book The Great German Nation, Craig White goes to great lengths to prove the Assyrian origin of the German peoples.

The History of Germany

Like the modern Israelites, the German people—who number over 100 million worldwide—are made up of numerous tribes. Today, most of them reside in Germany and Austria.

As part of the extensive Indo-European race, German tribes migrated into Europe from the Caucasus and Black Sea regions. Smith’s Classical Dictionary notes: “There can be no doubt that [the Germans] … migrated into Europe from the Caucasus and the countries around the Black and Caspian Seas.”[14] Smith says they were described as being of tall stature with fair complexions, blue eyes, and blonde or red hair—much like those who settled the northern and eastern regions of Germany.

Much was written about the early German tribes that migrated into Europe throughout the first and second centuries AD, thanks primarily to the Roman historian Tacitus. Prior to his time, historical writings concerning the Germans are rather sketchy and often contradictory. One of the problems in researching the Germans is the term Germani (or Germanii). As Collins notes, “the term ‘German’ [or Germani] eventually came to be applied to many tribes of people migrating into Europe.”[15] This is similar to how the term Scythian was used to describe a number of different nomadic clans. As numerous sources show, the Romans originally coined the term Germani in order to distinguish between invading Sarmatians and Israelite Scythians. With the appearance of non-Israelite Sarmatians in the region once occupied almost exclusively by Scythians, the Romans found it necessary to introduce a new name for those tribes they considered to be genuine Scythians. Strabo documents the change, explaining that germani was a Latin word meaning genuine or authentic in terms of race (from germanus, meaning “genuine” or “of the same parents”).[16] The Romans were simply attempting to indicate that the Israelite-Scythians were the genuine Scythians, not the Sarmatians. But as Collins notes, the term came to be used almost indiscriminately of Indo-European clans in general, essentially only distinguishing them from the Asia hordes of the East. (Today, the word Germanic refers to any group that is part of the Indo-European language family.)

Consequently, while many historical references to Celtic or Scythian Israelites employ the term Germani (as found in the writings of Strabo, for example), it is also used by other writers to refer to non-Israelite clans— including Assyrians. Thus, when the reader sees Germani, it is often unclear as to the exact identity of the tribe being discussed.

However, as the bulk of the Scythian Germani began migrating into Scandinavia and the British Isles, they came to be primarily identified by clannish names: Angles, Saxons, Danes, etc. It appears that over time “Germani” came to refer more and more to the Caucasus-based tribes that remained behind to dominate western Europe—primarily the Assyrian- Germans. By the end of the last century BC, a sharp distinction was beginning to be drawn between what we now know as German clans and Israelite clans, especially those Celtic groups associated with Gaul. Thus, many later historians use the term Germani (as well as Germania) to refer not to Israelite (or other) clans, but to Assyrian Germani.

For example, the Encyclopedia Britannica Online notes that “it was not until the first century BC was well advanced that the Romans learned to distinguish precisely between the Germans and the Celts, a distinction that [was] made with great clarity by Julius Caesar.”[17] Thus, “the concept of Germany as a distinct region in central Europe can be traced to the Roman commander Julius Caesar, who referred to the unconquered area east of the Rhine as Germania, thus distinguishing it from Gaul (France), which he had conquered.”[18] Owing to the fierceness of the German tribes in this area, the Romans were unable to incorporate Germania into their empire. Caesar’s “Germania” included the area north of the upper Danube and east of the Rhine—not unlike the boundaries of today’s German state. The areas west of the Rhine were mainly Celtic.[19] “Germania was inhabited by different tribes, most of them Germanic [here, the writer actually means German], but also some Celtic, proto-Slavic, Baltic, and Scythian peoples. The tribal and ethnic makeup changed over the centuries as a result of assimilation and, most importantly, migrations.”[20] Indeed, as Israelite clans migrated further north into Scandinavia and west into the British Isles—or were pushed to the south into Gaul, etc.—the “tribal and ethnic makeup” of Germania became less diverse. In fact, once the German tribes arrested the westward drive of the Huns, their clans became dominant in the region—making Germania truly German.[21]

In describing some of the differences between the German tribes and the Celtic Gauls to their south, Caesar wrote: “The Gauls, although warlike, could be civilized, but the Germanic tribesmen were far more savage and were a [continual] threat to Rome.”[22] After the fall of Rome in 476 AD, German clans began to expand to the south. As a consequence, subsequent “revivals” of the Roman Empire were heavily German.

Tacitus’ Germania, published in 98 AD, is in many ways a more complete account than the one provided by Caesar. Tacitus studied the clans that had settled along the empire’s northern frontier, carefully documenting their tribal distinctions. Key tribes noted by Tacitus include the Chatti, Chauci, Cherusci, Suebi, Semnones, Langobardi, Marcomanni, Treveri, Tungri, etc. The third century saw the emergence of a number of larger German tribes: the Alamanni, Bavarii, Frisii, Sicambri, and Thuringii.

Links Between Assyria and Germany

A number of connections exist between the ancient nation of Assyria and modern-day Germany—cultural, geographical, appearance-related, etc. Some demonstrate how Germany’s cultural history and national character— more than any other modern nation—resemble that of ancient Assyria.

Looking at Germany’s origins, for example, there is an interesting legend concerning the nation’s oldest city, Trier (located on the Mosel River in Rhineland-Palatinate, in western Germany). While “official” records claim Trier was built by the Romans, the legend has it that Trier was built some 4000 years ago by the Assyrian prince Trebeta, a son of the Assyrian king Ninus (the name Trier is said to be derived from Trebeta). Translated, a medieval inscription on the façade of the “Red House” at Trier Market reads: “Thirteen hundred years before Rome, Trier stood; may it stand on and enjoy eternal peace; amen.” Archives state that Trebeta was the son of Ninus, a “king of Assyria.”[23] Apparently, Trebeta left Assyria and led a group of colonizers to Europe, thus founding the Assyrian colony of Trier.

Rome was founded in 753 BC. This places the founding of Trier at around 2000 BC. In his History, Diodorus of Sicily confirms that Ninus was an Assyrian king.[24] The Assyrian Nineveh means “abode of Ninus.” Since Nimrod apparently built Nineveh (Gen. 10:11), this suggests he was also known as Ninus—and Nimrod would have lived around 2000 BC. Is it possible that a son of Nimrod—the mighty hunter who founded Nineveh, the great city of ancient Assyria—actually founded Trier, thus establishing the location to which exiled Assyrians would later migrate?

Concerning physical appearance, when the ancient Greeks wanted to differentiate between Assyrians and other peoples living in Mesopotamia, they called the Assyrians Leucosyri—i.e., white or blonde. Strabo notes that the Germani inhabiting Europe were not only taller than the Celts, they also tended to have lighter, yellowish hair. These physical characteristics are still prevalent in the modern German race. [25]

An important German tribe is the Chatti (or Hatti), which in the first century AD settled in the German area known today as Hesse. The Hatti are the ancestors of the modern Hessians—known for their warlike nature. (The British hired Hessian mercenaries to fight against the colonial army during the American Revolution.) The Cambridge (etc.) notes that the Hatti were anciently settled in “eastern Asia Minor” along the western edge of the Assyrian Empire and distinguishes them from the biblical Hittites, who were of Ham (the Hattic culture, like Assyria, was Semitic). Described as a “stolid, warlike folk,” the Hatti “could work several metals, notably silver, bronze, and iron.” Scholars believe that the Hatti were closely allied with the western part of the Assyrian Empire—so close, in fact, that the two are often viewed as synonymous.[26]

In the northwest region of the empire lay Cilicia, “the province on which Assyria principally depended for the all-important metal trade.”[27] The province was part of the Hattic region of southeastern Asia Minor—and the Hatti were, as noted, skilled in metal work. The apostle Paul was born in Tarsus of Cilicia (Acts 21:39). Interestingly, a map of pre-World War II Germany will show an eastern province named Silesia.[28] The spelling is slightly different, but Silesia is pronounced exactly as Cilicia. Was the Hattic “Cilicia” transplanted to Germany by Hattic-Assyrians migrating to Europe, becoming the modern area of “Silesia”?

Strabo records that an area of Asia Minor was called Prusa. Collins writes, “If we see in their name the ancestors of the warlike Prussians who later settled in eastern Germany, it is possible that [the people of Prusa] were descendants of Assyrians … during Assyria’s period of dominance in the region [of Asia Minor].”[29] Did survivors of Assyrian Prusa migrate to Europe to become the modern Prussians?

And what of the warlike natures of both the ancient Assyrians and the modern Germans? The Britannica states that “Assyrian policy was directed towards the definite objective of reducing the whole civilized world into a single empire and thereby throwing its trade and wealth into Assyrian hands.”[30] This is uncannily similar to the “Reich” mentality championed by past German regimes. Indeed, it is apparent that the Assyrians had a “master race” mentality, as is suggested in Isaiah 10: “Are not all of my princes kings?” (verse 8). The Assyrians ruled harshly over those they conquered, and subjected leaders were forced to bow to the Assyrian kings.[31] Moreover, the Assyrians were highly nationalistic and functioned quite well under a centralized autocratic authority. Similarly, as a confederation of states or provinces, the Germans have always demonstrated a desire to dominate other nations. In fact, the German people have, more than once, believed themselves to be the “Herrenvolk”—the master race.

After the fall of Rome, German clans began to expand their sphere of influence—while growing increasingly imperialistic and utilizing a fully totalitarian style of governing; moreover, the Germans assimilated the newly formed “Christian” religion of the Romans. As the new “heirs of Rome,” the Germans under Charlemagne gave birth to the Holy Roman Empire of 800 AD. This eventually led to the centuries-long German First Reich (962-1806 AD, also called the Holy Roman Empire). The Second Reich was the Imperial German Empire of 1871 to 1918, a union of 25 German states organized under a Prussian king; the third was Hitler’s Nazi regime from 1933 to 1945.

To find Germany spearheading the effort to unite Europe today is not surprising—as this idea has been part of the German cultural heritage for more than a thousand years!

Resurgent Germany: A Future Fourth Reich?

The evidence is undeniable: The origins of modern-day Germany can be traced to the ancient nation of Assyria. Not only does history itself support this conclusion, but the culture and national character of Germany argue in favor of it as well. Not content to simply blend into the fabric of a united Europe, Germany is the undisputed leader of the continent. Given its past history, will we see Germany again try to dominate Europe and exert its influence on the world? The Bible says that is exactly what will happen.

When viewed over a period of several centuries, history reveals a marked tendency of the German people to undergo periodic and dramatic transformations in national character—with corresponding shifts in national direction. Such transformations have been nationalistic in nature, and often militaristic. Peter Zeihan notes this tendency for German history to run in cycles. He writes that “as Germany rises, the powers on its periphery buckle under its strength and are forced to pool resources in order to beat back Berlin. As Germany falters, the [resultant] power vacuum at the middle of the Continent allows the countries on Germany’s borders to rise in strength and become major powers themselves. Since the formation of the first ‘Germany’ in 800 [AD], this cycle has set the tempo and tenor of European affairs. A strong Germany means consolidation followed by a catastrophic war; a weak Germany creates a multilateral concert of powers and multi-state competition…. For Europe, this cycle of German rise and fall has run its course three times—the Holy Roman Empire, Imperial Germany, and Nazi Germany—and is only now entering its fourth iteration with the reunified Germany.”[32]

Why this German tendency? Shaped largely by a mythology offering no authentic national purpose, Germany is a nation “searching for a cause.” An inherent void seems to exist that has historically only been filled by dominating other peoples. That void was once filled by the Holy Roman Empire, and in the last century by Hitler’s National Socialist movement. Today, European unification appears to be Germany’s new cause. And, as the German nation increasingly takes center stage in European politics, many are wondering what kind of crisis it might take to push the country into an aggressive-dominant role.

Hitler rose to power during the turmoil of a worldwide depression, but his ideas were drawn from long-standing German values and traditions. For Germans, nationalistic pride and the “master race” mentality go hand-in -hand. These traditions tend to surface when the collective German mind is rallied by a real or perceived national crisis. The result can be a resurgent aggressiveness and a reawakening of past warlike behavior. European statesmen—including German leaders—are not ignorant of these German tendencies. Concerned about what European unity might ultimately look like, Margaret Thatcher, British prime minister from 1979 to 1990, famously warned Europe: “You have not anchored Germany to

Europe; you have anchored Europe to a newly dominant, unified Germany. In the end, my friends, you’ll find it will not work.” Helmut Kohl— chancellor of West Germany from 1982 to 1990, and of Germany from 1990 to 1998—was a champion of European unity. In 1994, he warned: “Never again must there be a destabilizing vacuum of power in central Europe. If European integration were not to progress, Germany might be called upon, or tempted by its own security constraints, to try to effect the [necessary] stabilization on its own and in the traditional [i.e., militaristic] way.”

What a profound warning from one of Germany’s greatest modern-day leaders! Indeed, the endless edicts and treaties issued by a faceless EU bureaucracy in Brussels have not fostered real European unity. The success of the euro is currently in peril and momentum towards a unified Europe is in danger of stalling. But be certain of this: Germany will not give up on its ambitions for a pan-European federation. Should a real European crisis present itself, Germany will no doubt be quick to stand in the gap![33]

Following the principle of prophetic duality (see Chapter 16), the Bible speaks of Assyria in the end times. These passages refer to Germany. As other passages indicate, Germany in the latter days will head up a “super union” of European nations. To be sure, Germany’s return to power in the years since World War II is no accident. “Assyria” is being prepared to once again serve as God’s “rod of correction” against the modern nations of Israel—the United States, Great Britain, and the Jewish nation.

People today scoff at the suggestion that Germany could ever again threaten the West. After all, Germany is now one of America’s top allies. But they are wrong for two reasons. First, the “blessings and curses” chapters of the Bible (Deuteronomy 28 and Leviticus 26) show that God will not bring this Assyrian “nation of fierce countenance” against the Anglo-American nations until He has first reduced us to less than third-world status through unimaginable financial collapse and violent social unrest—not to mention pandemic disease and widespread famine. As inconceivable as it may seem, there will come a time very soon when even America will be no match for this developing European superpower.

Secondly, Germany—while rapidly growing as an economic and military power in its own right—will not act alone, but will head up what is tantamount to a revived Holy Roman Empire. The prophet Daniel describes this world-dominating coalition as a powerful economic and war-making machine—one that will ultimately be destroyed by Christ at His coming and replaced by the Kingdom of God (Dan. 2:40-44; 7:7, 19-27; Rev. 17:12-14). This European “beast power” will rise out of the ashes of the old Holy Roman Empire—and, true to form, will feature a powerful religious element (Rev. 13).[34]

Led by modern Assyria, this “beast” system will dominate the entire world for a brief period of time, ultimately subjugating the American and British peoples. It will also occupy the modern Jewish state of Israel—just as foreshadowed by the Roman occupation of Jerusalem in 69-70 AD. As Revelation 11:2 says, Jerusalem will be “trodden under foot” for 42 months by this Gentile power.

But God will not allow the destruction of the very city where He has forever placed His name—nor will He allow His chosen nation to be utterly destroyed. God’s promises to Abraham are immutable: Through Christ, He will powerfully act to save Israel during this end-time crisis so that she may yet become the premier model nation of God in the age to come.

God will use modern Assyria to execute His judgment on the nations of latter-day Israel—America, Britain, and the Jewish state. Yet this German-led war-making coalition will not realize that they are being used by God. Isaiah 10:7 brings this out—“this [corrective punishment] is not what he intends, nor does he have this [divine purpose] in mind” (NRSV). In other words, Germany will not see itself as an instrument of God’s righteous judgment. The same verse continues, “but it is in his very nature to destroy many nations” (author’s paraphrase). Failing to perceive its God-ordained role, Germany will fully give in to its war-like nature; in prideful arrogance, Germany will imagine that it has acted by its own strength and shrewdness as it sets about to fully destroy modern Israel.

But God will deliver Israel and quickly turn to punish Germany, destroying its armies in a single day (verses 12-19). God says through Isaiah, “I will break Assyria in My land, and upon My mountains, and trample him under foot. Then his yoke shall be removed from [Israel], and his burden shall be taken off their shoulders” (Isa. 14:25).[35]

Of this time, the prophet writes: “And it shall come to pass, in that day [of your deliverance] … you shall be gathered one by one, O children of Israel…. In that day a great ram’s horn shall be blown, and those perishing in the land of Assyria shall come, and the outcasts in the land of Egypt shall come, and shall worship the LORD in the holy mountain at Jerusalem” (Isa. 27:12-13).

Remember, these prophecies could never apply to Israel of old—as the ten tribes were never brought back from their Assyrian captivity. These passages can only refer to a future time of crisis on modern-day Israel at the hands of modern-day Assyria.

The prophet Zechariah tells of these future developments:

“I will strengthen the house of Judah [the modern State of Israel] and I will save the house of Joseph [Britain and America]—I will restore them because of the mercy I have for them. It shall be as though I had never cast them off; for I am the LORD their God, and I will answer them [in their time of trouble]. Ephraim shall once again be a mighty one, and their hearts shall rejoice as through wine. Their children shall see this and be glad, and their heart shall rejoice in the LORD. I will call for them and gather them—for I have redeemed them. They shall increase and become numerous once again. Though I have scattered them among the nations [in corrective punishment], they will remember Me—even in distant lands. They and their children will survive, and they will return to Me. I will deliver them out of the land of Egypt, and I will gather them out of Assyria. I will bring them into the land of Gilead and Lebanon, until there is no room left…. And I will humble the proud Assyrians, and the scepter of Egypt shall be no more. I will strengthen My people in the LORD, and they shall live in My name” (Zech. 10:6–12; author’s paraphrase).

Amazingly, the Bible also shows that God will yet use Germany as a leading nation for peace in the age to come. “In that day, Israel shall be the third with Egypt and with Assyria, a blessing in the midst of the land, whom the LORD of hosts has blessed, saying, ‘Blessed be My people Egypt, and Assyria the work of My hands, and Israel My inheritance’ ” (Isa. 19:24–25).

APPENDIX 9 NOTES

1. Modern-day “Assyria” will not only serve as God’s “rod of correction” on end-time Israel, they will play a wonderful role in the kingdom age (see Isa. 19:24–25).

2. The word “Semitic” is an adjective derived from the name Shem—or, more precisely, from the Greek version, Sem. Thus, the Assyrians were (and are) of Semitic origin.

3. Charles E. Pfeiffer, Old Testament History, p. 22.

4. Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, bk. 1, ch. 6, sec. 4. In ancient times, legendary figures such as Asshur were worshipped as gods. Thus, Assur became the supreme god of the Assyrian pantheon.

5. The Encyclopedia Britannica (1911 edition), www.1911encyclopedia.org/Babylonia_and_Assyria

6. James McCabe, History of the World, vol. 1, p. 155. In The Great German Nation, Craig White notes that the Assyrian armies were highly “submissive to their centralized authority.” He writes: “Their military discipline and political organization were unique in the Semitic world” (p. 72). Concerning their love of war, he adds: “The kings of Assyria, far from hiding their barbarity, loved to boast of their shocking cruelty during military campaigns … for war was their favorite occupation” (p. 79).

7. Cambridge Ancient History, vol. 3, “The Assyrian Empire,” p. 1

8. Cambridge, p. 130

9. Pfeiffer, pp. 385, 343

10. Sylax, the Greek explorer, is quoted by Dr. Herman L. Hoeh in his 1969 Compendium of World History, vol. 2, p. 4. The Greek historian Diodorus Siculus of Sicily also records that the Assyrians had settled along the southern coast of the Black Sea near Pontus.

11. Pliny, Natural History, vol. 4, section 12, p. 183; quoted by Hoeh, p. 4.

12. Craig M. White, The Great German Nation, p. 95. White is quoting from Jerome’s Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, letter 123, sec. 16. Jerome was partly borrowing a phrase from Psalm 83:8.

13. Steven Collins, The “Lost” Ten Tribes of Israel—Found!, p. 341

14. Smith’s Classical Dictionary, “Germania”; quoted by Hoeh, p. 3.

15. Collins, p. 343

16. Edmund Filmer, “Our Scythian Ancestors,” www.ensignmessage.com/archives/scythianancestors.html; Des Thomas, America—the Last Frontier for Manasseh, p. 117.

17. www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/231063/Germanic-peoples

18. www.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Germany

19. www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germania

20. www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germania

21. Essentially, the term German was a name thrust upon the Assyrian- Germani. It was not at all a name of their choosing. By the end of the tenth century AD, the term diutisc came to be used of Germans—from which is derived the modern deutsch, meaning “of the people.” Today, Germans call themselves Deutsch and their country Deutschland. Dr. Hoeh links the name deutsch to an individual named “Tuisco” or “Tuitsch,” noting that early annals identify him as “the progenitor of all Germans” (Compendium, p. 5). Though the evidence is sketchy, other researchers link Tuitsch with Asshur.

22. www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germania

23. www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trier

24. Diodorus Siculus, Library of History; referenced by Hoeh, p. 4.

25. On the Assyrian Leucosyri, see Hoeh, p. 4. Strabo (Geography, 7.1.2) is referenced in William Fink’s “Classical Records and German Origins,” part 1, p. 4; see www.christogenea.org/essays/classical-records-and-germanorigins-part-one.

26. Cambridge, pp. 153-154. White (who refers to these Hatti as Hittites) notes that the Assyrian Empire “stretched into and absorbed” the Hattic colonies and that the two had become so interrelated that the Hatti were considered Assyrian (p. 105). Moreover, he writes that “the iron cross and the swastika sun-cross … feature very prominently in [Hattic] art and daily life. The double-headed eagle … featured also prominently, as did the extended arm salute.” He notes that Hattic artwork shows men raising their arms in a salute to a seated deity (p. 106). These same symbols also featured prominently in Hitler’s Nazi regime.

27. Cambridge, p. 43

28. Dr. Herman L. Hoeh, “Germany in Prophecy,” Plain Truth (Jan. 1963). Silesia is a region of central Europe centered in the upper Oder Valley, now largely in southwestern Poland.

29. Collins, p. 342

30. www.1911encyclopedia.org/Babylonia_and_Assyria

31. The Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III, for example, depicts five subdued kings prostrate before the Assyrian king. See www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Obelisk_of_Shalmaneser_III.

32. White, p. 9, quoting Peter Zeihan in an article on Russia, “The Coming Era of Russia’s Dark Rider” (2007).

33. Russia’s recent power grab in the Ukraine already has Brussels clamoring for a unified EU military. As Russia continues in its efforts to resurrect its old Soviet Empire, Europe will increasingly find itself threatened. Eventually, some kind of crisis—political, economic, military, or a combination thereof—will cause Germany to assume an aggressive leadership position, ultimately leading to a European super-state.

34. Daniel also refers to this end-time “beast” as the “king of the north” (Dan. 11:40). Prophetic perspectives are always given from the vantage point of Jerusalem. Ancient Assyria was north of Jerusalem; the Seleucid empire of Antiochus Epiphanes (the “king of the north” in type) was to the north; and, of course, Rome and Germany are northwest of Palestine. Bible prophecy also refers to a “king of the south” (Dan. 11:40), which in the latter days will likely be an Arab union led by Egypt. The biblical “kings of the east” (Rev. 16:12) represent an Asian conglomeration led by Russia and China (compare Dan. 11:44).

35. Similarly, when the Assyrians came against Jerusalem during the reign of Hezekiah, God delivered the city by destroying virtually the entire Assyrian army in a single night (II Kings 19; note verses 34-35).

APPENDIX TEN

America as Ephraim—An Alternate View

Among those who teach that America and Britain are the recipients of the birthright promises passed on to Joseph, the “traditional view” is that the British Empire represented the fullness of the promise that Ephraim would become a “company of nations.” (Since the Empire no longer exists, many now feel that the United Kingdom is Ephraim.) Likewise, America is seen as the fulfillment of the promise that Manasseh would become a single “great nation.” There are, however, a number of convincing arguments that have been put forth suggesting that America is Ephraim and that Britain is Manasseh. This approach—which initially gained a considerable measure of support in the early 1900s—deserves a fair hearing, as several of its points are quite plausible.

Writers sometimes choose to ignore alternate or opposing views on a subject. But to do so knowingly is not only a disservice to the reader, it also compromises the writer’s credibility. Thus, in the interest of thoroughness, credibility, and fairness, this appendix will present the more compelling of these “alternate view” arguments.

Remember that historical facts are just that, facts. But it is how we interpret those facts that often leads us to differing conclusions. As the reader will see, this issue ultimately comes down to how one chooses to interpret the facts concerning America and Britain.

A Key Argument

We read in Genesis 48 that Ephraim was to become a “multitude” of nations—and was to be greater than Manasseh (verse 19). Back in Genesis 35, we read: “And God said to [Jacob], ‘I am God Almighty. Be fruitful and multiply. A nation and a company of nations shall be from you, and kings shall come out of your loins’ ” (verse 11). The word company literally means an organized group or assembly—even a commonwealth. Moreover, Deuteronomy 33:17 indicates that Ephraim would comprise a far greater population than Manasseh. In most translations the verse reads, “they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh.” The Hebrew for “ten thousands” actually means myriads—simply indicating a great number (see Young’s, NRSV, etc.). Thus, while a ten-to-one ratio is not at all implied, a significant disparity does exist between thousands and myriads. Clearly, the meaning is that Ephraim would have a much greater population than Manasseh.[1]

A key “alternate view” argument centers on the fact that Jacob’s offspring was to grow into a “company of nations”—hence the wording, “shall be from you.” In Genesis 48:19, it expressly says that Ephraim’s seed would become a multitude of nations. Yet only a small percentage of the British Empire’s population was actually of British origin—was of Jacob, or of Ephraim. At its height around 1922, the Empire ruled over some 460 million subjects. But only Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa were appreciably populated with Anglo-Saxon and Celtic peoples; the overwhelming majority—the millions of India, Burma, the vast swaths of Africa, etc.—were clearly non-Israelite. Thus, the majority of Ephraim’s supposed “company of nations” were not of Ephraim—not of Jacob.

Ultimately, Britain’s expansion across the world was in power, not in “seed.” While Britain ruled numerous territories, she did not replace the indigenous peoples of those areas with peoples of Israelite descent. But when it comes to fulfilling the promises made to Jacob, it is irrelevant that Britain ruled over millions of subjects; what matters—based on Genesis 35:11 and 48:19—is how many were of Jacob. For the Empire to qualify as modern Ephraim, it would have needed a much greater population than America—counting only those of Israelite origin. Even today, the combined populations of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand scarcely exceed 100 million (and this includes non-Israelite immigrants). Thus, the population of America—now at just over 317 million—far exceeds that of the Israelite portion of the British Empire or the current Commonwealth (and greatly exceeds the mere 60 million of the UK). So which actually had the myriads of peoples—Britain or America?

A counter-argument to this line of reasoning is that America itself is made up of a great number of non-Israelite immigrants. While this is true, the difference lies in the fact that, in the past, immigrants to America came to this land to become Americans—to be “grafted in.” By contrast, the millions of the British Empire were never more than subjects of imperial expansion.

The United States—a “Company of Nations”?

If we only count the nations of the British Empire whose populations were truly of Israelite origin, we have a rather small “company” indeed. By comparison, the United States is a “company” of 50 nation-states—with a comparative myriad of peoples (317 million). Even the name supports this conclusion: United suggests a union or company, and State is just another word for nation (hence, we speak of “heads of state”).[2]

From the inception of the United States as a republic, its states were looked upon as possessing a high degree of independence. Only in modern times—essentially as a consequence of the Civil War—has the U.S. been thought of as a single nation. In fact, the idea of the states uniting in order to form a nation was contrary to the founders’ purposes. Their intent, as revealed in numerous founding documents, was to form a union of states that shared a common central government—one designed to serve the collective interests of the states as allowed by the U.S. Constitution. Notice this remarkable statement from the Encyclopedia Britannica: “The United States consists of 48 separate and theoretically sovereign states which are joined together by a federal government to which the original 13 states delegated certain powers as outlined in the federal constitution adopted in 1787.”[3] This “federal government” was never meant (as is often the case today) to supercede the authority of the state. Throughout the Constitution, the phrase “United States”—repeatedly used in contrast to “the several States”—refers overwhelmingly to the federal government, not to a single nation. Moreover, the Constitution never speaks of “citizens” of the United States—until it comes to the 14th Amendment. Before this amendment was created and adopted, Americans were considered to be citizens of their own respective states.

This separation of the states from the central government can also be seen in various high court rulings. For example, in Bevans vs. the United States (1818), the court wrote: “In the United States of America, there are two (2) separated and distinct jurisdictions, such being the jurisdiction of the states within their own state boundaries, and the other being the federal jurisdiction (United States), which is limited to the District of Columbia, the U.S. Territories, and federal enclaves within the states, under Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 [of the Constitution].” This ruling reflects the pre-Civil War mindset that the states were fundamentally independent of the “federal government.”

Those who favor the “traditional view” cite the proclamation made in America’s “Pledge of Allegiance”—that the U.S. is “one nation, under God, indivisible.” But does this prove that America cannot be Ephraim? The U.S. motto is e pluribus unum—“out of many, one.” But is this one nation, or one union? Ultimately, the foundation of the United States rests on the Constitution, not on later pledges and mottos. Still, it is rightly argued that a number of modern nations (Russia, Germany, etc.) are actually composed of states or provinces—yet they are each considered to be one nation.

The original thirteen colonies were quite independent. Had they not formed a union, they—like Canada, also once a New World colony—would have likely gone on to develop into fully independent nations. However, according to “alternate view” arguments, the current “union of states” was necessary in order to fulfill the Abrahamic promise that Ephraim would grow into a “company of nations.” As a union, the U.S. has functioned well with open commerce and freedom of travel between states. On the federal level, the states have benefited from a centralized taxation plan, adhered to union-wide international trade polices, participated in a common military, and shared in a common foreign policy. Interestingly, none of this can be said of the British Empire: Taxation and trade policies were never uniform across the Empire; foreign policy (dictated by London) was not always in the best interests of the colonies and territories; and there was no shared military. In reality, the Empire never functioned as a true commonwealth, and the one feature that predominantly united the Empire was that the colonies looked to the British monarchy as their head of state.

By contrast, the original American colonies (each one sovereign in its own right) contracted together as equals to form a union with a federal government—an example of a true commonwealth. This begs the question: Was the British Empire—which was only scarcely populated by Israelites— really the biblical “company of nations” representing Ephraim? Or, does not the United States of America better fit that prophetic description?

Ephraim “set before” Manasseh

Genesis 48:20 observes that Jacob “set Ephraim before Manasseh.” According to the “traditional view,” this means that Ephraim was not only favored in terms of greatness, but that his blessings were to be realized first. In other words, Ephraim would rise to prominence first, with Manasseh’s blessings following later. And this certainly appears to have been the case: The British Empire rose to worldwide prominence first, with America ascending to greatness only after the Empire had fallen into decline.

However, those who favor the “alternate view” rightly note that the Hebrew of this passage says nothing about time sequence; the clear meaning is that Ephraim—not being the firstborn—was uncharacteristically favored with a much greater blessing.[4] Even so, the biblical tradition of honoring the firstborn first would have been upheld (Deuteronomy 21:15-17 supports the principle that the rights of the firstborn were never to be violated). Thus, as the firstborn, Manasseh would have received his “lesser” blessing first.

In fact, the actual wording of Genesis 48:19 suggests that Joseph’s sons would become a “great nation” and a “company of nations”—in that order. Manasseh, as one would expect, is mentioned first, then Ephraim. As per the “alternate view,” this is exactly what history records: As Manasseh, Britain came to greatness first, followed later by Ephraim-America, who was to surpass his older brother in greatness, wealth, and military might.

Separated by Time—or Contemporaneous?

According to the “traditional view,” America began to rise rapidly to prominence only after the British Empire had fallen into serious decline. In essence, the latter succeeded the former. This, of course, means that modern Ephraim and Manasseh did not actually share the world stage together—but were significantly separated by time. It is argued, however, that Genesis 48 suggests that Ephraim and Manasseh should be viewed contemporaneously. In other words, both the “great nation” and the “company of nations” were to appear on the world stage within the same time frame.

But what “time frame” would that be?

Immediately following Jacob’s blessing of Joseph’s two sons is the patriarch’s prophecy for Israel in the “latter days” (Gen. 49:1). This suggests that we are to view the promises concerning Ephraim and Manasseh in an end-time context. The British Empire reached its zenith in the early 1900s— after its “imperial century” of growth. Following World War II, the Empire began to rapidly unravel; meanwhile, circumstances dictated that America rise to fill the void left by Britain. But the 1800s were hardly the “latter days.” Thus, it would appear that the British Empire was virtually gone by the time the “latter days” arrived.[5]

Are we to assume that only America, as Manasseh, was to be great during the latter days? Was not Ephraim to be a great “company” of nations in the latter days as well? But how could the British Empire qualify—its glory days were the 18th and 19th centuries? Are we to believe that the great “company of nations” has been reduced, in the latter days, to the British Commonwealth or the UK? As a union of nations, Ephraim was to be a world superpower in the latter days. Neither the Commonwealth nor the UK fit this description.

What “company” or “union” of nation-states has truly been a great superpower in the latter days? And what “great nation”—just like an “older brother” would—has always been by its side?

If we consider the “alternate view,” we have throughout the closing decades of the 20th century a “great nation” (Great Britain—without its empire, but still a global leader) and a “union of nations” (the United States) side by side—both dominating the world at the same time, in what many consider to be the “latter days.” This approach seems to best fit the context of Genesis 48-49.

The Greatness of Ephraim

The very name Ephraim means “doubly fruitful.” Traditionally, the prosperity of the British Empire is seen as the fulfillment of this aspect of Ephraim’s blessing. Indeed, at its height it was the most expansive empire in the history of the world, holding sway over some 460 million people—a fifth of the world’s population at the time—and covering almost a quarter of the earth’s total land area. Moreover, following the defeat of Napoleonic France in 1815, Britain enjoyed a century of almost unchallenged global dominance through its invincible Royal Navy.

As a result of her worldwide colonization accomplishments, British political, legal, linguistic, and cultural influences are widespread. Practically every corner of the earth has been affected by the British Empire—and almost always for the better.

However, proponents of the “alternate view” contend that national greatness is not determined by such factors as total land mass or numbers of subjects ruled (we have already noted that the British Empire was composed predominately of non-Israelites). Instead, Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is touted as a better indicator of overall wealth. Comparing the past GDP of the British Empire to the current U.S. GDP is no easy task, but we can look at the GDP of Britain as an indication. In theory, Britain’s past economic output should reflect the prosperity of the Empire. In 1870, the U.S. and Britain both shared about the same percentage of world GDP. But by 1900, the economic height of the British Empire, the British percentage of world GDP had barely changed while America’s percentage had doubled. From that point Britain’s GDP began to decline as American GDP steadily grew.[6]

This indicates that the U.S. economy has ultimately outpaced that of even the British Empire. Today, America’s GDP ($17 trillion) is almost double that of the present British Commonwealth ($9 trillion). In fact, with only 4.5 percent of the world’s population, the U.S. still controls over 30 percent of the world’s wealth. This suggests that America has been “doubly fruitful”—not Britain.

What’s more, America—often referred to as the “breadbasket of the world”—has fed more people around the world than any nation in history. In addition, American technological advancements have benefited every nation on earth. Militarily, the British Royal Navy clearly ruled the seas in its day. But it was American military might that saved the free world in two world wars. Today, the U.S. military remains unmatched in history.

Clearly, Ephraim was to be greater than Manasseh (Gen. 48:19). But as one would expect, judging “greatness” is largely subjective, and there are good arguments for both sides in this case.

America and the Number 13

One final “alternative” argument needs to be noted. The number 13 is strongly associated with America: the 13 original colonies; the 13 stripes in the U.S. flag; the Great Seal consisting of several elements featuring the number 13—stars, leaves on the olive branch, arrows, stripes on the shield, etc. There are other examples as well.

Proponents of the “traditional view” associate the number 13 with the half-tribe of Manasseh, which is said to be the “13th tribe.” (Because Joseph’s two sons took his place among the tribes, this made them numbers 12 and 13; Benjamin, originally the 12th tribe, moved to number 11.) Based on Genesis 48:20—where Jacob “set Ephraim before Manasseh”—it is assumed that Ephraim would be number 12, and Manasseh 13.

Thus, Manasseh is linked to America.

But among those who favor the “alternate view,” this order is said to be inconsistent: The birth order of the tribes is used except in the case of Joseph’s sons, where they are ordered by inheritance. But if we consistently use the tribes’ birth order, Ephraim rightfully becomes the 13th tribe. Thus, could Ephraim be linked to America instead?

Conclusion

As the reader can see, the “alternate view” presents some compelling arguments. For the most part, however, they require that one almost wholly dismiss the importance of the British Empire. As Chapter 13 brings out, the British Empire was the greatest empire in history—and its influence around the world has been profound, to say the least. That fact alone practically demands its consideration as modern Ephraim.

Ultimately, the conclusion one draws on this matter is dependent on how he or she interprets the information available. In the end, the thesis of this book remains unchanged: Britain and America are, without question, the modern-day nations of biblical Joseph.

APPENDIX 10 NOTES

1. Deuteronomy 33:17 appears to be referring primarily to military power. Thus, the relative populations mentioned here may be the sizes of armies. No nation has ever amassed a bigger military force than America during World War II. Moreover, the size of a nation’s military is usually a reflection of overall population.

2. Just as “United States” implies a “company of nations,” it is often noted that Great Britain is appropriately named—Great—as Manasseh was to become a “great” nation (Gen. 48:19).

3. Encyclopedia Britannica (1947 edition); article, “United States of America”

4. According to some, one aspect of Ephraim’s “greater blessing” is that his descendants would become the recipients of the Davidic “throne” when it went into forced exile (see Chapters 11 and 12). That the “throne” should be safeguarded in Ephraim, as opposed to Manasseh, is based on the fact that Ephraim was anciently the leading tribe of the House of Israel. Thus, if it belonged anywhere, outside of the land of Judah, it belonged in Ephraim. Throughout the Bible, special honor is shown to the firstborn. In this case, of course, Manasseh was the firstborn. However, God calls Ephraim His “firstborn” in Jeremiah 31:9. In providing the Davidic “throne” sanctuary in the British Isles, it is suggested that God was indeed honoring Ephraim. If so, this argues in favor of the “traditional view” that Britain is modern Ephraim.

5. This assumes the “last days” began shortly after World War II. It must be noted that determining when the world entered into the “latter days” or the “end time” is a matter of conjecture. Biblically, the “latter days” appear to be associated with specific events that bring about the close of this present age. Thus, it would be difficult to justify including the 1800s as part of the “last days.” Some, however, insist that the “latter days” began as early as the 16th century.

6. “History of World GDP,” www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/08/historyofworldgdp/; based on data from www.economist.com/node/16834943.

Selected Sources

Allen, J. H., Judah’s Sceptre and Joseph’s Birthright. Merrimac, Mass.: Destiny Publishers, 1917

Britannica Online Encyclopedia; www.britannica.com

The Cambridge Ancient History, vol. 3, “The Assyrian Empire.” Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1965

Canadian British Israel Association, Windsor, Ontario; www.israelite.ca

Capt, E. Raymond, Jacob’s Pillar. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Artisan Sales, 1992

Collins, Steven M., The “Lost” Ten Tribes of Israel—Found! Boring, Ore.: CPA Books, 1995

Davidy, Yair, The Tribes—The Israelite Origins of Western Peoples. Hebron, Israel: Russell-Davis Publishers, 1993

DeMar, Gary, The Case for America’s Christian Heritage. Powder Springs, Ga.: American Vision Press, 2009; www.americanvision.org

Duin, Julia, Quitting Church. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 2008

The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica; www.1911encyclopedia.org (site no longer available)

Filmer, W. Edmund, Our Scythian Ancestors; www.ensignmessage.com/archives/Scythianancestors.html

Fox, John S., The World’s Greatest Throne. Wellington, England: Bryant & Sons, 1949

Gawler, Colonel John C., Dan: The Pioneer of Israel; www.nordiskisrael.dk/artikler.html

Hall, H. R., The Ancient History of the Near East. London, England: Methuen & Co. LTD, 1963

Josephus, Flavius, Complete Works of Josephus. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel Publications, 1981

Kupelian, David, The Marketing of Evil. Nashville, Tenn.: WND Books, 2005

The Origin of Our Western Heritage; www.bethelcog.org/church/the-origin-of-our-western-heritage

Pfeiffer, Charles, Old Testament History. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1973

Thomas, Des, America—The Last Frontier for Manasseh. Georgia: Kingdom Publishing, 2001

Walsh, Daniel R., Lost Tribes of Israel Study Maps. Orange Park, Fla.: Celtica, 1995

Wikipedia, online encyclopedia; www.wikipedia.org

Other Works by York Publishing

The Holy Bible In Its Original Order—A Faithful Version With Commentary is a new translation that reflects the meaning of the original Hebrew and Greek with fidelity and accuracy—and is the only English version in which the books of the Bible are arranged in their original order. The easy-to-read translation retains the grace and grandeur of the King James Version while clarifying many of its problematic passages. Included are commentaries on the writing, canonization and preservation of the Scriptures. Various appendices cover numerous controversial biblical teachings, and detailed footnotes and marginal references explain hard-tounderstand passages. A vital tool for all students of the Bible! See www.theoriginalbiblerestored.org. Commentary and translation by Fred. R. Coulter.

A Harmony of the Gospels in Modern English brings to life the message and purpose of the true Jesus, portraying His life and ministry in their true historical setting. This easy-to-understand, step-by-step account of the life of Christ is an indispensable study aid for every Bible student. Written by Fred R. Coulter.

The Christian Passover details the scriptural and historical truths of the Passover in both the Old and New Testaments, leading the reader step-by -step through every aspect of one of the most vital and fundamental teachings revealed in the Bible. With over 500 pages, the book fully explains the meaning of the Christian Passover—a remembrance of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, the Passover Lamb of God—in a most compelling and inspiring manner. The full meaning of the body and blood of Jesus Christ is revealed, showing the magnitude of God’s love for every person. Written by Fred R. Coulter.

The Day Jesus the Christ Died—the Biblical Truth about His Passion, Crucifixion and Resurrection is the only book to present “the rest of the story”—left out by Mel Gibson in his epic movie “The Passion of the Christ.” Without the true historical and biblical facts, one cannot fully understand the meaning of Jesus Christ’s horrific, humiliating and gruesome death by beating, scourging and crucifixion. The author presents the full biblical account in a most compelling way. As you will see, the truth is more astounding than all of the ideas, superstitions and traditions of men! Written by Fred R. Coulter.

The Seven General Epistles is designed for an in-depth verse-byverse study of the epistles of James; I and II Peter; I, II and III John and Jude. As part of the living Word of God, these epistles are as meaningful today for personal Christian growth as when they were written. Written by Fred R. Coulter.

The Appointed Times of Jesus the Messiah. Mainstream Christianity has little or no understanding of how Jesus’ messianic role has been carefully organized according to what Scripture calls God’s “appointed times.” As this book demonstrates, the “appointed times” of the Messiah follow the timeframe set by the biblical festivals and holy days as well as the 70-week prophecy of Daniel nine—all of which outline God’s plan of salvation. Indeed, it is only within this unique context that the role of Jesus as the Messiah can be rightly understood. Written by Fred R. Coulter.

Occult Holidays or God’s Holy Days—Which? For centuries the leaders of Orthodox Christendom have sold popular holidays—Halloween, Christmas, Easter, etc.—to the masses as though they had “Christian” meaning. This book effectively demonstrates that these celebrated holidays are not of God, but originated from ancient religions rooted in occultism. Contrary to the false ideas of men, the true biblical holy days of God have vital spiritual meaning and outline God’s fantastic plan of salvation for all mankind. Written by Fred R. Coulter.

God’s Plan for Mankind Revealed by His Sabbath and Holy Days. This first-of-its-kind, 598-page work provides a comprehensive look at God’s amazing Master Plan for the human family—precisely as it is outlined by the biblical seventh-day Sabbath and annual holy days. Each chapter is a transcript of an in-depth sermon or Bible study revealing God’s purpose from Genesis to Revelation. Actual sermons are included on an accompanying set of four CDs. Sermons by Fred R. Coulter.

Lord, What Should I Do? “Christianity” is now facing an unprecedented crisis: disenchanted churchgoers are quitting by the thousands, looking for genuine spirituality outside of the corporate church. This new book presents real solutions to the problems of a dysfunctional “Christianity,” emphasizing how Christians can and must take steps to recapture a faith that is authentic, relevant and applicable to modern life, even if it means leaving organized “Christianity.” Written by Fred R. Coulter.

Judaism—Revelation of Moses or Religion of Men? Contrary to Jewish claims, the religion of Judaism does not represent the way of life God gave through Moses in the Old Testament. In fact, Judaism greatly distorts the biblical Law of Moses by adding to it a massive humanly-devised “code” of laws. The result is that Jews can no longer differentiate between God’s Law and man-made tradition. Using history, Scripture and the Jews’ own writings, this book demonstrates that Judaism is actually a false religion developed by men. Written by Philip Neal.

God’s Bible Pathway for Children. Written by Jane Spring.

Online Studies for the serious Bible student—with additional written material and in-depth Bible studies in audio and video format—can be obtained at www.cbcg.org and www.churchathome.org.

Notes: