 
# Anglo-Israelism and  
_The United States & Britain in Prophecy_

By Ralph Orr

Copyright 2013 Grace Communion International

All scripture quotations, unless otherwise indicated, are taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV®. Copyright ©1973, 1978, 1984 by Biblica, Inc.™ Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved worldwide. www.zondervan.com   
The "NIV" and "New International Version" are trademarks registered in the United States Patent and Trademark Office by Biblica, Inc.™

Cover art copyright Grace Communion International.

Table of Contents

Anglo-Israelism and The United States & Britain in Prophecy

How Anglo-Israelism Entered the Seventh-day Churches of God

About the author

About the publisher

Grace Communion Seminary

Ambassador College of Christian Ministry

# ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

## Anglo-Israelism and _The United States & Britain in Prophecy_

_The United States and Britain in Prophecy_ was published for several decades, and several million copies were given away. Many readers accepted its conclusion — that the northern ten tribes of Israel eventually migrated to northwestern Europe, that the Anglo-Saxon peoples in particular are descendants of the Israelites, and that people should look for a fulfillment of biblical prophecies among these peoples.

People believed it, since it claimed to be based on the Bible, and many verses were quoted within it pages. However, in 1990, _The United States and Britain in Prophecy_ was withdrawn from circulation. This book affected many people, and some people were disappointed when it was withdrawn. Some people still believe that it is an important biblical truth, an important key that unlocks biblical prophecy — the identification of the Anglo-Saxon peoples as the leading representatives of the lost tribes of Israel. The idea is that God wants his end-time church to warn those peoples of his coming wrath. _The United States and Britain in Prophecy_ (USBP) was seen as one of the principal means of doing that.

However, God's church is commissioned to preach _the gospel._ The gospel of Jesus Christ is not only a message of repentance, but one of faith and hope. Through Christ we can be reconciled to God and each other. It is the message of God's love for everyone. God wants to forgive every person. He wants to impute Christ's righteousness to everyone. He does not want anyone to perish. Those who repent and turn in faith to Christ shall be saved. God sent Christ to reconcile us to himself.

This message and our commission to preach it has been given to us by Jesus Christ. No other job is as important. As Christians, our supreme authority is Jesus Christ, not church tradition, custom or practice. "All authority in heaven and earth has been given to me," Jesus said (Matthew 28:18).

Luke writes that Jesus, talking to his disciples, "opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. He told them, 'This is what is written; The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations'" (Luke 24:46-47).

Christ holds us accountable to fulfill _his_ commission, not as we define it, but as he defines it. One verse that summarizes the work God has given us is John 6:29: "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent." So we urge others to become involved in that work — the work of believing in Jesus Christ.

The foundation of faith and preaching is not identifying particular peoples in prophecy. The foundation of faith is Jesus Christ, the One who has commissioned us, the One in whom we have faith and the One we seek to imitate. "Each one should be careful how he builds," Paul warns, "for no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ" (1 Corinthians 3:10-11). From the Gospels to Revelation, the central focus is Jesus Christ. Revealed in those pages is the story of God incarnate, crucified for the sins of humankind, and raised from the dead. It is the story of Christ yesterday, today and tomorrow.

The church's message is that through Christ, God brings grace to humanity. The gospel of Jesus Christ is not based on national or ethnic origins. In fact, one challenge facing the early church was to help some members overcome prejudices that inhibited their embracing God's intended universality of the church. The Scriptures proclaim a grace-based, not a race-based, message. The church took that message of God's grace to all races everywhere. "You will be my witnesses," Jesus proclaimed, "in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth" (Acts 1:8). Jesus made the church "a house of prayer for all peoples" (Mark 11:17).

The first Christian lay members understood that they shared in that commission. Being a Christian meant that they proclaimed Christ as Lord. Even persecution did not stop the proclamation:

#### On that day a great persecution broke out against the church at Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria.... Those who had been scattered preached the word wherever they went. (Acts 8:1-4)

Always, where the details of the Christian message are given, Jesus Christ is the central subject. Society soon identified members of this new faith with him alone. They gave them the name _Christians._

Yet Christians sometimes find themselves distracted from the Christ-centeredness of the commission. Besides becoming diverted by the cares and temptations of the flesh, we also can be distracted even by other religious concerns.

Perhaps the most intoxicating subjects are those thought to be revealed only to the few. Such doctrines require accepting "secret keys" to knowledge that the rest of the world cannot see. These ideas often have nothing to do with, or even contradict, the message of salvation God told us to proclaim. Of course, adherents to these systems deny this. They try to interweave their secret knowledge into the gospel. The gospel then becomes diluted. It is then neglected or even scuttled.

No one is immune to this. The allure of having inside knowledge can appeal to one's vanity and the human desire to feel superior. Paul explained that some would ridicule the need to be Christ-centered:

#### We preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. (1 Corinthians 1:23-24)

Paul added, "When I came to you...I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified" (1 Corinthians 2:1-2).

So it is today. The commission of the church, given to it by God, is to proclaim Jesus Christ and him crucified. No other teaching, no other doctrine comes close to this doctrine's greatness.

### For what do we stand?

If asked to define what we as a church stood for, many in or outside of our fellowship would have defined us in terms of a particular doctrine or group of doctrines. In times past, many would have viewed us as prophecy-centered. Few would have described us as Christ-centered.

When a church emphasizes prophecy, it may unwittingly hinder the gospel.

In some cases, the teachings in USBP were used to support racism, as if it were somehow better to be Israelite than another other ethnicity. It saddens us when Christians erroneously justify their racist attitudes through misuse and misunderstanding of the Bible. While one might expect that some people new in the faith might harbor racial prejudice, as God's Spirit leads them, they should come to see how poisonous such thinking is. They should then seek God's help in conquering such attitudes.

Of course, racism takes many forms. Sometimes it is open and blatant. At other times it is subtle. Even well-meaning believers can have elements of racism dwelling in the dark corners of their heart. They may not recognize those feelings, and when those feelings are pointed out these individuals may sincerely deny having them. These otherwise Christian people just happen to believe their race is somehow and in some way superior to another race.

When a church's teaching centers around the English people being modern descendants of Israel, non-Anglo-Saxons sometimes find fellow Christians looking down on them simply because they are not "Israelites." To these people, being German, African-American, Hispanic, Asian, Ukrainian, Italian, Polish (or a member of any other ethnic group) is to be inferior. Perhaps as a form of psychological self-defense, a few of Eastern or Southern European descent may speculate that, perhaps due to Israel's wanderings, they are Israelite, not gentile. To them, it somehow seems inferior to be 100 percent gentile. Obviously, such views do not belong among God's people.

Lest someone take these comments out of proportion, it should be said that people in our fellowship have generally, easily and warmly welcomed all races, even into their homes. This was true even when the surrounding society generally viewed such hospitality negatively. Members sometimes suffered alienation from their neighbors by showing love to those of another race.

We also can appreciate our history of comparative racial harmony and cooperation. Compared to the communities around us, within our midst there has been significantly less racial tension. That is wonderful, but we should not allow this to blind us to the need for further growth. That is why we do not wish to promote literature, unnecessary to the gospel, that may be used by some to perpetuate spiritually destructive racial attitudes. Let all barriers to racial harmony come down. Let the church live Paul's admonition that "There is no distinction between Jew and Greek, the same Lord is Lord of all and is generous to all who call on him" (Romans 10:12).

### Biblical and historical problems

We now turn to the biblical and historic problems with the teaching. Much evidence calls into question the teaching's basic premises. In this study paper we cannot cover all of the scriptural and historical problems of the book, but we will summarize its major deficiencies.

The criticisms that follow are not limited to USBP. That book is but one of many that allege to prove what scholars label Anglo-Israelism — the belief that Anglo-Saxons descend from the "lost 10 tribes of Israel."

When reading Anglo-Israelite literature, one notices that it generally depends on folklore, legends, quasi-historical genealogies and dubious etymologies. None of these sources prove an Israelite origin for the peoples of northwestern Europe. Rarely, if ever, are the disciplines of archeology, sociology, anthropology, linguistics or historiography applied to Anglo-Israelism. Anglo-Israelism operates outside of the sciences. Even the principles of sound biblical exegesis are seldom used, for, as we shall see later, whole passages of Scripture that undermine the entire system are generally ignored.

Why this unscientific approach? This approach must be taken because to do otherwise is to destroy Anglo-Israelism's foundation. Those who apply scientific disciplines and the principles of sound historiography to this subject eventually come away disbelieving the theory. As we shall see, even lay students of the Bible can find serious flaws in the idea.

No first-hand account exists that traces the lost 10 tribes into northwestern Europe. No eyewitness to European tribal migrations ever claimed an Israelite origin for any of them. No medieval or ancient genealogies ever linked the royal families of the British Isles with the Israelites. Not until the 19th century (long after the supposed migration) did anyone attempt to prove such an idea.

### A people prepared

Prior to the beginnings of Anglo-Israelism, Puritan and American religious ideas had prepared a people for its acceptance. Two themes in particular prepared the way: covenant theology and the idea that America was a new Israel.

Covenant theology was a deeply imbedded concept in Puritanism, claiming as its basis God's covenants with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and the tribes of Israel.

#### The heart of covenant theology was the insistence that God's predestinating decrees were not part of a vast impersonal and mechanical scheme, but that, under the Gospel dispensation, God had established a covenant of grace with the seed of Abraham.... They tended to agree that the effectual call of each elect saint of God would always come as an individuated personal encounter with God, as had Abraham of old. (Sydney E. Ahlstrom, _A Religious History of the American People,_ vol. 1 [Garden City, New York: Image Books {Doubleday}, 1975], 177-8).

The second theme, that America was a new Israel, also found its greatest support among New England Puritans. Just as God had called Israel to start a new nation in Canaan, so they believed he had called them to start a new society in Northern America. "Like Israel, they had a special destiny, the one standing at the beginning of God's plan, the other at the end."1 The idea that America was a new Israel remained an influential thought in American Christianity well beyond the American Revolution.

#### Throughout the American states, though most definitely in New England, a particular Protestant view of history had long been widespread. This view rested partly on the usual Protestant interpretation of papist apostasy and Reformation renewal of the Church and partly on English and Scottish convictions that the British kingdoms harbored a people chosen by God for unusual service in advancing his providential plan.... These assumptions, broadened, amalgamated, invigorated, and politicized by the Revolution, stood behind the popular image of the American Israel, with all its implications of election, vocation, and guidance. Hence Christian patriots saw nothing incongruous in linking Moses and [Governor] Winthrop with [George] Washington, who "with his worthy companions and valiant band, were instrumental in the hand of Jesus, the King of Kings, to deliver this American Israel from their troubles." (J.F. Maclear, "The Republic and the Millennium," _The Religion of the Republic,_ Elwynn A. Smith, ed. [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1970], 188)

The first fully-developed scripturally-argued presentation of Anglo-Israelism was by John Wilson, in his book _Our Israelitish Origins._ Published first in England, then in the United States in 1840, it was immediately successful and went through numerous editions. One factor influencing the success of _Our Israelitish Origins_ was that it answered the troubled conscience of a religious people. How could Christians justify, in light of the gospel, their colonialism, expansionism and enslavement of others? Religious people wanted to believe God supported their growing economic, political and military power. For some, Anglo-Israelism seemed to provide such a justification.

Anglo-Israelism also came to America at a time when the new religion of Mormonism was arousing significant interest. Founded in 1830 by Joseph Smith, their "new revelation," the Book of Mormon, claimed an Israelite link for an ancient, pre-Columbian race of Native Americans. Anglo-Israelism offered a counter-explanation to the Mormon claim about the lost tribes and could therefore be viewed as a defense of orthodox Christianity.

Anglo-Israelism arose at a time of increasing skepticism of the Bible among America's most highly educated. Deism, Unitarianism and skepticism had become popular in intellectual circles. Scientific discoveries, especially in geology and astronomy, raised difficult questions as to the historical accuracy of the earliest chapters of Genesis, while philosophic speculations challenged reason's ability to lead anyone to ultimate truth.

Anglo-Israelism's popularity can in part be explained by its apparent ability to answer the Bible's critics, for it claimed to prove that God, having spoken his promises over 3,500 years ago, was fulfilling those promises in today's world. Did that not prove the Scriptures to be both God-inspired and currently relevant? For many concerned with preserving biblical faith, Anglo-Israelism proved strongly attractive.

Yet the fact that Anglo-Israelism arose among people looking for a way to justify their imperialism and human exploitation, while also searching for ways to defend their faith, should cause us to pause and ask how much proof there actually is for that belief. Did the belief spring from the Bible, or did it arise out of the social concerns of the 19th-century Anglo-Protestant world?

One might ask, If Anglo-Israelism is so easily proven, then where are the respected historians, archaeologists, philologists, anthropologists, genealogists, classical and medieval specialists and even folklorists who support it?

### Royal genealogies

A favorite topic of Anglo-Israelites is the legendary royal genealogies of the British Isles. USBP claimed that these genealogies can be linked to the line of King David. Not mentioned by many Anglo-Israelites is that, before the rise of Anglo-Israelism, no British royal family ever claimed Davidic descent. No such genealogy existed. Any alleged genealogy linking the British royal family to King David is an Anglo-Israelite invention. Despite the Anglo-Israelite claim that an Israelite princess migrated to Ireland and married into a royal family, proof of such has never been produced. Yet today, unsuspecting people assume that the genealogies produced by Anglo-Israelites are proven, when they are not. These genealogies are nothing more than the fabrication of the Anglo-Israelite movement itself.

### The Davidic promises

The New Testament takes a strikingly different approach than that of Anglo-Israelism. There, repeatedly, the Davidic promises find fulfillment in Jesus Christ.

For example, the first chapter of the New Testament, Matthew 1, emphasizes Jesus' Davidic lineage. It is but one proof of his Messiahship. He holds the title Son of David. He, not some human king in a far-off isle, is the true heir of the Davidic promises. Because this is the New Testament perspective, the church has chosen to emphasize what the New Testament emphasizes.

At this point it might be wise to interject one example of the kind of teaching often used to support Anglo-Israelite views. In _The United States and Britain in Prophecy,_ Ezekiel 21:27 is quoted to prove that God would overturn the throne of David three times, transferring it each time to a new location. The theory is that the first overturning transferred the throne from Jerusalem to Ireland, the second to Scotland, and the third, under King James, to England.2 Therefore Queen Elizabeth II is an alleged descendant of King David.

In the King James Version, Ezekiel 21:26-27 reads, "Remove the diadem, and take off the crown.... Exalt him that is low, and abase him that is high. I will overturn, overturn, overturn it: it shall be no more, until he come whose right it is; and I will give it him."

Now perhaps the most obvious point that we should mention is that neither Ireland, Scotland, England nor their royal families are mentioned in Ezekiel. These must be read into the text through Anglo-Israelite eyes. As to the meaning of the verse itself, the use of other translations gives insight.

The New International Version reads, "Take off the turban, remove the crown. It will not be as it was.... A ruin! A ruin! I will make it a ruin! It will not be restored until he comes to whom it rightfully belongs; to him I will give it." Nothing in this translation implies an overthrowing and transfer of the throne to another country. Instead it tells us that the house of David would be without a ruling king until God decides to fill the vacancy with the rightful heir.

The New King James supports this interpretation, for it reads: "Overthrown, overthrown, I will make it overthrown! It shall be no longer, until He comes whose right it is, and I will give it to Him."

The New Revised Standard Version puts it this way. "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."

Properly understood, "The threefold repetition of 'ruin' stresses the intensity of God's wrath and its destruction administered by Babylonia."3 The verse is about the total vacancy of the Davidic throne until the rightful heir comes. The wording of "the phrase _until he come whose right it is_ recalls the Messianic prophecy in Genesis 49:10."4 That this verse prophesies the Messiah's ascension to the vacant Davidic throne is understood by both Jewish and Christian commentators. That is the natural sense of the verse. The consistent New Testament witness is that Jesus is that rightful heir.

### The Abrahamic covenant

Yet many Christians would argue that Anglo-Israelism is not based on folklore, questionable genealogies or dubious scriptural interpretations. They insist it is based on God's covenant promises to Abraham, which have allegedly found fulfillment only in the peoples of northwestern Europe. Furthermore, it's alleged the whole idea finds root in the lack of such fulfillment in Old Testament Israel.

However, the covenant that the New Testament preaches is not sealed through circumcision, as was the Abrahamic covenant, but is ratified with the blood of Christ. The focus of the new covenant is the Son of David, Jesus Christ, and the true Israel of God, the church. Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of the promises.

The New Testament emphasizes the new covenant. It is a covenant of grace, not race. It is a covenant God made in his great love for all peoples. It is a covenant that does not distinguish between color of skin, facial features, shape of skull or ancestry. That covenant is the one we celebrate.

But now let us take time to examine the Anglo-Israelite interpretation of Israelite history and, in particular, the interpretation the church gave that history in USBP. We will start by examining God's promises to the patriarchs.

### A father of many nations

God promised to Abraham that he would father a multitude of nations (Genesis 17:5-6). USBP contended that "These are basic — the foundation for the establishment of the greatest world powers."5 It alleged that in all biblical history, Abraham's descendants never became a multitude of great nations. Therefore the Jews could not possibly have fulfilled this promise. We must, the argument continues, look outside the Bible to discover who did.

Let's consider the term _nation._ We can begin by asking, In the Bible, is a nation always a political unit, a country, a state or empire as we know it today? The answer is no, for in Deuteronomy 26:5 we read, "[Israel] went down into Egypt with a few people and lived there and became a great nation, powerful and numerous." At that time Israel was a nation, yet Israel lived within the country of Egypt.

Therefore, when discovering how Abraham became the father of many nations, we do not limit our search to countries. We expand our search to include distinctive peoples, some of whom may have been independent, while others may have lived within a state, country or empire. Political units are not the deciding factor. Distinct peoples are. These peoples, having the same father, are very closely related, yet with time and increasing size they have developed their own distinctive characteristics, sufficient to be called nations (not countries).

Who were the nations that came from Abraham? Most of us already know he became the father of the tribes of Israel and Judah. He also fathered the Midianites (Genesis 25:2, 4), the Ishmaelites (Genesis 17:20) and the other Arabic tribes descended from his sons Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Ishbak and Shuah (Genesis 25:1-3). Finally, there were the Edomites, descendants of his grandson Esau (Genesis 36). While God did not count most of these as "children of the promise," and therefore they did not receive the promised blessings, they did fulfill God's promise that Abraham would father many nations.

Yet there is another aspect of this promise we should consider. In the New Testament, we have an inspired commentary on this very promise. Paul explains that God intended more than a physical fulfillment. He intended an even greater fulfillment in the church:

#### It was not through law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith.... Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham's offspring — not only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all. As it is written: "I have made you a father of many nations [Genesis 17:5]." He is our father in the sight of God.... Abraham in hope believed and so became the father of many nations, just as it had been said to him, "So shall your offspring be." (Romans 4:13-18, emphasis ours throughout)

Abraham, with the founding of the New Testament church and having been the father of many nations physically, became the father of many nations spiritually. The New Testament emphasizes this grace-based aspect of the promise. Unfortunately, USBP failed to address adequately these facts. Despite what Romans plainly teaches, it even denied that the church fulfilled the promise.6 Therefore, our book's perspective was not that of the New Testament.

### As the dust of the earth

Another verse that was misunderstood was Genesis 28:14. The book argued that this verse proved God's promise of many nations was referring to the large nation-states of today, because God promised that those nations would be extremely populous — far more populous than the nations of Abraham's day. The context of Genesis 28:14 is Jacob's dream at Bethel when he was fleeing from his brother Esau. This famous passage includes the story of the ladder reaching up to heaven, on which the angels ascended and descended. God speaks to Jacob and promises that "Your descendants will be like the dust of the earth, and you will spread out to the west and to the east, to the north and to the south."

USBP went on to say, "Here the size of the 'many nations' is compared to the number of grains of dust of the earth. Elsewhere God compared the population of these promised nations to the grains of sand on a seashore and to the stars — uncountable for multitude."7 It added that we must look for fulfillment of these promises apart from the Jews. "We must do it or deny God's promise!"8

Yet as we have seen, God has fulfilled the many-nations promise among several different peoples identified in the Bible. Those peoples include the Jews. The same is true of the promise in Genesis 28:14, for in 1 Kings 4:20 we read, "The people of Judah and Israel were as numerous as the sand on the seashore; they ate, they drank and they were happy." And Deuteronomy 1:10 says, "The Lord your God has increased your numbers so that today you are as many as the stars in the sky." Other verses speak of Israel as being as numerous as the stars of heaven (Deuteronomy 10:22; 28:62; Nehemiah 9:23). These verses prove that God kept his promises to Abraham, yet USBP does not mention these verses.

### To the west, east, north and south

There is another aspect of Genesis 28:14: the promise that Jacob's descendants would spread out "to the west and to the east, to the north and to the south." The Bible also describes this fulfillment.

God gave Jacob this promise at Bethel. That site later played an important role during Israel's conquest of Canaan. Israel first conquered Jericho, then Ai and the neighboring community of Bethel (Joshua 8:9, 17, 22). Having secured this foothold in the heart of the Promised Land, Israel proceeded to conquer territory to the west, east, north and south.

### A multitude of nations

Some may ask, What of the promises to Ephraim and Manasseh? Was not the tribe of Ephraim promised that they would become "a multitude of nations"? And was not Manasseh promised that they would become "a great people"? Does this not prove they were the ancestors of the United States and Britain? Genesis 48:19 contains the promises to Ephraim and Manasseh. It reads, "He [Manasseh]...will become a people, and he...will become great. Nevertheless, his younger brother [Ephraim] will be greater than he, and his descendants will become a group [or multitude {KJV}] of nations."

How are we to understand these promises?

The story of the boys' blessing begins in Genesis 48:1 with the family of Israel in Egypt. Jacob, near death, calls his son Joseph to him. Jacob reflects back on how God has blessed him: "God Almighty appeared to me at Luz in the land of Canaan, and there he blessed me and said to me, 'I am going to make you fruitful and will increase your numbers. I will make you a community of peoples, and I will give this land as an everlasting possession to your descendants after you.'"

In the above reflection, we clearly see that Jacob believed God's promises would be fulfilled in the land of Canaan, not in some other far-off land. It is to Canaan that he focuses the family's attention. He wants them to understand that they are not going to stay in Egypt, but will instead inherit Canaan. Later in this account, after blessing Ephraim and Manasseh, he again associates this promise with them: "God will be with you and take you back to the land of your fathers" (Genesis 48:21). They were to go to Canaan, not a far-off isle. Joshua later confirmed that the tribal promises were fulfilled in the land of Canaan (Joshua 23:14).

Jacob also understands that he is to have many more descendants than those presently in his family. His descendants are to become "a community of peoples." Israel will be both prosperous and fruitful.

Therefore, Jacob tells Joseph that he wishes his grandsons to share in these promises. Though their mother may be Egyptian, they are not to be cut off from the family heritage. God has chosen them as well.

With this background we can properly understand the blessing of Ephraim and Manasseh.

As Jacob begins to bless his grandsons he adopts them into the family (i.e., he places not only his name on them, but also the names of his ancestors). He then asks that "they increase greatly upon the earth" (Genesis 48:16). The significance of this latter blessing will become more apparent as we study the account further.

Let's discuss Manasseh first. You may have noticed that God's promise to him did not involve statehood. It simply said that his descendants would become a "great people." And they did. This is simply a variation of the earlier blessing found in verse 16. In successive generations their population flourished. Even before leaving Egypt, they (as did all the Israelites) had a tremendous birth rate (Exodus 1:7). The territories Manasseh later inhabited in Canaan enabled them to become one of the most powerful and prosperous tribes in Israel. In so blessing them, God fulfilled his promise.

The same is true of Ephraim. While initially a smaller tribe than Manasseh, by the days of Hosea, Ephraim came to represent the whole house of Israel. Ephraim had indeed succeeded his brother in wealth, power, influence and population. Just as God promised, Manasseh's younger brother became greater than he.

But what of the phrase _group of nations_? some might ask. Surely the tribe Ephraim did not fulfill that during biblical times?

Actually, it did.

We've already established that the word nation may refer to a distinct group of people sharing a common heritage. It does not always imply statehood. With that in mind, let's consider the following.

Old Testament Hebrew scholars explain Genesis 48:19 by first recognizing that the prepositional phrase of nations modifies the noun group (or multitude). In other words, because nations modifies group (and not the other way around), Jacob was commenting on the size of Ephraim's future population, not the abundance of nations to come from him.

Let's illustrate this further.

The word translated in Genesis 48:19 as _group_ or _multitude_ can have the sense of fullness. (See the margin of the Oxford edition of the King James Bible). Because of this, some translators feel the passage would be better rendered: "His [Ephraim's] seed will become the fullness of nations." Or to put it in other words, Ephraim would become very populous — so populous that they would be like the fullness of nations.

The Anchor Bible volume on Genesis puts it this way: "His offspring shall suffice for nations."9

This interpretation fits with what we have already observed. Remember how Abraham's children were to become as many as the sand of the sea, or the stars of heaven? Yet we saw how, even before they entered the Promised Land, they had already attained that size. It would appear that the fullness of nations is a step below that. Therefore, we need look no further than the history of Israel as told in the Bible to find God faithfully keeping his promises to the patriarchs.

Notice what the _Commentary on the Old Testament_ by Keil and Delitzsch has to say about this.

#### This blessing began to be fulfilled from the time of the Judges, when the tribe of Ephraim so increased in extent and power, that it took the lead of the northern tribes and became the head of the ten tribes, and its name acquired equal importance with the name Israel, whereas under Moses, Manasseh had numbered 20,000 more than Ephraim (Numbers 26:34, 37).10

The Bible does not say that Manasseh would become the United States. Nor does it say that Ephraim would become the British Commonwealth. To conclude otherwise would be to read something into the Bible that is not there.

### Israel's biblical history

Now that we have examined some prophetic verses foundational to the Anglo-Israelite belief, let's take time to rehearse the biblical history of Israel, beginning with the death of Solomon. In doing so we will examine typical Anglo-Israelite interpretations of these events. As with the prophetic verses, we will not attempt to examine each and every historic claim made by Anglo-Israelites, but instead we will discuss certain key events. These key events and their interpretation shall help us see if Anglo-Israelism has any historic basis.

After the death of Solomon, Israel split into two nations. The southern tribes, loyal to the royal family, became the house of Judah with Jerusalem as its capital. The northern tribes rebelled and became the house of Israel. They eventually made Samaria their capital. Jeroboam led the northern rebellion, becoming Israel's king. To solidify his power he destroyed the influence of the Levites, the priestly tribe who had remained loyal to God's religion centered at the temple in Jerusalem. To counter the attractive influence of God's annual Holy Days, he created his own pagan state religion complete with its own festivals.

Decades passed, during which time God sent prophets who called Israel to repent and who warned them of the consequences if they did not. While there always remained a remnant in Israel faithful to God, the majority never heeded God's warnings. So in 725 B.C., God moved the Assyrians to begin a three-year siege of Samaria. That siege led to the fall of the city and the captivity of the nation. Following their custom, the Assyrians resettled conquered Israelites elsewhere in the empire, while they transplanted other subjugated peoples to the land of Israel.

Once the Israelites were resettled, the Assyrians took deliberate steps to assimilate them into their general population.

#### According to the author(s) of 2 Kings 17:6 and 18:11, Israelites were carried away into exile to Halah, Gozan on the banks of the Habur and to the cities of the Medes. The search for traces of this Assyrian exile confirmed this report. There are consequently no reasons to doubt its historicity. From the evidence surveyed it can be added that Israelites were incorporated into the Assyrian army and that some deportees were brought to cities in the Assyrian heartlands. (Bob Becking, _The Fall of Samaria: An Historical and Archaeological Study_ [Leiden, The Netherlands: E.J. Brill, 1992], 92)

This Assyrian policy of deliberate assimilation worked. Within a few decades, all evidence for any distinctive Israelite population within Assyria vanished.

### House of Israel — all captive?

Fundamental to the Anglo-Israel argument is the belief that all significant parts of the house of Israel went into captivity. Biblical and archeological scholars harbor serious doubts about the accuracy of this view. They generally believe that the biblical and archeological evidence proves that many Israelites did _not_ go into captivity, but remained in the land. These Israelites then either mixed with the new gentile immigrants or became a significant part of the southern nation of Judah.

Let's think about this for a moment, starting not with the captivity, but the apostasy of Jeroboam. What happened in Israel when Jeroboam tried to crush God's revealed religion?

History gives many examples of religious persecution. Often we see that those who value their faith choose flight or emigration rather than surrender to religious oppression. Was the situation in Israel any different?

The Bible records what happened. When Jeroboam tried to suppress the faith, there was a massive movement of Israelites southward into Judah. Every tribe was represented in this mass migration.

#### The Levites...abandoned their pasturelands and property, and came to Judah and Jerusalem because Jeroboam and his sons had rejected them as priests of the Lord.... Those from every tribe of Israel who set their hearts on seeking the Lord, the God of Israel, followed the Levites to Jerusalem to offer sacrifices to the Lord, the God of their fathers. They strengthened the kingdom of Judah and supported Rehoboam son of Solomon three years [until Rehoboam temporarily abandoned God thereby losing their political support]. (2 Chronicles 11:13-16)

Later, during Asa's reign over Judah:

#### He repaired the altar of the Lord that was in front of the portico of the Lord's temple. Then he assembled all Judah and Benjamin and the people from Ephraim, Manasseh and Simeon who had settled among them, for large numbers had come over to him from Israel when they saw that the Lord his God was with him. (2 Chronicles 15:8c-9)

USBP claimed there were only a few individuals "who for religion separated from their tribes and lived in Judah and became Jews."11 Yet it now appears that large numbers of Israelites immigrated to Judah and became Jews. Not all of their reasons were religious. Some were refugees from the Assyrian invasion.

Archeological evidence discovered over the past two decades supports this conclusion. Archaeologists now recognize a sudden and significant increase in Jerusalem's population at the time of the northern kingdom's fall. "After the fall of Samaria many refugees from the Northern Kingdom migrated south and settled in Judah, including Jerusalem. The increase in population of Jerusalem accounts for the expansion of Jerusalem westward at that time."12

Additional evidence from archeological surveys and excavations has led some scholars to conclude that other areas of Judah experienced this influx of Israelites as well.13 When USBP was first published, this archeological evidence had yet to be discovered. Now that it has, it cannot be ignored. From the evidence at Jerusalem alone, we can safely conclude that the Israelite presence in Judah was much greater than previously thought.

There is also evidence that Assyria did not carry all of the Israelites into captivity. Some Israelites continued to dwell in the land after their brothers were exiled.

Consider what we read in Chronicles.

Long after the Assyrian invasion, Josiah, king of Judah, to finance the rebuilding of the temple, collected taxes "from the people of Manasseh, Ephraim and the entire remnant of Israel" (2 Chronicles 34:9). Yet according to USBP, this could not have happened, because no Israelites were left in those areas from whom Josiah could have collected taxes.

Soon after this taxation, Josiah celebrated a grand Passover at Jerusalem:

#### The Israelites who were present celebrated the Passover at that time and observed the Feast of Unleavened Bread for seven days.... [N]one of the kings of Israel had ever celebrated such a Passover as did Josiah, with the priests, the Levites and all Judah and Israel who were there with the people of Jerusalem. (2 Chronicles 35:17-18)

How could this be if everyone from the northern tribes had been carried away?

### The tribe of Judah alone?

Yes, the Bible does say, "So the Lord was very angry with Israel and removed them from his presence. Only the tribe of Judah was left" (2 Kings 17:18). What does this mean? If it means what Anglo-Israelites take it to mean, that no significant Israelite population remained behind after the Assyrian invasion, how do we explain the previous evidence that shows otherwise? Do we discard it? Ignore it? Or do we reexamine our presuppositions about what we think this scripture says?

At face value, the verse appears to say that only the tribe of Judah escaped captivity. Yet we have already shown that most Levites had moved southward into Judah two centuries earlier and had therefore escaped Assyrian captivity as well. We have also seen that large numbers from other northern tribes also migrated southward.

Furthermore, the house of Judah did not encompass just the tribe of Judah. Its territory included land allotted to Simeon and Benjamin.14 Its population was mixed. In recounting the division of Israel, 1 Kings tells us that Rehoboam, king of Judah, continued to reign over the "Israelites who were living in the towns of Judah," and that to stop the rebellion "he mustered the whole house of Judah and the tribe of Benjamin." Before the fighting began, "This word of God came to Shemaiah the man of God: 'Say to Rehoboam son of Solomon king of Judah, to the whole house of Judah and Benjamin, and to the rest of the people.... Do not fight against your brothers, the Israelites" (1 Kings 12:17, 21-24). Therefore, because the house of Judah included the tribes of Benjamin, Simeon and Judah — not just Judah alone — all these tribes escaped Assyrian captivity. (Remember, the apostle Paul was a Benjamite.)

To repeat a point made earlier, we have also proven that significant representatives of Levi, Ephraim, Manasseh and all the other northern tribes kept the Passover in Jerusalem long after Samaria's fall. Therefore, what does the phrase "there was none left but the tribe of Judah alone" mean? Does it contradict these plain facts?

When God inspired his servants to write the Bible, he inspired them to use the vocabulary, literary styles and modes of expression commonly in use during the time he inspired each book. He also allowed for the personality of each book's author to have free expression. That is why Isaiah does not read like Jeremiah, or 1 Peter like 1 Corinthians. That is why the Bible does not read like books written in our day. Styles and modes of expression have changed.

Common to every language are figures of speech, which, if unrecognized by readers, will cause them to misunderstand the subtleties of what they are reading. Some languages are richer in the number of figures of speech than others. E.W. Bullinger in his classic work _Figures of Speech Used in the Bible_ identified 217 types of figures of speech found in the Scriptures. Bullinger states in his work's introduction:

#### A figure denotes some form which a word or sentence takes, different from its ordinary and natural form. This is always for the purpose of giving additional force, more life, intensified feeling and greater emphasis. Whereas today "Figurative language" is ignorantly spoken of as though it made less of the meaning, and deprived the words of their power and force. A passage of God's Word is quoted: and it is met with the cry, "Oh, that is figurative" — implying that its meaning is weakened, or that it has quite a different meaning, or that it has no meaning at all. But the very opposite is the case. For an unusual form (figura) is never used except to add force to the truth conveyed, emphasis to the statement of it, and depth to the meaning of it.15

One common type of figure of speech that God used in the Bible is synecdoche (the practice of referring to the whole by reference to one of its parts, e.g., "Washington" for the United States, "London" for England, "Ephraim" for all Israel). Bullinger defines this type of figure as "the exchange of one idea for another associated idea."16 For a figure to be a synecdoche there must be an internal association between the two ideas. For example, in Isaiah 7 Ephraim is used figuratively for the whole house of Israel. Because the tribe of Ephraim is a part of the house of Israel, there is an internal association of the terms. Therefore, when Ephraim is used figuratively for Israel, Ephraim is a synecdoche. Specifically, it is a synecdoche of the part, meaning a part has been put for the whole.17

The inspired author of Kings used a synecdoche of the part more than once. For example, 1 Kings 11:32 says that the royal house of David would rule over only one tribe. Yet from other scriptures we know that Benjamin, Levi and Simeon are included in this number. So here the "one tribe" is a synecdoche for all those who associated with the house of David. In this passage, the writer does not mean to deceive, but to emphasize the great loss David's house would suffer at the rebellion of the other tribes. In 1 Kings 12:20 we read another example of synecdoche when Judah is identified as that one tribe. That verse reads, "Only the tribe of Judah remained loyal to the house of David." Yet the historic fact is that other tribes remained loyal as well. Judah is a synecdoche representing all of them.

Those unfamiliar with synecdoche might assume that such passages prove the Bible contradictory and historically unreliable. Yet as Bullinger points out, those familiar with the richness of ancient Hebrew literary figures would never make such a claim.

The relevance of this discussion is now obvious, for we just read in 1 Kings 12:20 that "only the tribe of Judah remained loyal." That synecdoche is similar to the one in 2 Kings 17:18 that reads "Only the tribe of Judah was left." We have already seen that many members of the other tribes remained, including significant representatives of the two principal tribes, Ephraim and Manasseh. Therefore, 2 Kings 17:18 is an example of synecdoche. The verse is talking about kingdoms, not the people who lived in the kingdoms. Only the southern kingdom, here called "the tribe of Judah" continued to exist. USBP failed to address these facts.

In the years following Josiah's reign, the northern tribes continued to grow in influence within Judah. The Bible records that Jews and Israelites were still living side by side in the days of the early church. Israelites were major players in the life of the southern nation, having significant economic, political and religious roles.

What evidence do we have for this? Besides the already cited account of Josiah's reign, we have the added word of the prophets.

### Jeremiah's witness

Jeremiah warned both houses of Israel that they would soon be carried into Babylonian captivity. His contemporary Ezekiel, who was carried into Babylon in the first wave of that captivity, also addressed both peoples. He challenged those Israelites still in Jerusalem, who complacently thought they had escaped the Babylonian scourge, to repent. The worst was yet to come.

Both prophets spoke of the house of Israel as a major portion of the Jewish people.

From Jeremiah:

#### Hear the word of the Lord, O house of Jacob, all you clans of the house of Israel.... I bring charges against you again.... As a thief is disgraced when he is caught, so the house of Israel is disgraced — they, their kings and their officials, their priests and their prophets. They say to wood, "You are my father," and to stone, "You gave me birth." They have turned their backs to me and not their faces; yet when they are in trouble, they say, "Come and save us!" Where then are the gods you made for yourselves? Let them come if they can save you when you are in trouble! For you have as many gods as you have towns, O Judah. (Jeremiah 2:4, 9, 26-28)

In the above quotation Jeremiah refers to Israel and Judah as one people, the people of Judah. They are his contemporaries and are about to be punished for their sins. That does not mean that he was unaware of what happened to the northern nation. He recalls their captivity in Jeremiah 3:6-8. However, that does not diminish the truth that he also addressed many Israelites then dwelling in Judah. By Jeremiah's day they had begun to be one people. Notice the following quotes:

#### Go up and down the streets of Jerusalem, look around and consider, search through her squares. If you can find but one person who deals honestly and seeks the truth, I will forgive this city.... "Should I not punish them for this?" declares the Lord. "Should I not avenge myself on such a nation as this? Go through her vineyards and ravage them, but do not destroy them completely. Strip off her branches, for these people [living in Jerusalem] do not belong to the Lord. The house of Israel and the house of Judah have been utterly unfaithful to me," declares the Lord....

#### They have lied about the Lord; they said, "He will do nothing!"... Therefore this is what the Lord God Almighty says: "Because the people have spoken these words, I will make my words in your [Jeremiah's] mouth a fire and these people the wood it consumes. O house of Israel," declares the Lord, "I am bringing a distant nation [Babylon] against you.... Announce this to the house of Jacob and proclaim it in Judah.... Should I not avenge myself on such a nation as this?" (Jeremiah 5:1, 9b-15, 20, 29)

The book of Jeremiah tells how he warned the Israelite and Jewish inhabitants of Jerusalem about their coming Babylonian captivity. Therefore, Jeremiah attests to a significant remnant of the house of Israel dwelling among Judah (a fact we shall see confirmed in Ezekiel).

#### Flee for safety, people of Benjamin! Flee from Jerusalem!... For disaster looms out of the north.... Cut down the trees and build siege ramps against Jerusalem. This city must be punished.... Let them glean the remnant of Israel as thoroughly as a vine. (Jeremiah 6:1-9)

#### Hear what the Lord says to you, O house of Israel.... Gather up your belongings to leave the land, you who live under siege. For this is what the Lord says: "At this time I will hurl out those who live in this land [the land of Judah]; I will bring distress on them so that they may be captured."... Listen! The report is coming — a great commotion from the land of the north! It will make the towns of Judah desolate, a haunt of jackals. (Jeremiah 10:1, 17-18, 22)

#### Then the Lord said to me, "There is a conspiracy among the people of Judah and those who live in Jerusalem. They have returned to the sins of their forefathers.... They have followed other gods to serve them. Both the house of Israel and the house of Judah have broken the covenant I made with their forefathers. Therefore...I will bring on them [both houses] a disaster.... The towns of Judah and the people of Jerusalem will go and cry out to the gods to whom they burn incense.... The house of Israel and the house of Judah have done evil and provoked me to anger by burning incense to Baal." (Jeremiah 11:9-12, 17)

Remember the famous passage in Jeremiah inspired by his visit to the potter's house?

#### "O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter does?" declares the Lord. "Like clay in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel. If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned....

#### "Now therefore say to the people of Judah and those living in Jerusalem...'I am preparing a disaster for you.... So turn from your evil ways.'" (Jeremiah 18:6-11)

The house of Israel, the people of Judah, the clay in the potter's hand are all one and the same. The disaster that Jeremiah prophesied for Jerusalem was to come on them all, for they all lived together in that city.

Yet Jeremiah also gave those people hope by announcing God's promise of a new covenant. These two houses, sharing in one national calamity, later share in one national restoration.

#### "The time is coming," declares the Lord, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers.... This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time," declares the Lord. "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts." (Jeremiah 31:31-33)

Notice: God first promises that he'll make this new covenant with both houses. Then, in describing that covenant, he only mentions the house of Israel. In this context God applies the name house of Israel to all of Israel, not just the "lost tribes."

The point of the above, and all the previous citations from Jeremiah, is this: Jeremiah bears witness to Israelites and Jews living together in the towns of Judah before the captivity. Naturally this led to the terms Israelite and Jew being applied to all Israelites no matter what tribe they were from technically.

### Ezekiel's commission

Ezekiel testifies to the same. Written before the final fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple by the Babylonians, the book of Ezekiel proclaimed Israel's inevitable doom. "Go now to the house of Israel," God ordered (Ezekiel 3:4) (rather than over 2,500 years later through the church, as USBP stated).

God commanded this knowing that once they heard what Ezekiel would say to them, they would not listen (verse 7).

As God gave Ezekiel his commission, he described at least some of the house of Israel as Ezekiel's fellow exiles to whom he could speak directly (verse 11). These Israelites lived with him at Tel Abib near the Kebar River in Babylon, not in far-away Assyria (verse 15).

God said that Ezekiel would remain mute, except as God moved him to prophesy (verses 24-27). During this time, Ezekiel was only able to speak when he prophesied directly to members of the "rebellious house" (identified early in chapter 3 as the house of Israel). Apparently his message would so enrage the house of Israel that God warned Ezekiel that leaders of the house of Israel would tie him up with ropes to prevent him from circulating among them (verses 25-26).

Chapter 4 tells of Ezekiel building a model of Jerusalem around which he portrayed the final Babylonian siege. Through this symbolism, God warned the house of Israel that they would suffer horribly in Jerusalem's fall.

In chapter 8 God reveals the spiritual decay that corrupted even the temple. There the house of Israel openly practiced idolatry. In exposing this sin, Ezekiel names names. A contemporary of his, Jaazaniah son of Shaphan, joined with leading members of the house of Israel in this defilement (Ezekiel 8:3-11). In response God decreed that he would fill the temple with the slain. "Slaughter old men, young men and maidens, women and children.... Defile the temple and fill the courts with the slain" (Ezekiel 9:6-7).

Ezekiel cries in anguish,

#### "Ah, Sovereign Lord! Are you going to destroy the entire remnant of Israel in this outpouring of your wrath on Jerusalem?" God answered, "The sin of the house of Israel and Judah is exceedingly great; the land is full of bloodshed and the city is full of injustice. They say, 'The Lord has forsaken the land; the Lord does not see.' So I will not look on them with pity or spare them, but I will bring down on their own head what they have done." (verses 8b-10)

Chapter 9 is particularly important because it is one of the few places where Ezekiel mentions the house of Judah. This handful of scriptures proves that Ezekiel knew the difference between the house of Israel and the house of Judah. These peoples lived together, both in Jerusalem and in the Babylonian captivity.

Continuing the story in chapter 10, we see God removing his glory from the temple. He then proceeds to give Ezekiel another glimpse into the continued perversions found there. At Jerusalem's gate there were

#### twenty-five men...among them Jaazaniah son of Azzur and Pelatiah son of Benaiah, leaders of the people. The Lord said to me, "Son of man, these are the men who are plotting evil and giving wicked advice in this city.

#### "O house of Israel...I know what is going through your mind. You have killed many people in this city and filled its streets with the dead." (Ezekiel 11:1-2, 6b)

As Ezekiel spoke this prophecy to the house of Israel, Pelatiah, one of the men in the vision, died. Ezekiel cried, "Ah, Sovereign Lord! Will you completely destroy the remnant of Israel?"

Additional evidence from chapters 12 through 34 supports this conclusion: A significant and influential remnant of the house of Israel lived in Judah and shared in its fall and captivity.

Therefore, when the Jews returned out of Babylon, members of the house of Israel probably returned with them. By the days of Nebuchadnezzar, Israelites and Jews formed one nation, the nation of Judah.

The failure to recognize this biblical history and its implications is a major failing of all Anglo-Israelite literature, including our own.

### The days of Ezra and Nehemiah

The story does not stop there. During the days of Ezra, Cyrus gave the Jews leave to return to Judah and rebuild the temple. Elders of the tribes of Judah, Benjamin and Levi led this return (Ezra 1:5). After arriving, the returnees called themselves both the people of Judah and the people of Israel. The terms were interchangeable (Ezra 4:3-4). Ezra himself became known as "a teacher well versed in the Law of Moses, which the Lord, the God of Israel, had given.... For Ezra had devoted himself to the study and observance of the Law of the Lord and to teaching its decrees and laws in Israel" (Ezra 7:6, 10).

Ezra returned to Judea with the blessing of Artaxerxes, who had decreed, "that any of the Israelites in my kingdom...who may wish to go to Jerusalem with you, may go" (Ezra 7:13). Upon their return they sacrificed as a sin offering "twelve bulls for all Israel" (Ezra 8:35).

Later, when Nehemiah arrived, the Jews decided to repopulate Jerusalem with one-tenth their number. "Now some Israelites, priests, Levites, temple servants and descendants of Solomon's servants lived in the towns of Judah, each on his own property in the various towns, while other people from both Judah and Benjamin lived in Jerusalem" (Nehemiah 11:3-4). The word Israelite in this context does not prove what tribes they descended from. It does prove that by this time Israel and Judah were interchangeable. This should not surprise us once we have recognized the great influx of Israelites into Judah that had occurred before the Babylonian captivity.

During his governorship, Nehemiah became concerned with the flagrant Sabbath-breaking among the people. He later wrote,

#### I rebuked the nobles of Judah and said to them, "What is this wicked thing you are doing — desecrating the Sabbath day? Didn't your forefathers do the same things, so that our God brought all this calamity upon us and upon this city? Now you are stirring up more wrath against Israel by desecrating the Sabbath." (Nehemiah 13:17-18)

### Israel and Judah rebuild the temple

The final Old Testament book that contributes to our historical understanding of this subject is Zechariah. Contemporary to Ezra, he and Haggai urged the reluctant Jews to rebuild the temple. In chapter 8, God spoke of his jealousy for Jerusalem. He inspired his listeners with descriptions of the messianic peace he would bring to the city. To the skeptical Jews he responded,

#### It may seem marvelous to the remnant of this people at this time, but will it seem marvelous to me?... You who now hear these words spoken by the prophets...let your hands be strong so that the temple may be built.... As you have been an object of cursing among the nations, O Judah and Israel, so will I save you, and you will be a blessing. Do not be afraid, but let your hands be strong. (Zechariah 8:6, 9-13)

From the above we can see that the prophet Zechariah understood that God urged both houses of Israel to rebuild the temple. That could only occur if both houses dwelt as one among the people we now call the Jews.

Zechariah also marks a turning point in biblical terminology. It is the last place that our Christian Bibles say Jews are of the house of Judah (Zechariah 12:4).18 By the New Testament period, house of Judah had become an anachronism.19

### The New Testament evidence

We are now ready to examine the New Testament evidence.

Jesus said of his own commission, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matthew 15:24 NRSV20). What did Jesus mean when he said that he was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel?

Clearly we are dealing with an analogy. Jesus was sent to people, not livestock. People are the lost sheep of Israel.

Did he mean that he was sent to a land far-distant from Judea and Galilee to which the "lost tribes" had migrated? No, for his entire ministry was among the Jews of Judea and Galilee. It was to the Jews only that he was sent. Therefore, from that fact alone we can learn that Jesus himself referred to the Jews as the house of Israel. The Jews were the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

In what sense then were these sheep of Israel lost? Certainly they were not lost geographically. The whole Roman Empire knew where the Jews came from. Nor were they lost to history. Nor had they lost their identity. In none of these senses were the Jews of Christ's day lost. How then were they lost?

The house of Israel was lost spiritually.

The word translated as lost in Matthew 15:24 is _apollumi._ It may also be translated as _perish_ and _destroy._ For example, one form of this verb is translated as _perish_ in John 3:16, "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." Another form of the verb is translated _destroy_ in Matthew 10:28, "Be afraid of the one who can destroy both soul and body in hell."

The word may be used in the sense of being spiritually lost. We use the English word _lost_ in that same sense in the hymn "Amazing Grace" when we sing, "I once was lost but now am found."

Jesus' Parable of the Lost Sheep can be found in Matthew 18:11-14. In this parable he uses a shepherd's loving search for a lost sheep to describe God's care for children who love him. "In the same way your Father in heaven is not willing that any of these little ones should be lost."

As Jesus traveled through Jericho on his final trip to Jerusalem he spoke with Zacchaeus the tax collector. Zacchaeus expressed his faith in Christ by repenting of his sins and following Jesus' instruction to give to the poor. On hearing this Jesus said, "Today salvation has come to this house, because this man, too, is a son of Abraham. For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost" (Luke 19:9). Once again, a form of the verb _apollumi_ is used.

Therefore, after we consider all the evidence, we realize that when Jesus said he came only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, he meant that he came to the spiritually lost Jews.

This helps us properly understand Jesus' pre-crucifixion commission to the 12 apostles mentioned in Matthew 10:6: "Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel." These were the same sheep to whom he had been sent — the Jews. The parallel accounts of this commission in Mark 6 and Luke 9, along with their contexts, prove the apostles fulfilled this commission during Jesus' earthly ministry. Luke 9:6, 10 tell us that they "went from village to village preaching the gospel" and "they reported to Jesus what they had done."

After his resurrection Jesus broadened this commission to include the entire world (Matthew 28:19-20). Acts tells us how the apostles and others preached the gospel first to Jews, then to Samaritans and finally to gentiles.

### The House of Israel in Acts

As one reads Acts it become apparent that the church understood that the Jews were the house of Israel. The church did not look for Israelites among any other people.

Peter, when he stood to preach his famous Pentecost sermon, cried out, "Fellow Jews and all of you who are in Jerusalem!" (Acts 2:14). These Jews he later called "men of Israel" and "brothers" (Acts 2:22, 29).

He preached to them that "God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ." The NIV tells us that he wanted all of Israel to know this, but the NRSV is more revealing, and more accurate: "Therefore let the entire house of Israel know with certainty that God has made him both Lord and Messiah" (Acts 2:36).

The Jewish people included significant members of all the tribes. They therefore took their national name, Israel.

Interpretations of prophecies about Israel that fail to account for how Christ and the church referred to the Jews as the house of Israel are flawed. Unfortunately, USBP did not adequately address such issues.

The New Testament uses Israel and Jews interchangeably. In the New Testament, if one is an Israelite, one is a Jew, and vice versa. It was once true that not all Israelites were Jews. But by Jesus' day, as the New Testament reflects, Israelites from all 12 tribes were referred to as Jews.

The book of Acts records that the apostles addressed their countrymen in terms that do not fit in with the explanations found in USBP. Time and again, the Jewish apostles called members of their ethic group Israelites.

How often have we heard the claim that the modern state of Israel is misnamed, for the people there "aren't Israelites at all, but Jews"? Yet what did the early church call these people?

#### Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them: "Rulers and elders of the people!... Know this, you and everyone else in Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified...that this man stands before you completely healed." (Acts 4:10)

Whom did Peter say crucified Christ? The rulers, the elders, and everyone else in Israel!

Later, a church prayer mentioned that "Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the people of Israel in this city [Jerusalem] to conspire against your holy servant Jesus" (Act 4:27). Yes, in Jesus' day, people of Israel lived in Jerusalem.

When God began calling the uncircumcised, Peter said, "I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right. This is the message God sent to the people of Israel, telling the good news of peace through Jesus Christ" (Acts 10:34-35).

Luke, in writing his Gospel, wrote that John the Baptist "lived in the desert until he appeared publicly to Israel" (Luke 1:80).

John records that Jesus said of Nicodemus, "You are Israel's teacher" (John 3:10). You'll recall that Nicodemus was a member of the Sanhedrin, called the Jewish ruling council in John 3:1, but described as the "full assembly of the elders of Israel" in Acts 5:21.

There is no evidence that the apostles and Christ were merely bowing to custom when they called Jews Israelites. Of course that was the custom, but that custom was based on historic facts. As we have seen, Jesus himself called the Jews Israel in his description of Nicodemus, in his description of his own mission and in his first commission to the 12 apostles.

Later, when Christ called Paul, he described him as "my chosen instrument to carry my name before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel" (Acts 9:15). What follows in Acts is a telling of how Paul fulfilled his commission. He went first to the Jews, who were the people of Israel, and then to the others.

When Paul preached in the synagogue of the Pisidian Antioch he said,

#### Men of Israel and you Gentiles who worship God, listen to me! The God of the people of Israel chose our fathers.... God gave them judges.... Then the people asked for a king.... After removing Saul, he made David their king.... From this man's descendants God has brought to Israel the Savior Jesus, as he promised. Before the coming of Jesus, John preached repentance and baptism to all the people of Israel. (Acts 13:16b-24)

Paul did not mean that John literally preached to all the people of Israel anymore than 2 Kings 17:20 meant that Assyria carried all Israel into captivity. Paul simply meant that vast numbers of Israelites heard John's message.

Notice again, Paul called the Jews Israel. He consistently held this view. The thought that someone other than the Jews could still be called physical Israel was totally alien to all the apostles.

One passage must be particularly hard to explain if one insists that God considers the "lost tribes" a part of the United States and Britain. Again, the words are from the apostle Paul.

#### King Agrippa, I consider myself fortunate to stand before you today as I make my defense against all the accusations of the Jews, and especially so because you are well acquainted with all the Jewish customs and controversies....

#### The Jews all know the way I have lived ever since I was a child.... I lived as a Pharisee. And now it is because of my hope in what God has promised our fathers that I am on trial today. This is the promise our twelve tribes are hoping to see fulfilled as they earnestly serve God day and night. O king, it is because of this hope that the Jews are accusing me. Why should any of you consider it incredible that God raises the dead? (Acts 26:2-8, 22-23).

From this appeal we learn that in Paul's day the 12 tribes, not just Judah, Benjamin and Levi, but all the 12 tribes, worshipped God. In Paul's day they continued to look for the fulfillment of God's promises to them, especially the resurrection of the dead.

By the New Testament period, only the Jews could claim to be the legitimate remnants of the 12 tribes of Israel. The church of the first century looked no further. Why should we?

The significance of this observation is as follows. USBP claimed, since the house of Israel went into captivity and were subsequently lost, that none of the prophecies about them could be fulfilled by Judah. Yet because Judah contained large numbers of Israelites, this interpretation is highly suspect. We should not be dogmatic about it, because the Bible does not prove it. We should not endorse the unscriptural and insupportable conclusions of USBP.

As we commented early in this paper, we wish to fulfill the commission Christ gave to us. That commission has nothing to do with national identities. It has everything to do with eternal salvation and Christian discipleship.

### Endnotes

1 John Dillenberger and Claude Welch, _Protestant Christianity Interpreted Through Its Development,_ 2nd ed. (New York: Macmillan, 1988), 106.

2 _The United States and Britain in Prophecy_ [hereafter called USBP] (Pasadena, California: Worldwide Church of God, 1986), 87.

3 Ralph H. Alexander, "Ezekiel," _The Expositor's Bible Commentary,_ vol. 6, Frank E. Gaebelein, ed. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1986), 845.

4 S. Fisch, _Ezekiel,_ The Soncino Books of the Bible, A. Cohen, ed. (New York: The Soncino Press, 1985), 141.

5 USBP, 20.

6 USBP, 19.

7 USBP, 22.

8 USBP, 23.

9 E.A. Speiser, _Genesis: Introduction, Translation and Notes,_ The Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 1964), 356.

10 C.F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, _Commentary on the Old Testament,_ vol. 1, "The Pentateuch: Genesis, Exodus 1-11," James Martin, trans. (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson, 1989), 384-5).

11 USBP, 70.

12 "Geography, history and archaeology," _The New Oxford Annotated Bible,_ Oxford University Press, 1991, 414). For more detailed information read "Jerusalem," _The New Encyclopedia of Archeological Excavations in the Holy Land,_ Vol. 2 (Israel Exploration Society and Carta, Simon and Schuster, 1993), 704-9. From the latter we quote, "It seems that refugees flocked to Jerusalem from Samaria and the surrounding countryside.... Presently available excavation results provide ample evidence for the growth of Jerusalem's population and concomitant increase in area."

13 Avi Ofer, though disagreeing, admits the "theoretical possibility that these sites [in the Judean hills] were founded toward the end of the eighth century BCE (after the destruction of the Northern Kingdom of Israel?)." If so, that leads to the possibility that their founding may be attributed to Israelite immigration, just as the sudden growth of Jerusalem's population was at that same time (Avi Ofer, "Judean Hills Survey," _The New Encyclopedia of Archeological Excavations in the Holy Land,_ Vol. 2, 816).

The same encyclopedia has an article on Jericho by Kathleen M. Kenyon. She notes that "in the seventh century BCE...there was an extensive occupation of the ancient site," where little archeological evidence for an occupation from the immediately preceding centuries exists (Kathleen M. Kenyon, "Jericho," _The New Encyclopedia of Archeological Excavations in the Holy Land,_ Vol. 2, 680, cp. the article "Jericho" in The New Anchor Bible Dictionary). Why Jericho should become more prominent in that century is not explained. Could it be further evidence of a significant increase in population in Judah following Samaria's fall?

While it is admitted that the meaning of the evidence outside of Jerusalem is debatable, Anglo-Israelites should not ignore the fact that archeology now raises serious doubts as to their interpretation of events.

14 Remember, Simeon was scattered throughout Israel. Bible atlases often show Simeonite territory to have been centered in southern Judah, while Benjamin formed the northern border of the house of Judah (Yohanan Aharoni and Michael Avi-Yonah, _The Macmillan Bible Atlas,_ Revised Edition [New York: Macmillan, 1977], maps #68, 70, 82, 118, 147, 151).

15 E.W. Bullinger, _Figures of Speech Used in the Bible Explained and Illustrated_ (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1993), v-vi.

16 Bullinger, 613.

17 Bullinger, 640.

18 The last place in the Hebrew Bible where the term house of Judah appears is 2 Chronicles 22:10.

19 There is a quotation of Jeremiah 31:31 used in Hebrews 8:8, which mentions the house of Judah. However, by the time Hebrews was written, the book of Jeremiah was over 500 years old. Therefore its citation in Hebrews is no more an example of usual Herodian Jewish vocabulary than a quotation from Shakespeare would be of modern English vocabulary. The truth is that by the time of Jesus Christ, biblical writers, except when quoting ancient texts, do not refer to the Jews even once as the house of Judah. (For verification check _The NRSV Exhaustive Concordance._ )

20 Unfortunately the NIV leaves out the words house of, even though they are in the Greek text. The NRSV retains those words.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

back to table of contents

## How Anglo-Israelism Entered the Seventh-day Churches of God

A History of the Doctrine from John Wilson to Joseph W. Tkach

Christians insist that the Bible is an authoritative witness in matters of faith, doctrine and ethics. However, this high view of Scripture has not produced doctrinal unity, and Christian interpretation of Scripture continues to be far from inerrant. Consequently, Christians hold a plethora of views over exactly what the Bible says.

Such diversity is largely a hermeneutical problem. How does one and how should one read the biblical text? Can one know what that text said to its first audience? Is that relevant to what the text should say to people today? Does a text ever say more than its author(s) intended? Can or should a text apply beyond its authorial intention? These are not simply the concerns of theologians, but of all for whom texts are a vital part of life.

The Christian church has produced many insightful interpreters of Scripture. It has also had its share of dilettantes whose nonsensical interpretations have sometimes caused great harm. Probably, the same has been true for all text-oriented professions. Notice the modern debates about the original meaning and present significance of the United States Constitution.

Of all the Bible's varied literature, perhaps the most likely to be misinterpreted are its prophetic and apocalyptic passages. In America, most everyone has heard of people who claimed that the Bible predicted Jesus would return on a specific date. Such prophets assured everyone they were teaching the plain truths of Scripture.

Why do many Christians fall into this trap? Why have many confidently believed that they understood the Bible's prophecies better than anyone else — that they alone figured out the day of the Lord's return? Why also are many Christians drawn to the siren call of date-setting when the Bible sets no dates?

Christians long to be with Jesus and have the world set right. Such hope is sewn up with the return of the Lord. Such hope is good, yet needs to be tempered with wisdom.

Christian apologetics and evangelism can also head in wrong directions. Because Christians believe biblical prophecy points to the divine inspiration of Scripture, the prophetic books of the Bible are often used in their apologetics and evangelism. Yet some Christians, in their zeal to "prove" the Bible, misread the Bible. Such mishandling may bring more shame than converts.

Biblical understanding is corrupted further when its interpreters do not consider the multifaceted nature of biblical literature. While it is not difficult to grasp the moral messages of the biblical prophets, understanding many other facets of their messages requires a better-than-casual approach to each text. Exegesis benefits from an appreciation of the intricacies of the biblical languages and modes of expression. It requires consideration of the prophets' literary genres, and it demands an awareness of a text's original circumstances. Wise interpreters pay close attention to linguistic, literary, historical, cultural and canonical contexts. Unfortunately, too many Christians have read the Bible according to the literary and cultural standards of their own day, without considering that the Bible at its core is a collection of ancient Semitic and Greco-Roman texts. In some circles, people have a quickness to reject and ridicule informed scholarship that should have otherwise tempered their opinions.

Christians — clergy and laity alike — commonly share the fears, prejudices and political leanings prevalent in their social circles. Therefore, wise Christians consider that they may unconsciously read these attitudes into the Bible, especially into its prophecies. When this happens, instead of seeing the biblically prophesied future, Christians only see distorted reflections of themselves.

Unfortunately, the history of Christian interpretation of the Bible's prophetic books is not encouraging. Misinterpretation has been rampant. Disappointment from failed prophetic doctrines all too common.

The Worldwide Church of God arose in such an environment. Highly influenced by both Adventist and Dispensationalist views of prophecy, it was quick to make specific pronouncements about nations it believed were mentioned in biblical prophecy. Date-setting was endemic. That it was founded during the Great Depression, at the time of the Dust Bowl, the rise of Fascism and Communism, Japanese expansionism and the modernist-fundamentalist controversies of the 1930s did not help. The end-times surely seemed to be here.

Overarching all of this was Anglo-Israelism, the belief that the Anglo-Saxon peoples are descendants of the "lost" tribes of Israel. How all this came to be is the subject of this paper. As such, it provides a case study in how a variety of factors, unchecked by sound scholarship and reason, can create interpretive errors on a grand scale affecting many lives. It also illustrates how current events can seem to support such interpretive errors, especially when such errors appear to explain social and political trends. Believers thus ignore contrary evidence. Finally, it provides a cautionary story for all Christians who may naively assume that they cannot fall for such tall tales. This history suggests otherwise.

The story of the Worldwide Church of God (WCG) cannot be told without Herbert W. Armstrong, its apostle and prophet-like founder. For whatever reasons individuals aligned themselves with the WCG, its story up until 1986 is primarily the story of one man. Armstrong held absolute sway in the church. He determined all doctrine and any administrative matter with which he wanted to be concerned. Because Anglo-Israelism was an intimate part of his being, it was an important plank of the church.

The WCG no longer teaches Anglo-Israelism. Surprisingly, it has renounced Armstrong's unique blend of teachings. What once was a sect, even a cult, on the fringes of Christianity, is now officially orthodox. However drastic the changes, a few in the WCG continue to respect Armstrong as the man through whom God brought them to salvation in Jesus Christ. Nonetheless, as this paper will show, that was not how Armstrong viewed his primary work.

The revolution of official WCG teachings occurred because its leaders believed Armstrong's writings to be no less subject to investigation than mine or yours. They believed the church should ask of his teachings the same searching questions it should ask of anyone's teachings. With that approach it was perhaps inevitable that they should ask, What aspects of Armstrong's prophetic teachings were sound and what were unsound? Did culture and personal prejudice ever influence his teachings more than the Bible influenced them.

Armstrong wrote so much on biblical prophecy that this paper cannot cover it all. This study focuses, therefore, on the doctrine that shaped his entire thinking and ministry more than any other — Anglo-Israelism. How did that doctrine enter the WCG?

### Herbert Armstrong tests the Church of God (Seventh Day)

According to his autobiography, early in his conversion Armstrong believed that the Church of God (Seventh Day), a small Adventist sect, understood the Bible better than any other group. Therefore, in his mind it was the primary candidate for being God's one true church. Yet how could such a weak minuscule group be God's one and only church?

God's church, he reasoned, should be willing to confess error and change. While Armstrong did not expect to find God's church perfect in knowledge, he did expect to find it willing to grow in knowledge. Consequently, before he would become a member of the Church of God (Seventh Day), he decided to test its willingness to change.

As this paper will show, the above story is both idealized and sanitized. In his earliest years, Armstrong was quite open to accepting a wide range of Protestants as true servants of God. Only later did his concept of the church narrow down to those who kept the seventh-day Sabbath and had the name Church of God. His later recollections of these early events were shaped by these later conclusions.

His test of the Church of God (Seventh Day) assumed three things. First, that doctrine and a willingness to accept "new truth" were signposts of God's work. Second, that a test of a church's leader would be a sufficient test of the entire church. Third, that after less than two years as a Christian he understood the Bible well enough to administer such a test. Apparently it never occurred to him to ask the Church of God to test him. It was the Church of God (Seventh Day), not he, that was on trial.

His first test dealt with a minor difference over how to understand Matthew 28:1, one of Jesus' resurrection appearances. The second test was greater. It dealt with biblical prophecies Armstrong thought were for the end-time House of Israel.

Prophecy had played an important role in converting Armstrong. When his wife, through the influence of members of the Church of God (Seventh Day), began to observe Saturday as the Sabbath, Armstrong became incensed. He plunged into a religious study that produced a temporary faith crisis. As he struggled over his faith he "realized that the place to start was to prove whether God exists and whether the Holy Bible is his revelation." But how to do this? Though he studied several subjects, it was ultimately his investigation of Bible prophecy that led him to believe in the divine inspiration of the Scriptures.

He concluded that "in every instance (except in prophecies about a time yet future), [biblical prophecy] had come to pass precisely as written!" ( _The Autobiography of Herbert W. Armstrong_ [Pasadena, California: Worldwide Church of God, 1986], vol. 1, 296–7). It is no surprise, then, that prophecy continued to play an important role in his thinking and in his test of the Church of God (Seventh Day).

Like many fundamentalist Christians, the Church of God (Seventh Day) believed that numerous Old Testament prophecies about Israel had yet to be fulfilled. Their general Adventist perspective taught that God would eventually fulfill these prophecies among the Jews.

Armstrong thought otherwise. He believed Anglo-Israelism — the doctrine that the Anglo-Saxons of the United States and Britain were the true descendants of the House of Israel, while the Jews descended from Israel's other division, the House of Judah — provided the key to understanding the Prophets. He concluded that instead of applying the House of Israel prophecies to the Jews, one should apply them to the United States and the British Commonwealth.

As we will prove later, Armstrong's second test of the Church of God was a detailed presentation of his Anglo-Israelite views and by implication the special role Armstrong believed God had given him to be a prophet to the world. If the Church of God (Seventh Day) accepted what he had to say, Armstrong believed that would prove they were who they said they were, the Church of God. They would also become the first group to recognize his prophetic calling.

To this end, Armstrong shipped to A.N. Dugger, a leading reformist in the sect and the editor of the church's paper, his thick Anglo-Israelite manuscript. After reading it, Dugger appeared to accept its teachings. Yet he was unwilling to proclaim it. He wrote to Armstrong:<div align="right"></div>

#### I am returning from the Arkansas conference... and have just finished the manuscript on the Third Angel's Message and British Israel.... You have put much work on this and I am impressed to write you now while the matter is fresh on my mind.... I have seen no work near its equal in clearness and completeness. You surely are right, and while I cannot use it in the paper at the present you may be sure that your labor has surely not been in vain.... There is a purpose in your having gone into this matter so deeply... and you will hear more from these truths and the light herein revealed later. (A. N. Dugger to Herbert W Armstrong, 28 July 1929, _The Autobiography of Herbert W. Armstrong_ , 1967 ed., 406)1

Dugger's response deeply disappointed Armstrong.

#### Did this Church accept and proclaim this vital new truth — the key that unlocks the doors to all prophecy? Here was the key to understanding of one third of the whole Bible. But this Church refused then to accept it or preach it or publish it... though their leader frankly confessed it was truth and a revelation from God!

#### Yet here was the Church which appeared to have _more truth_ , and _less error_ than any other.... Truly, this was bewildering! (ibid., 346)

Armstrong could not understand why Dugger treated Anglo-Israelism casually. In Armstrong's eyes, Anglo-Israelism powerfully improved the preaching of the gospel.

Armstrong's bewilderment was compounded further by his already-formed deep conviction that God had commissioned only him to shout an Anglo-Israelite warning to the world. He saw himself as an end-time prophet preparing the way for the Lord. (How he came to this conviction, we will examine later). Though not directly expressed in his _Autobiography,_ Armstrong believed as early as January 1929 that the rejection of Anglo-Israelism was tantamount to rejecting him as God's special messenger.

But was Anglo-Israelism "new truth" — or had the Church of God heard it before?

### The origins of Anglo-Israelism

Anglo-Israelism did not originate with Armstrong. Some claim John Sadler as its father, who in 1649 speculated in _Rights to the Kingdom_ that the English were descendants of Israel's lost tribes.

Supposedly, in 1723 a Dr. Abade of Amsterdam wrote, "Unless the ten tribes have flown into the air...they must be sought for in the north and west, and in the British Isles."2 Another version of this story calls him Dean Abbadie of Kilaloe, Ireland. The quotation in this version of the story is also different: "Unless the ten lost tribes of Israel are flown into the air...they must be those ten Gothic tribes, that entered Europe in the fifth century...and founded the ten nations of modern Europe." The quotation is supposed to have been published in his book _Triomphe de la Religion._ 3 That there exists two versions of this story, which spell Abade's name two different ways and place him in two different countries casts doubts on its authenticity.

A.B. Grimaldi is the source of the second of these two stories. An unabashed turn-of-the-century Anglo-Israelite, he made no attempt to distinguish between various Anglo-Israelite speculations. He uncritically classified anyone who identified Britain as Israel with teaching that we know today as Anglo-Israelism. Yet modern Anglo-Israelism can differ significantly with other views that seem on the surface to be the same.

Grimaldi claimed I.H. Frere as an early Anglo-Israelite. His book _The Prophecies of David, Esdras, and John_ was said to have been published in 1815. In 1816, Reverend B. Murphy is said to have published _Proofs That Israelites Came From Egypt Into Ireland._ Murphy's second book, _Advocate of Israel and the Isle of Erin_ was published in 1817. However, despite these early-19th-century works, Grimaldi identified the first author to advocate modern Anglo-Israelism as Ralph Wedgwood. His _The Book of Remembrance_ was published in 1841. Grimaldi said it was a two-volume work, the only copy of which was alleged to be in the British Library.4

Other scholars believe Anglo-Israelism began with Richard Brothers, a Canadian madman. Around 1800 Brothers both amused and irritated the upper echelons of English society. Troubled by visions, Brothers claimed to be God's prophet called to warn London of its impending doom. Armageddon was coming. Of all the centers of evil and corruption, Parliament was singled out for God's special wrath. He identified it as the beast of Revelation to which God gave the number 666.

Brothers increased his comic infamy by claiming direct descent from King David, through the apostle James, the brother of Jesus. God told him, Brothers said, that he was the "nephew of the Almighty." As prophet, Brothers claimed to have received a revelation that the English people were racially Israelites.

Brothers reasoned that since he was a descendant of King David and the English were Israelites, only he had the right to be king of England. George III disagreed. He had Brothers convicted of treason and sent to an asylum.

Brothers used Scripture to justify his claims. Yet ultimately the "revelation" that England was Israel did not come from the Bible. It came from his madness.

Brothers died insane in 1824. Before his death, his caretakers released him, thinking him to be harmless. From his release until his death, a handful of his disciples provided for his needs. They continued publishing his ideas until 1850, 26 years after his death.5

In the waning years of Brothers' cult, modern Anglo-Israelism became popularized through the writings of John Wilson. This is where the story really begins. Wilson based his theories on his interpretation of Scripture, not on a madman's dreams. While there are similarities between what Wilson and Brothers taught, there are many significant differences. To date, no one has produced a single passage from Wilson that was clearly influenced by Brothers, this despite the fact that Brother's cult and Wilson's writings overlapped. In fact, if Grimaldi's research is correct, it suggests that people other than Brothers are the more likely candidates for having influenced Wilson. Did these earlier writers actually exist? If they did, did they have ties either to Brothers or to Wilson? At the present we cannot say. In any case, though Wilson may not be the originator of modern Anglo-Israelism, he should be remembered for popularizing the belief.6

Wilson published his exposition of Anglo-Israelism, titled _Our Israelitish Origin,_ in 1840. The public's demand for copies resulted in several editions, in both England and America. The American edition came out in 1850. According to a handwritten note in a copy of this edition, the then widely-known George Storrs read and recommended it.7 If this notation is correct, Storrs is one of the earliest American Anglo-Israelites.

### George Storrs

To understand the significance of Storrs to our story, we need to quickly review the history of the Millerite movement and the origins of the Seventh-day Adventist church. As students of American church history know, Millerism, the parent of Adventism, was like Anglo-Israelism in that both grew out of a fascination with biblical prophecy. Because both arose at about the same time, it was inevitable that students of both movements would read the works of each other.

Millerites believed that Jesus would return sometime in the period of 1843-45. Believers should warn others and prepare themselves for the coming Judgment. The movement began with William Miller, a poor and reluctant Baptist preacher from rural New York state. Miller's message was almost ignored by the public until Joshua Himes accepted it. Himes used his extensive advertising and publishing skills to spread the word.

Millerites first proclaimed the autumn of 1843, then the spring and later the autumn of 1844, as God's appointed time. When their predictions failed, their humiliation became known as the Great Disappointment.

Millerism had penetrated Great Britain by 1840, the same year _Our Israelitish Origin_ was published. There the Disappointment delayed a year because many British Millerites thought 1845, not 1844, was the expected year. In Britain, converts to Millerism usually came from smaller, prophetically-oriented churches on the fringes of British Christianity. These believers generally took a literalistic approach to Scripture. Often their prophetic views were bookish, lacking any social impact. By 1845, British Millerism had attracted offshoots of the Anglo-Israelite movement.8

In America, Miller encouraged his followers to read British books on biblical prophecy. It seems there was some communication between American Millerites and various British prophecy buffs. Thus, Millerism helped set the stage for the introduction of Anglo-Israelism into the United States. That would explain how George Storrs, a former Millerite, came to recommend _Our Israelitish Origins._ It may also be one reason why the book sold so well in this country.

Before Anglo-Israelism reached America's shores, the Great Disappointment had led to the collapse of Millerism and the discrediting of its leaders. Most Millerites returned to their former churches. Those who did not, because they continued preaching Jesus' imminent second advent, became known as Adventists. At first, their numbers included only a handful of seventh-day Sabbatarians.

After the Great Disappointment, George Storrs continued working for the Adventist cause. Storrs' most important contribution to Adventism came the day he started teaching that the dead were unconscious. Storrs believed the dead are not in heaven, nor are they in hell. They are asleep in their graves. People, he said, do not have immortal souls. They must be given eternal life through Jesus Christ at the resurrection of the saints.

Storrs discovered this doctrine while riding in a railroad car. He literally picked it up off the floor, where he had found a tract on the subject written by an independent Sunday-keeping preacher. Storrs popularized the teaching among Adventists. "Soul-sleep" thus became an identifying tenet of most Adventist sects.

Although many Adventists opposed sect-formation — on the grounds that churches immediately became Babylonian when formally organized — most Adventists came to see organization as better than no organization. Thus, groups began to coalesce around sets of doctrines that distinguished them from other groups. Their differences often revolved around the Sabbath, the nature of the millennium, the state of the dead, church government and the prophetess Ellen G. White. Her teachings led directly to the founding of the largest of these new groups, the Seventh-day Adventist church.

Coalescence among Adventists continued until the 1920s, a period of about 80 years. In this century the tendency has been to divide rather than to coalescence. Since the First World War, dozens of offshoots have sprung from these parent groups.

Storrs was a part of the coalescence. In 1863 he helped found the smallest of the Adventist bodies, the Sunday-observing Life and Advent Union. In 1964 the Life and Advent Union merged with the larger Advent Christian Church. Although the Life and Advent Union represented an extremely small branch of Adventism, Storrs' influence far exceeded its meager numbers. Every branch of Adventism, including the Seventh-day Adventists, the Church of God (Seventh Day), Jehovah's Witnesses and the Worldwide Church of God owe their doctrines of conditional immortality to him.9

Because of Storrs' widespread influence, a recommendation by him of _Our Israelitish Origins_ would have spread Anglo-Israelism among American Adventists. One can be reasonably certain that if George Storrs recommended a book, then others would have read it.

### R.V. Lyon

One who may have followed Storrs' alleged recommendation was the evangelist R.V. Lyon. As far as we can tell, Lyon never claimed that Anglo-Saxons were Israelites. Yet what he wrote about Israel in prophecy, and coming as they do after the popularity of _Our Israelitish Origin,_ strongly suggest Anglo-Israelite influence.

Lyon has been misidentified as a Church of God (Seventh Day) minister.10 The confusion arises because Lyon, though not a Sabbath keeper, had influence within the Church of God (Seventh Day). Ordained a Baptist preacher, Lyon left the Baptists to become a Millerite. After the Great Disappointment he settled in a group that later joined with other groups to form the Church of God (Abrahamic Faith). The denomination has since changed its name to the Church of God General Conference. Some of its congregations continue to use the older name.11 The church taught conditional immortality, an earthly kingdom of God and, most important for our discussion, Israel's restoration to Palestine.

So strongly did this group emphasize their belief in Israel's restoration, that they have also been known as the Restoration Church of God.12 While restorationism creates a receptive atmosphere for Anglo-Israelism, we know of no one from among the Church of God (Abrahamic Faith) who was Anglo-Israelite. Lyon came close. As we will see, it is but a short step from Lyon's restorationism to classic Anglo-Israelism.

The shortness of the step is evident in Lyon's conviction that the Jews do not represent all of end-time Israel. In his writings, Lyon emphasized the biblical story of how Israel divided into two nations, Judah and Israel. Each suffered its own captivity. Only Judah returned from its captivity. These are the Jews of today. The rest of Israel supposedly continued to exist separate from the Jews, but having lost their identity to all but God. Though mingled among the nations, God miraculously has preserved them as a distinct people. This premise is the classic basis of Anglo-Israelism and is what suggests that Lyon was influenced by such thought.

Lyon believed Ezekiel 37:15–28 to be an important restorationist prophecy. It speaks of the reunification of Judah and Israel, and how they are again to be ruled by one king — David. In interpreting this passage, Lyon applied both a literalist and a typological hermeneutic. He seemed unaware of his inconsistency. First we will review his typological explanation. In his booklet _The Scattering and Restoration of Israel,_ Lyon explained that the "David" of Ezekiel 37 was actually Jesus.13 His explanation is in line with much Christian thought, for many Christians have long considered David a type of Jesus.

Consider Ezekiel's broader message, wherein a primary theme is Israel's violation of the old covenant (16:8, 59–62; 17:13–19). Ezekiel testified to their commandment breaking and defilement of the temple. Long before Ezekiel's day, sin lay behind the northern tribes' rebellion against the Davidic monarchy and the subsequent bifurcation of the nation. Eventually, Babylon invaded Judah, taking away many captives. God called Ezekiel to proclaim to his fellow Israelite captives the final collapse of Judah, the destruction of the temple and the apparent end of Davidic rule.

Accompanying Ezekiel's message of doom is one of hope. In chapter 20 Ezekiel proclaims God as Israel's king (20:33). As savior, God will deliver them from their tribulation. He will bring them within the bond of the covenant (v. 37). The nation will revive within this renewed relationship (vv. 40-44). In chapter 37 Ezekiel prophesies that God will revive Israel, a people described as dead dry bones lying in an open field. God will place his spirit within them, giving them life (Ezekiel 37:13–4).

Ezekiel 37:15–27 builds on and expands this theme. Ezekiel explains that their king and savior — who in chapter 20 is God — will dwell in their midst (v. 27). He will then make a new covenant with them (v. 26). Israel will again be God's people (v. 27). Unlike the old covenant that they violated, the new covenant will be everlasting.

Other Old Testament prophets spoke of a David, and a son of David, who would lead Israel with righteousness (Isaiah 11:1–3; 9:6–7, 16:5; Jeremiah 23:5, 33:15). Christians saw this fulfilled in Jesus. In the New Testament Jesus is the new David/Solomon (Revelation 5:5; 22:16). Not only is Jesus a literal descendant of David (Matthew 1; John 7:42; 2 Timothy 2:8), but also in him are the Davidic promises fulfilled. He is the one to sit on David's throne (Luke 1:32). His kingdom is the kingdom of David (Mark 11:10). With the founding of the church, God raises David's tabernacle (Acts 15:13–19). As the antitype of Solomon, Jesus is the Son of David (Matthew 9:27; 12:23; 15:22; 20:30–31; 21:19; 15). The Psalms, the church believes, point to David as the type and Jesus as the antitype (Acts 2:25, 34; 4:25; 13:33, 35). Hebrews applies scriptures to Jesus that originally referred to Solomon (Hebrews 1:5; 2 Samuel 7:13–14). It is Jesus who fulfills God's promise that David would never lack an heir (Acts 13:34–36). The New Testament does not look to a resurrected David, for it has a resurrected Christ (Acts 2:25–36; 13:34–37).

As the Messianic type, the original David had reunited the tribes (2 Samuel 5:1–5). Thus, Ezekiel 37 looks typologically to a then-future "David" who will bring a greater reunity. "David" is to reign over Israel when God establishes his new covenant with them. The Christian belief that the new covenant is here suggests that in some sense "David" reigns.

Lyon, having started typologically, then applied a literalist hermeneutic to every other part of Ezekiel 37. So, although David was understood typologically, the reunification of Israel that David would bring about was thought to be literal. Lyon did not explain how he justified his inconsistency.

Lyon further reasoned that Ezekiel 37 would be fulfilled during the Millennium, a future time when Jesus would reign over the earth for 1000 years. Lyon thus rejected the idea that Israel's reunification would occur typologically in new Israel, the church.

In his discussion, Lyon ignored the early chapters of Ezekiel, which speak of Israelites and Jews as already dwelling together (see Ezekiel chapters 3-4, 8-11). Missing also was Jesus' claim that the Jews were "the lost sheep of the House of Israel" (Matthew 15:24). For Jesus, "House of Israel" and "Jews" were synonymous. Finally, Lyon did not discuss the New Testament's witness that God has already made the new covenant with spiritual Israel — the church (Luke 22:20; 1 Corinthians 11:25; 2 Corinthians 3:6; Hebrews 8:6). Lyon argued that the church must look beyond the Jews to find Israel today. Yet to the question, Where is Israel today? Lyon offered no answer. Lyon cuddled up to Anglo-Israelism, but apparently did not embrace it.

So why mention him? Lyon is important because he had influence far beyond what became the Church of God (Abrahamic Faith). By the American Civil War, Lyon was evangelizing in widely separated areas of the Great Lakes region of both the United States and Canada. Additionally, for 30 years until his death in 1891, Lyon sent his free literature to anyone who requested it. He had readers throughout Northern America. Though not widely known among the general public, Lyon and his prophetic doctrines were known and welcomed among Adventists who later formed the Church of God (Seventh Day).

Throughout the latter 1800s and early 1900s, there were many contacts between restorationists such as R.V. Lyon and ministers of what became the Church of God (Seventh Day).14 While doctrines about the Sabbath were different, both groups had much in common, including a fascination with Israel. While it was not until 1874 that elements of the future Church of God (Seventh-Day) published Lyon's prophetic viewpoints, his influence was indirectly felt earlier than that, through the person of R.W. Reed.

### R.W. Reed

Reed was a member of the Sabbath-observing Church of Christ at Marion, Iowa.15 In those years, the congregations that later formed the Church of God (Seventh Day) acted independently of each other. In the mid-1860s members of the Marion congregation revived the defunct _Hope of Israel,_ which later became _The Bible Advocate._ The paper was a local production supported by private contributions from around the country. Reed was instrumental in the paper's revival.

Like Lyon, Reed believed there was more to national Israel than the Jews. In 1868 he wrote an article for _The Hope of Israel_ explaining this position.16 A comparison between Reed's 1868 articles and Lyon's earlier 1861 tract, _The Scattering and Restoration of Israel,_ clearly shows the influence of Lyon on Reed. In every point Reed

followed Lyon's arguments. The influence is obvious. And just like Lyon, Reed left the question unanswered: If a non-Jewish Israel still exists, where is it?

In the following years, the Marion church paper failed financially two more times. Even changing its name to _The Advent and Sabbath Advocate_ did not increase its appeal to Sabbatarian Adventists. Its salvation came in March 1874 when Jacob Brinkerhoff spent all his savings to keep it going.

### Jacob Brinkerhoff confronts Anglo-Israelism

Brinkerhoff assumed sole editorial responsibility for the paper, shortening its name to _The Sabbath Advocate._ He continued its previous policy of publishing opposing views on a variety of biblical subjects. Yet his openness had limits. He allowed nothing that questioned the observance of the Sabbath, an earthly kingdom of God or that supported the Seventh-day Adventist church and Ellen G. White. The Iowa brethren supported the paper and viewed it as a church rather than a private publication.

Shortly after taking over the paper, Brinkerhoff reprinted Lyon's tract about Israel. Though the question, Where are the lost tribes? remained unanswered, it was not long before some Sabbatarian Adventists thought they knew the answer. In 1884 the paper reported that a Brother Ellsworth believed in Anglo-Israelism and had converted several to it. This is the earliest known statement unambiguously showing that some Sabbatarian Adventists had accepted Anglo-Israelism, though as we pointed out earlier, the belief had entered the Millerite movement in England before 1845.

Brinkerhoff became concerned with this report. He wrote an article in response that ridiculed Anglo-Israelism.17 Six months later he published a second, more lengthy refutation.18 However, the issue would not die. Just two issues after this refutation, in early 1885, Brinkerhoff reprinted an article from the otherwise unknown _Bible Banner._ 19 Though not relevant to the article's main theme, it nevertheless casually commented that England was Israel. Brinkerhoff responded by remarking that the idea lacked any supporting evidence.20

We do not hear of Anglo-Israelism in any Church of God (Seventh Day) publication for several decades. One should not assume, however, that the idea was purged from the group. Christians often hold beliefs different from those held by church hierarchies, and it is always difficult to trace the history of such beliefs when they never reach publication. We can only note when they occasionally pop up.

Considering that the prophetic future of Israel remained a hot topic within the Church of God (Seventh Day), it would not be surprising to see Anglo-Israelism appearing once again. And so it was. According to later testimony, Merritt Dickinson accepted the doctrine in 1900. The Dickinson family had spent three years in Jerusalem, after which they settled in Oklahoma. It was while in Oklahoma that Dickinson became an Anglo-Israelite.

### Dickinson and Dugger discuss Anglo-Israelism

A Dickinson family tradition says that in 1912 Merritt Dickinson and Andrew Dugger discussed Anglo-Israelism. (This is the same Dugger that later corresponded with Armstrong.) Dugger allegedly commented, "You can preach about that [Anglo-Israelism] if you want to, and there may be some truth to it; but you can't get anywhere with the people."21

Andrew's father had been an Advent Christian minister before accepting the Sabbath. Afterwards, the older A.F. Dugger helped to create the first General Conference of the Church of God (Adventist). The sect was now organized on a national level. It is this group that later became the Church of God (Seventh Day). In 1884, Dugger's father was elected to become the General Conference's first vice-president and in that position established the sect's first Sabbath school department. He was also a contributing editor to the church's paper, which had been purchased from Brinkerhoff. In 1905 the conference elected the elder Dugger to be the paper's managing editor.22

In 1906 Andrew Dugger became an elder. Although he had not completed college, he was a school teacher, and allegedly he was the most educated Church of God (Seventh Day) minister of his day. Eight years later he assumed the editorship of the church paper, a position he held for two eventful decades. By now the paper was known as _The Bible Advocate._

### The seven-times theory

World War I began the year A.N. Dugger became editor of _The Bible Advocate._ Years before, Dugger's father had believed that a great war would break out sometime between 1912 and 1914. Dugger later explained that his father's belief sprung from his interpretation of Leviticus 26:27–8.23 In the King James Version that prophecy reads "And if ye will...walk contrary unto me [the Lord]; Then I will walk contrary unto you also in fury; and I, even I, will chastise you seven times for your sins" (Leviticus 26:27–28).

As modern translations make clear, the words _seven times_ mean _sevenfold._ In other words, the prophesied curses on ancient Israel would be in intensity seven times more than their sins. A.F. Dugger misunderstood _seven times_ as seven periods of _time._

How did the older Dugger apply this misunderstanding about "times" to arrive at the remarkably accurate conclusion that a great war would break out between 1912 and 1914? The process he followed is complicated. First, he followed a common Adventist assumption that one prophetic "time" equals one year. Thus seven "times" are said to equal seven years. Making another assumption that a prophetic year has 360 days, A.F. Dugger then multiplied seven years by 360. The result was 2,520 days. He then applied the assumption that each day represented one year. In effect, he had turned the years into days, then back into years again. The seven times became seven years, then 2,520 days, then 2,520 years. After all this math, the older Dugger concluded he had discovered how long God was cursing the Jews.

Even if one accepts that all these numeric gymnastics are valid, for Christians this line of reasoning has another significant problem. Leviticus 26 says God imposed the curses for violation of the old covenant (Leviticus 26:2, 9, 15, 25). It adds that the covenant relationship would be reestablished on national repentance, not upon the passing of a certain time span (verses 40–42). Such was also the message of the Prophets (e.g., Isaiah 24:4–5; Jeremiah 11:10; 22:8–9; Ezekiel 16:8, 59–62, Daniel 11:30, 32; Hosea 8:1).

Further, for Leviticus 26 to have any modern application requires the continued validity of the old covenant. That God prophesied the end of the old covenant and the establishment of a new — an event fulfilled in Christ — seems not to have affected A.F. Dugger's prophetic teaching (cf. Zechariah 11:10; Hosea 2:18–20; Jeremiah 31:31–34; Matthew 26:28; Luke 22:20; 1 Corinthians 11:25; 2 Corinthians 3:6; Hebrews 7:22, 8:6–13). Hebrews 8:13 says that the old covenant was obsolete, was growing old, and was about to disappear. Yet fundamental to A.F. Dugger's exegesis, is the imposition of the old covenant blessings and cursings on modern peoples.

A.F. Dugger did understand that Leviticus' curses began to climax with Nebuchadnezzar's first siege of Jerusalem. He went wrong in attempting to figure out when and why they would end. To begin solving this nonpuzzle, A.F. Dugger incorrectly dated Nebuchadnezzar's first siege of Jerusalem to 606 B.C. He next calculated 2,520 years forward and came to A.D. 1914. He thus concluded that in 1914, God would remove the ancient curse that had long blocked the restoration of the Jewish state. Further, A.F. Dugger believed that the coming of the Jewish state would end what Jesus called the "times of the Gentiles." In Luke's version of the Olivet prophesy, Jesus said "Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled" (Luke 21:24, KJV). With their passing, Dugger believed Jesus' return could not be far behind.

Although the First World War began in 1914 and produced the Balfour Declaration that led to a Jewish state, it is no confirmation that A.F. Dugger was right. He misinterpreted Leviticus 26, misdated the first siege of Jerusalem and miscalculated by two years the end of the nonexistent 2,520-year curse.24

Misinterpretations of Scripture, no matter how many events are claimed in their support, are misinterpretations still. To rely on such misinterpretations is to set oneself up for a spiritual crisis. No mathematical scheme, no historic or current event, can make them correct.

A.F. Dugger did not originate the seven-times theory. The now forgotten but once popular British evangelical H. Grattan Guinness may have been the first to propose it.25 Guinness' first book, _The Approaching End of the Age,_ was originally published in 1878. Extremely popular, it went through 13 editions between 1878 and 1897. After his death, E.H. Horne produced in 1918 a revised and abridged edition of this most popular of Guinness' books. People were still buying his books into the 1930s.

Of the 2,520 years, Guinness wrote, "This is _inferred_ from Scripture rather than distinctly _stated_ in it."26 Having admitted this, however, Guinness proceeded to detail an elaborately complex prophetic scheme. Though once popular, his date-setting probably doomed him to obscurity. It was Guinness who interpreted the 2,520 years as "the times of the Gentiles." In his second book, _Light for the Last Days,_ Guinness elaborated. He dedicated four chapters to the seven "times" idea.27 Amazingly, Guinness proposed not one time span of 2,520 years, but many. These spans ended in 1884, 1889, 1893, 1898, 1906, 1915, 1917, 1923 and 1933–4.28 Of all these, 1917 was the most important.

#### The year is...doubly indicated as a final crisis date, in which the "Seven Times" run out....There can be no question that those who live to see this year 1917 will have reached one of the most important, perhaps _the_ most momentous, of these terminal years of crisis. ( _Light for the Last Days,_ 253, 255)

In Britain, Guinness was a much sought-after evangelical speaker on biblical prophecy.29 His fame spread to America, where many read his books. Apparently A.F. Dugger was among them, for Richard Nickels reports that in the 1890s Dugger published some of Guinness' prophetic ideas in the _Advocate._ 30 The trail of the 2,520-year-curse theory begins with the evangelical Guinness, goes through the Adventist Dugger, to become an important part of early 20th-century Church of God teaching.

There may have also been another influence. An independent Sunday-observing Adventist named Jonas Wendell had claimed Jesus would return in 1874. After that date passed, Wendell replaced it with 1914.31 He too calculated 2,520 years to get there. Wendell's scheme came before Guinness' and was based not on Leviticus but on Daniel.32

The King James Version of Daniel 4 says that Nebuchadnezzar would be insane for seven "times." Wendell saw this as a type of the "time of the Gentiles." In other words, Nebuchadnezzar's seven times of insanity, thought to be 2,520 days long, was assumed to be a typological prediction of the 2,520 years divinely allotted for the "time of the Gentiles."

One of Wendell's personal converts, Charles Taze Russell, soon started his own movement. The Russelites, as they were known by their detractors, have since evolved into the Jehovah's Witnesses. As did the older Dugger, they count the "time of the Gentiles" from Nebuchadnezzar's first siege of Jerusalem. Like the older Dugger, they also incorrectly date that siege, but unlike him date it at 607 B.C. From this erroneous date, they calculate to 1914. Just as World War I confirmed to the Church of God (Seventh Day) that it properly understood prophecy, so it does for many Jehovah's Witnesses.

World War I also seemed to support Anglo-Israelism. Anglo-Israelites would claim that Israel, represented by the British Empire, had liberated Jerusalem from the Muslim Turks. The "time of the Gentiles" had ended. Beginning with the Balfour Declaration, the English "Israelites" would give Jerusalem to their brothers, the Jews.

### G.G. Rupert's unique Anglo-Israelism

Besides the earlier mentioned Dickinson, another Oklahoma Sabbath keeper who embraced his own unique form of Anglo-Israelism was G.G. Rupert. Rupert had been a Seventh-day Adventist missionary to South America and a regional conference leader in the United States. After leaving the Seventh-day Adventists, Rupert associated himself with the Church of God (Seventh Day).

Rupert's unique version of Anglo-Israelism rejected the racial descent theory and replaced it with one of spiritual descent. Spiritual Judah, he said, was the Greek Orthodox Church. He identified spiritual Israel as the Roman Catholic Church. The Protestant churches he labeled Ephraim, the leading tribe in Israel. America was also Ephraim because it was a Protestant stronghold. Rupert then ignored the contextual evidence that the book of Hosea was written to eighth-century B.C. Israel, and instead claimed its intended audience was Protestant America.

### _The Bible Advocate_ publishes Anglo-Israelite articles

In 1915, A.N. Dugger printed advertisements in _The Bible Advocate_ for Rupert's most famous book, _The Yellow Peril._ Though Rupert advertised in _The Bible Advocate,_ he apparently never joined the Church of God (Seventh Day). He had his own following that probably developed through the readership of his own newspaper, _The Remnant of Israel._ After his death in the early 1920s, his wife continued Rupert's work. She had to close the paper in 1929. Seventy years later, a small remnant of his disciples remain.33

Despite Rupert's contacts with the Church of God (Seventh Day), no firm evidence exists that proves Rupert to be the source for either Dickinson's or Armstrong's Anglo-Israelism. Rupert's Anglo-Israelism was not their Anglo-Israelism.

However, Armstrong did become familiar with Rupert's work. Copies of Rupert's publications were alleged to be seen among Armstrong's possessions after his death. Similarities exist between festivals inspired by the Old Testament that Rupert observed and those kept by Armstrong. Yet an examination of Armstrong's correspondence for the late 1920s proves that his Anglo-Israelite beliefs came from another direction.

### Judah's Sceptre and Joseph's Birthright

In 1917 A.A. Beauchamp issued his first edition of the Anglo-Israelite classic, J.H. Allen's _Judah's Sceptre and Joseph's Birthright._ Though not of the Church of God, Allen greatly affected that sect. As we have mentioned, Merritt Dickinson was the first Church of God (Seventh Day) minister to preach Anglo-Israelism. He claimed that he accepted the doctrine around the year 1900, and that he discussed it with A.N. Dugger in 1912. A few years after that, Dickinson read _Judah's Sceptre and Joseph's Birthright_.34

Dickinson's Anglo-Israelism received a favorable hearing. In 1919, he advocated his views in several articles published in _The Bible Advocate._ The Church of God even distributed one of them — "The Final Gathering of the Children of Israel" — as a booklet. So we have proof that Dugger was familiar with Anglo-Israelism at least ten years before Armstrong sent Dugger his manuscript.

Armstrong wrote Beauchamp to ask for an opinion about _Judah's Sceptre and Joseph's Birthright,_ which by then he had read. Armstrong seemed unaware that Beauchamp was the publisher of _Judah's Sceptre and Joseph's Birthright._ For him to ask Beauchamp for an opinion as to its validity is like asking the pope if one should be Catholic.

In reply, Beauchamp wrote,

#### You ask my opinion as to the most dependable book on the Israel theory? I have always thought myself that _Judah's Sceptre and Joseph's Birthright_ was the best book. (A.A. Beauchamp to Armstrong, 5 April 1928, HWAP, #874).

Beauchamp, publisher of _Judah's Sceptre and Joseph's Birthright,_ enclosed with his letter a 12-page catalogue of all his publications. It would be fascinating to know what was in that catalogue and if Armstrong ordered anything from it. It might be particularly insightful to know if Armstrong subscribed to Beauchamp's magazine _The New Watchman,_ (1922–?), originally called _The Watchman of Israel_ (1918-1922). As we will see, the idea of being an end-time watchman to modern Israel became an important part of Armstrong's ministry. Did he pick up this theme from Beauchamp?38

Beauchamp was an interesting character. Before his correspondence with Armstrong he had converted to a now-defunct offshoot of Christian Science called the Church of Integration. His publishing house became the principal means by which the Church of Integration grew. Through his influence, Anglo-Israelism became the central perspective of the sect.39

By the time Armstrong wrote to Beauchamp, he had already corresponded about Anglo-Israelism with his friends the Runcorns. In a lengthy letter to them he mentioned that he and his wife were nearly convinced of Anglo-Israelism's truthfulness, but they had yet to make a final decision. Nevertheless, he felt confident enough to speculate that God never intended the Sabbath to be for Gentiles, but for one race only — Israel. "In that case, the Sabbath, not being intended for the rest of the world, was not part of the Gospel of Christ, nor of the Apostles." He also wondered if modern racial Israel, to inherit their Abrahamic blessings again, must become Sabbatarian besides becoming Christian. "But, unless they accept, also the Sabbath, they are not recognized in the sight of God as of Israel, subject to those special and higher blessings — higher than salvation — an additional reward."40

The union of Anglo-Israelism with Sabbatarianism later became an important part of Armstrong's preaching on these subjects. The union he created between these two doctrines explains much of his future work. He commented,

#### Now as my mind works on this subject, it appears thus: The theory is that England and the U.S. are descendants of Joseph. The Jews are the descendants of Judah, and possibly also of Benjamin and Levi. If we have them located, then where are the other eight tribes? Why, why not right here in the U.S., mixed, thru immigration and inter-marriage between different races? They would all be of the white race. We have married and intermarried with other white races, but not with Negroes, Japs, or Chinese, or Indians....

#### Now if my theory is worth anything, it is this: Salvation is for all the world who will come to Jesus and accept it, regardless of race. But the special blessings, many of which I believe are to pertain to the next world, promised Israel, are for that one blood race alone. (Armstrong to Mr. and Mrs. Runcorn, 28 February 1928, HWAP, #807, 4–5)

Shortly after writing this letter, Armstrong was convinced. In spring 1928 he wrote to Dugger, telling him of his plans to write several manuscripts about both Anglo-Israelism and evolution. Dugger replied, "Your manuscripts...will be read with pleasure" (Dugger to Armstrong, 20 April 1928, HWAP, #871). The door was now open for Armstrong to advocate Anglo-Israelism within the Church of God.

About the same time he approached the Church of God (Seventh Day) about publishing his Anglo-Israelite and antievolution views, he was also approaching A.A. Beauchamp with the same idea. To Beauchamp he wrote,

#### I wonder if there is not a real need, as well as a ready market, for a new book on the Anglo-Israel subject?.... I have read very little, as yet, of the book by Discipulus. However, judging from what little I have had an opportunity to read, I do not believe this book as sound and authoritative as the one by Allen. (Armstrong to Beauchamp, 4 May 1928, HWAP, #873, 1–2).

For historians and literary critics, Armstrong's following comments are most enlightening.

#### The book I have in mind _would follow, in great measure, the line of thought and proof offered by Allen._ I would endeavor to keep it as dependable and as sound in its arguments as Allen's. But the ground covered by Allen would be covered in boiled-down form, condensed where possible.... The book would be written, moreover, in an entirely different style....

#### If you believe there is a need and a market for such a book, and you would care to consider the possibility of undertaking to publish it, then I should like to go into the matter further and in more detail with you. (Ibid., 2–3, emphasis mine)

Armstrong also told Beauchamp that he had an offer to publish his antievolution book (an apparent reference to his correspondence with A.N. Dugger). "But [I] am afraid the publishing house in question is not equipped to turn out as up-to-date and attractive a job as I feel will be necessary."

Beauchamp's reply came quickly.

#### Your letter of May 4 at hand. In reply will say that I am quite sure that I would not be interested in publishing the book on evolution and as for the one on Israel I would not offer a great deal of encouragement. There have been three or four books on that subject brought out the last year, and I am now at work on the manuscript of one by the author of _Judah's Sceptre and Joseph's Birthright,_ which I expect to publish some time during the fall. (Beauchamp to Armstrong, 9 May 1928, HWAP, #5044).41

With this rebuff, Armstrong's only encouragement came from A.N. Dugger. As Armstrong prepared his manuscript, he continued to learn all he could about Anglo-Israelism. Elder A.H. Stith informed him that S.S. Davison of Fairview, Oklahoma, had some Anglo-Israelite tracts written by Alfuc Davison that Armstrong could obtain by writing to him.42 The Davisons had been Church of God ministers for several generations. (Alfuc is probably Alpheus Davison.)

Davison's Anglo-Israelite views were known within the Church of God (Seventh Day) and clearly came before Armstrong's. Whether Davison had influenced Merritt Dickinson or vice-versa is unknown. Davison's response to Armstrong, if any, has not survived.

By January 1929 Armstrong had begun writing his manuscript. He was getting ready to put the Church of God to the test. On January 1 he wrote Dugger to remind him of his project. In his letter Armstrong presented Anglo-Israelism with a new twist, a twist he hoped would make his book more attractive to Dugger. He claimed that Anglo-Israelism, as he presented it, shed new light on a longstanding Church of God doctrine, the Third Angel's Message. Dugger replied that he would welcome any new information Armstrong could provide about the Message.43

### The Third Angel's Message

What is the Third Angel's Message? The Third Angel's Message is an old Adventist teaching based on a misunderstanding of Revelation 14. It has played an important role in shaping both Seventh-day Adventist and Church of God (Seventh Day) ideas of their mission. The passage in question reads

#### And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth.... And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication. And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive [his] mark in his forehead, or in his hand, The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God. (Revelation 14:6–10)

The Church of God (Seventh Day) believed these messages referred to their work. They explained Revelation 14 in this manner,

#### There is no question; but, after a thorough consideration is given all texts concerned, that the First Angel's Message embraces the proclamation of the everlasting gospel in the apostolic age, which continues to the end. The Second Angel's Message includes the great Protestant reformation which illuminated the earth with light and was a direct cry against the corruption of Babylon, while the Third Angel's Message sounds forth the final warning to the world, taking with it all accompanying light as yet unrevealed, preparing a people who will worship God "in spirit and in truth."... The Church of God is the body of people called to carry forth this wonderful work. (A.N. Dugger, _The Bible Home Instructor_ [Jerusalem, Israel: Mt. Zion Press, 1982 reprint of an earlier Church of God publication], 338, 335)

The Church of God (Seventh Day) taught that the commandments — especially the Sabbath command — were associated with that final warning.

#### Again the Third Angel's Message has for its creed "The commandments of God and the testimonies of Jesus".... It is the remnant church that holds to the commandments of God and the testimonies of Jesus.... The commandments of God and the testimonies of Jesus and no other testimonies form the creed of the last message....

#### Everyone knows that the Catholic church...observes Sunday today.... It was one of the doctrines, with many others, that they forced upon the world under penalty of death, and Sunday stands out prominently in this age as a sign to the world of their past greatness. It is a memorial of the dark ages when they ruled the world, and by taking away the Sabbath of God, which was declared to be His memorial forever, and putting in its place Sunday, they have exalted themselves above God, usurping a place not divinely given, and as the Third Angel's Message advances the matter is being squarely put before the people of the whole world, Which will they obey, the pope of Rome or the God of heaven? ( _The Third Angel's Message_ [Stanberry, Missouri: Church of God Publishing House, 1925], 10–11, 20. See also Nickels, 199, 216)

The Adventist movement gave birth to the doctrine of the Third Angel's Message following the Great Disappointment. It brought solace to Sabbatarian Adventists attempting to cope with their humiliation. The Third Angel of Revelation was delivering its message, they believed, and because of it, faithful Adventists had become Sabbath keepers. When the Sabbatarian Adventist movement split into various camps, the doctrine of the Third Angel's Message followed its divisions.44

In the 1920s the Church of God (Seventh Day) preached the Third Angel's Message with vigor. Recent events convinced them that the Great Tribulation was about to come. In 1928, Armstrong also believed in the Third Angel's Message. He wrote:

#### These men [the original apostles], carrying the FIRST Angel's Message, had the faith to perform miracles of healing. These miracles...greatly aided in winning lost souls to Christ....

#### Then, glance for a moment, at the men whom God raised up to carry the Second Angel's Message out to the world. Luther, Calvin, Wesley. Men who were filled with this wonderful power. Men who were heard around the world! Men who shook the world with their message and won millions to the side of Protestantism, out of the darkness and spiritual chaos of Roman Catholicism.

#### Now let us look frankly to the results being achieved by those who claim to be carrying the Third and last Angel's Message. The prophecy says this Third Angel's Message shall go forth "with a LOUD shout."...

#### The average man and woman today is not aware of the fact the Message has been going forth.... Most folks, it is true, are passively aware that there has been some agitation over the Saturday-Sunday question. But the question has not gotten actively into their consciousness....

#### The Third Message is no more unpopular than were the First and the Second. And we are blessed with facilities for spreading the message which never were so much as dreamed of in the days of the First and Second Messages. (Herbert W. Armstrong, "Have We Tarried for the Power to Carry the Third Angel's Message?," _The Bible Advocate,_ 16 October 1928, 1)

Later Armstrong would come to renounce the doctrine of the Third Angel's Message, but in 1928 he united it with Anglo-Israelism. To understand why he united those ideas, realize that Armstrong took Anglo-Israelism to its logical conclusion. Previous Anglo-Israelites emphasized God's blessings to Israel. Nobody said anything about the curses. Armstrong noticed the curses. He realized that to be consistent, an Anglo-Israelite needed to preach them as well. In Ezekiel, God foretold Israel's defeat and enslavement.

Armstrong failed to see that Ezekiel was written to Israel in anticipation of Jerusalem's fall in 587 B.C. Beginning from an Anglo-Israelite world view, he saw Ezekiel's references to the House of Israel, not as evidence of an Israelite presence in Judah, but as proof that Ezekiel was for the lost tribes. Ezekiel was, he believed, not for the Jews but for Israel. Therefore, although Ezekiel clearly spoke of the siege of Jerusalem and the destruction of its temple, Armstrong concluded that Ezekiel's message was not about those historic events. He insisted on an Anglo-Israelite interpretation. From this faulty premise he reasoned that God intended Ezekiel's book to be a warning to end-time Israel.

Because Armstrong believed the Anglo-Saxons to be the remnants of the House of Israel, he believed the message of Ezekiel was a warning for the United States and British Commonwealth.

Armstrong noticed something else as well. He noticed the reasons God cursed Israel. In Ezekiel, listed prominently among those reasons was Sabbath-breaking (Ezekiel 20 and 22). It was then a simple step for Armstrong to merge Anglo-Israelism with the Sabbatarianism of the Third Angel's Message.

The manuscript Armstrong wrote was more than 260 pages long. He called it, _What is the Third Angel's Message?_ By February 1929 Dugger had received its first few chapters. We are fortunate in that most of the original manuscript has survived.45

Despite what Armstrong would claim, it is difficult to understand Armstrong's mailing the manuscript to Dugger just as a test of the Church of God (Seventh Day). This is because Burt Marrs, not Dugger, was then the president of the General Conference. If Armstrong were simply testing the church, he should have mailed his manuscript to Marrs. Perhaps they could have brought up the subject at the next conference meeting. But the mailing was more than a test. Armstrong was looking for a publisher, and Dugger was responsible for the church's press.

### A special calling

By the time he began mailing his Third Angel's manuscript to Dugger, Armstrong had become convinced that God had given him a special calling. In a letter to G.A. Hobbs written in February 1929 he claimed "I was made to see clearly that I have been given a commission to get this warning message out with the loud shout _to the world_ " (Armstrong to Brother Hobbs, 6 February 1929, HWAP, #850, emphasis mine).

How was Armstrong "made to see" that his God-given commission was to shout the Third Angel's Message to the world? The answer is a "mysterious woman." Working almost full-time to complete _What Is the Third Angel's Message?,_ Armstrong became totally absorbed in his writing. Though his family was suffering severely from his lack of employment, nothing else mattered as much as completing that book. Though this was before the Great Depression, Armstrong described these months as a time of economic "desperation."

#### We had reached another crisis of hunger and desperate need. Again I prayed earnestly for God to either send us some money or provide a way for me to earn it.46

As his children went hungry, he spent most of his time writing. In his letter to Hobbs, he confesses, "I am writing for Bro. Dugger about the 'Third Angel's Message'.... I have spent all the time I had for writing on that."47 Spending time writing and studying did not put food on the table. In his desperation he prayed.

#### An hour or two later, a strange woman knocked on our front door. Mrs. Armstrong opened the door. There was something mysterious about the woman's appearance. Who was she? She did not introduce herself. She gave no inkling of her identity.

#### "If your husband isn't too proud to do it," she said in a low, quiet voice, "there are two truckloads of wood he can throw in at this address."... The mysterious woman walked quickly away and disappeared.... We were totally perplexed as to the identity of this strange woman. How did _she_ know we were in such desperate need? Who was she? We never knew....

#### No matter who this mysterious woman was, I knew _God sent her!_ And I realized instantly that God was answering my prayer his way, and not mine. I knew he was giving me a test to see whether I could accept a humiliating job. ( _The Autobiography of Herbert W. Armstrong,_ 1973 edition, 330–31)

In writing to Hobbs about this incident, Armstrong commented,

#### We simply reached the end of the rope about a week ago, and I decided the time had come to fast and pray until I received a definite answer from the Lord. I received it. Will explain how when I see you, but the answer was to go ahead with this work as hard as I can and trust the Lord to take care of us. All our immediate needs have been taken care of. In fact, we were out of wood, and it came to our front door from a most unexpected source even while I was yet praying for it. I was made to see clearly that I have been given a commission to get this warning message out with the loud shout to the world. The true, full message never has been carried at all, much less with the shout. I don't see how I am to do it. The Lord will open the way, and I must simply trust him and look to him for guidance. The means will be provided and the way opened, I am sure. (Armstrong to Brother Hobbs, 6 February 1929, HWAP, #850)

As one can see from his letter, Armstrong believed that the manner in which God provided for his family also proved that in writing _The Third Angel's Message_ he was doing God's will, even if his family had been going hungry. He saw the "mysterious woman" as a sign that God had commissioned him, above all other humans on earth, to proclaim that message worldwide. Not even the original apostles had been given such a task. "It never has been carried at all."48

Armstrong had seen no vision. He dreamt no dream. He heard no voice. There was only the woman at the door with an offer for him to stack wood. Yet, whose prayers had God answered? Armstrong's? His wife's? His children's? All of the above? To those who were hungry it does not matter. That offer to chop wood kept the Armstrongs from starving and enabled Herbert Armstrong to continue to write. That was all it took to convince him that he had a unique calling — a God-ordained commission to shout the Third Angel's Message to the world.

This incident, above all others, defines the remaining 57 years of Armstrong's life. Uncertain how he would fulfill such a commission, he must have wondered if the Church of God (Seventh Day) would provide the means. Inadvertently, Dugger encouraged Armstrong in these opinions. After receiving the first few chapters of Armstrong's book, Dugger wrote,

#### I presume you think I am very neglectful of duty in not answering your letter before this, but it was a long while before your manuscript reached me on the Third Angel's Message....

#### I feel that we are entering into a new era for the message and that it is going to take on new life. In fact the time for the message is now here which I have long contended it would be when the events of the last few weeks came to pass. (Dugger to Armstrong, 26 February 1929, HWAP, #830. A photograph of this letter appears in Vol. 1 of the 1986 ed. of the _Autobiography_ )

Excited, Armstrong shared his self-image with others. To Lt. Col. Mackendrick (author of _The Destiny of Britain and America_ ), he wrote,

#### I am writing you for two reasons: I am going to point out what I believe to be a slight error in your argument.... and I feel that a great message based on this Israel truth has been revealed to me which must be powerfully broadcasted to the whole world without delay. (Armstrong to Mackendrick, 4 March 1929, HWAP, #848).

In this letter, Armstrong stated plainly that his understanding of Anglo-Israelism came not simply as a result of study, but of revelation. He felt this revelation "must be powerfully broadcasted [sic] to the whole world without delay." If this had been a divine revelation, then who could argue with it?

By 1929 the word _broadcast_ had come to refer to radio. So, two years before his ordination, Armstrong already envisioned a worldwide radio ministry, the _primary_ purpose of which was to preach not the gospel of salvation (the so-called First Angel's Message), but an Anglo-Israelite message that Armstrong called the Third Angel's Message. Later, as his ministry expanded, he saw its success as God's affirmation that Herbert Armstrong was indeed God's end-time prophet.

A few weeks after writing Mackendrick, Armstrong informed Dugger that he was sending him ten more chapters of _What Is the Third Angel's Message?_ He promised that four more would soon follow. Eventually, he produced 20 chapters.49 Subsequent letters show he planned to write even more. The manuscript in the Herbert W. Armstrong Papers collection contains most of this work. By July 1929 Dugger had finished reading most of Armstrong's chapters. It was then that he wrote, "You surely are right."50

What separates this doctrine from the others that Armstrong investigated is its extra-biblical nature. The Sabbath, baptism and creation are all biblical subjects he investigated early. These words are found in Scripture. But _United States_ and _Britain_ are words not in Scripture. Anglo-Israelism may appear biblical to some people, but it is actually unbiblical.

In studying Anglo-Israelism, Armstrong's methodology differed from what he had earlier applied to the subject of baptism. With baptism, he investigated many different opinions before reaching a decision. Yet where has he commented on how he studied Anglo-Israelism in the same manner? He said so little on how he came to this conviction that some have thought the doctrine originated with him. Because he often said that God revealed this truth to him, it is not difficult to see how someone might reach the conclusion that Anglo-Israelism originated with him. Placing this doctrine in the realm of divine revelation also made it more difficult for many of his followers to question it.

In arriving at his prophetic doctrines, Armstrong seems to have assumed an overall literalistic hermeneutic, influenced by Dispensationalist and Adventist perspectives. He never questioned whether these perspectives were valid, or if valid, whether they were always valid.51

As time went on, Armstrong eagerly waited for Dugger's response. Would Dugger and the church acknowledge the truth — acknowledge not only Anglo-Israelism, but that Armstrong was the one to whom God had revealed the truth? Would they recognize his commission to proclaim the Third Angel's Message? Would they pass the test that Armstrong felt they had to pass?

As I showed earlier, Dugger promoted Anglo-Israelism a decade before he heard of Armstrong. What Armstrong uniquely did was link Anglo-Israelism with the Third Angel's Message. Dugger must have found such a presentation enticing. No wonder he responded, "You surely are right." Yet in the end, Dugger decided that he would not include Anglo-Israelism in the church's publications. Still, he encouraged Armstrong with the words,

#### There is a purpose in your having gone into this matter so deeply right at this time which it is not difficult for me to fully see through, and you will hear more from these truths and the light herein revealed later. (Dugger to Armstrong, 28 July 1929. Also see note 1.)

Dugger knew that trouble was brewing in the church, so he may have hoped for a more convenient time to spread Armstrong's views. Yet Armstrong concluded that Dugger would preach only those truths he found convenient. Undeterred, Armstrong continued to write. By early 1930 he began circulating the text of his book among those expressing an interest.52 We will now take the time to highlight some points in his original manuscript that Armstrong did not include in his later work, _The United States and Britain in Prophecy._ 53

### Examining _What Is the Third Angel's Message?_

The title of the original manuscript, _What Is the Third Angel's Message?,_ highlights the context in which Armstrong believed Anglo-Israelism should be presented. As he proceeded through his treatise, Armstrong discussed the development of the Abrahamic covenant as God renewed it among Abraham's descendants. This discussion eventually brought him to the blessing of Ephraim and Manasseh, the grandsons of Israel. He wrote,

#### If you are wondering what all this early history of the beginnings of Israel has to do with the Sabbath, the Mark of the Beast, the call to "Come out of her, my people," and the Third Angel's Message, you will see, I am sure, before we are finished. The connection is very, very vital. ( _What Is the Third Angel's Message?,_ 43).

The influence of J.H. Allen is evident in the general presentation of Armstrong's argument. Armstrong acknowledged that influence on pages 109 and 112, when he quoted Allen in support of the idea that Ephraim is in the British Isles.54

In chapter 12, Armstrong combined the Guinness/Dugger seven-times theory with the Jehovah's Witnesses' seven-times theory. (See above for a discussion of these theories.) However, where Dugger and the Jehovah's Witnesses had claimed 1914 as the terminus of the "seven times," Armstrong followed Guinness in claiming 1917 as its end.55 Dugger saw the date as the time God would remove his curse from the Jews. Armstrong saw it as the time England would begin to repossess her rightful property. Armstrong viewed General Allenby's capture of Jerusalem as "clinching proof that Ephraim today resides in the British Isles."56 He confidently predicted that because Palestine belonged to Ephraim and not the Jews, "The Zionist movement is doomed to failure."57

Numerology also played an important role in his thinking, especially the number 19. He incorrectly noted a 19-year period from Nebuchadnezzar's first siege of Jerusalem till its final fall. On that basis Armstrong then predicted a 19-year period from 1917 until 1936. It would be around 1936 that God would deliver

#### all the Promised Land to Ephraim-Israel, or Great Britain — a date 2,520 years from 585 B.C. ... Many different prophecies fix the date in the same year, 1936.... In this connection, it must be especially emphasized that I do not say 1936 is the date of our Lord's return. In fact, were it not definitely ordained that no man may know the day or the hour of that even, I should be inclined to expect it before 1936 — perhaps as early as the spring of 1933. But we do not know when that shall be. What we do know is that the balance of Palestine, including the land of the North of Jerusalem — formerly Samaria, now called Syria — is definitely destined to fall into the hands of Great Britain in the year of 1936. (Ibid., 120–21)

All of this was but a prelude to Armageddon.

#### If Armageddon must be the battle which accomplished the delivery of this territory, then we say Armageddon must be fought in the year 1936. And well may it prove to be so. We know Russia is secretly allied with Turkey and Germany, lusting for a war of revenge against Britain, swearing to take Palestine from Great Britain at all costs. We expect Mussolini to be in some manner prominently identified, and he expects to be ready with many millions of armed men and so many airplanes their shadow will hide the sun over all Italian soil, by 1935. The recent alliance between Mussolini and the Pope may well have startling significance bearing on these very events. (Ibid., 121)

He even said that the samurai, "or white Japanese" were Israelites (ibid., 138D). Again, he offered no proof. Was it their "whiteness," their aristocracy or both that made them Israelites?

Armstrong emphatically declared "Deny this and you deny God's power to keep his word, or else you must deny the divine inspiration of the Bible altogether" (ibid., 140). When it came to Anglo-Israelism, there was no room for disagreement. In his mind, to deny his conclusions was to deny the Word of God.

#### What difference does it make? Unless we know our identity as Israel, we cannot understand the mighty personal warning which the Almighty has published in every English Bible to every individual Israelite....

#### Just as surely as it was given to God's holy prophets to foretell 2,500 years ago that in the year 1917 A.D. the Army and Air forces of the British throne should take Jerusalem...so he has revealed thru those same prophets what is yet to take place before all things are fulfilled....

#### These things could never be understood except thru a knowledge of Israel's twentieth-century identity. For instance, the book of Ezekiel is addressed primarily to the United States and Great Britain, and to those of our present generation. In it are recorded events destined to take place within the NEXT SEVEN OR EIGHT YEARS. (Ibid., 146D–146E, emphasis his).

Armstrong's transformation of Ezekiel into a warning for America is unique in all Anglo-Israelism. It may be the one significant addition he made to the belief. As such, it became an effective tool in calling people to repentance and to the Sabbath. Hence the connection with the Third Angel's Message.

In making the Ezekiel connection, Armstrong repeated the error made by many prophecy expositors. He ignored Ezekiel's plain words, which identified to whom he was writing and about when God would fulfill his prophecies. Training in proper hermeneutical tools would have been helpful. He again repeated the error with the Minor Prophets.

#### Many of these so-called "Minor" Prophets contain a most solemn personal, individual warning to every one of us — a part, if you please, of "the Third Angel's Message," — which has never been understood or preached. (Ibid., 146F)

In Armstrong's version of the end-time cataclysm, communists and civil-right workers allied themselves with Satan against Israel.

#### Russia, too, is destined to play a tremendous part in theses closing days.... Russian is gaining control in China. She hopes to gain it in Japan, by fomenting race-prejudice against White, or Western, or, if you please, Israelitish, power, dominance and civilization.... She is now bending Herculean efforts to foment unrest among the populous and ignorant Negroes of our South, painting herself as their champion against what she tells them is the tyranny and oppression of our country. (Ibid., 146G–146H)

Of course, beginning with the Russian Revolution of 1917, communism was an increasing threat to the West. Its international popularity grew because it promised the oppressed and poor utopian justice, through the collapse of capitalism and its replacement by a socialist state. Many conservative Christians, not just Armstrong, saw communism as the fulfillment of biblical prophecies. They read the present into the text.58

Having concluded that God intended Ezekiel for modern America, Armstrong in much of the remaining text of _What Is the Third Angel's Message?_ attempted to show that America should keep the Sabbath. God's ancient judgment on Israel for breaking the covenant became transformed into a condemnation of America for breaking the Ten Commandments.

After dispensing with America, _What Is the Third Angel's Message?_ discussed the Millennium. During the Millennium, Armstrong believed, God would enforce the keeping of the Ten Commandments. For Armstrong, Christ was lawgiver, teacher and enforcer. God's promised new covenant was for those who obey. In the midst of his lengthy discussion of God's law and the Millennium, Armstrong gave faith and grace only six lines.59 So short, a reader could easily miss them.

<div align="right">Armstrong dedicated chapter 15 to the Sabbath. Here he focused on an important part of his Sabbatarian theology. He explained that Exodus 16 gave a separate Sabbath covenant as a sign between God and his people Israel. That Israel was God's people he understood in terms of their race, not in terms of their having entered a covenant with God. He believed that even if God had abolished the old Mosaic covenant, the alleged Sabbath covenant remained. He failed to realize that the Sabbath was a sign of Israel's sanctification and was, therefore, an intimate part of the old covenant. The end of the old covenant removed the basis of Israel's sanctification and therefore eliminated the need for the Sabbath sign.

Starting from a faulty premise, Armstrong Christianized the Sabbath, making it a sign between God and obedient Christians, whether Jew or Gentile. He called it "the final test of obedience" (ibid., 176).

Much of the remainder of _What Is the Third Angel's Message_ continues along this line. In typical Adventist emphasis, the Third Angel's Message focuses on the Fourth Commandment.

#### Why didn't the apostle Paul, sent to the Gentiles, more openly and definitely teach observance of the seventh day? Why have the eyes of such great men of God as Luther, Calvin, Wesley, Moody, Finney, Cartwright, et al., been blinded to this truth? Why did not the Holy Spirit lead these men into this truth, when they unquestionably were men filled with the Holy Spirit? (Ibid., 196)

Why indeed, especially if the Sabbath, as Armstrong claimed, was "the final test of obedience?" The answer, he said, had to do with Israel.

#### Israel was blinded in part, until the end of the times of the Gentiles (1917-1936)...and in the case of those individuals who repented, and returned to the true God, and accepted salvation, God winked at this blindness....

#### That is why Dwight L. Moody was blinded to the Sabbath truth! That is why Luther, Calvin, Wesley, and all these great latter-day men of God were blinded to this truth!

#### Israel was blinded to it until the fullness of the Times of the Gentiles (Rom. 11:25), because God did not desire the House of Israel to be identified or known by the world until then.

#### This too disposes with that question: What about my parents and grandparents...who knew nothing about the Sabbath? Were they saved? The answer is now plain.... If these people had accepted Jesus Christ and his sacrifice...if they were willingly obedient to God so far as they had light or knowledge to be obedient, then God winked at their blindness in part. They were not held responsible for that which they did not know. (ibid., 209–10)

Since we have already shown that Armstrong believed the Time of the Gentiles ended in 1917, it seems likely that he also believed 1917 was the year that the Sabbath became a "final test of obedience." That such a "final test" was unknown to Jesus and the New Testament church did not alter his conclusion. It might be interesting to know whether the coincidental 1917 publication of Allen's _Judah's Sceptre and Joseph's Birthright_ fit into this thinking. However, we have no comments from Armstrong on this matter. Armstrong downplayed Allen's work while emphasizing his own.

Before the conclusion of his manuscript, Armstrong told his readers that his Third Angel's Message must be shouted to the world. "Any movement prior to 1917, therefore, was premature, and bound to be more or less in error, so far as proclaiming this truth is concerned" (ibid., 210). Keep in mind that he believed God had revealed only to him Anglo-Israelism's connection to the Third Angel's Message. He believed that God had commissioned only him to broadcast this message worldwide — this less than two years after his baptism. Through _What Is the Third Angel's Message?,_ articles in _The Bible Advocate_ and personal correspondence, Armstrong was already preaching to whoever would listen, two years before his official ordination. Chapter 21 concludes,

#### We are ready to explain it, the true Third Angel's Message — the last, final warning Message which God is going to shout to a complacent, tradition-loving, self-seeking world before the falling of the Seven Last Plagues and the re-opening of the final terrible War Tribulation which is destined to culminate in the Battle of Armageddon in the year 1936 — this true Third Angel's Message is, after all, just one more last and final warning from Almighty God....

#### In these closing chapters, God has placed this final eleventh-hour warning in his word. And in these closing chapters we shall examine this very definite, specific, last-minute warning, just as the Bible has it, for this very present generation. (ibid., 237–8)

Notice, Armstrong said that this manuscript was not simply his idea. He proclaimed it as God's "final eleventh-hour warning." It was God, not Armstrong, who supposedly placed this warning in this manuscript.

In the closing pages of the book, Armstrong again transformed the Third Angel's Message. It had become a kingdom message.

#### This third and last stage of the Gospel is, simply, the gospel of the kingdom. It is this gospel which is to be preached to all the world just before the "end" comes. It is a warning not to worship the beast or the image of the beast, nor to have his mark, and it has something to do with keeping the commands of God. (ibid., 245)

While Armstrong would eventually drop the term _Third Angel's Message_ from his vocabulary, and de-emphasize Revelation 14, such changes were cosmetic. The underlying message remained the same. Furthermore, for Armstrong the gospel of God's grace became of secondary importance. The important message for today, Armstrong felt, was that we obey God's law.

#### Just as the tendencies of the times required, in the apostles' day, that the grace aspect of the gospel be stressed, so now the tendencies of the times require that the obedience aspect be stressed. (Ibid.)

Is this the New Testament perspective? Or does the New Testament view grace as always of primary importance? Armstrong's confession that grace was for the apostolic age shows us the clear answer. At this point in his ministry, he seemed to know that his message differed from that of the New Testament.

In 1931, the handful of people comprising the Oregon Conference of the Church of God (Seventh Day) ordained Armstrong into the ministry. For the Oregon church, it was a time of increasing division and disenchantment with its national leadership. The world had entered the Great Depression, and nations were converting to the dark faiths of fascism and communism. People talked of another World War.

### Armstrong's developing work

Two years later, in 1933, the Oregon Conference supported one of Armstrong's evangelistic campaigns near Eugene, Oregon. That campaign led to the establishing of the independent Eugene congregation. This congregation became the parent of the Worldwide Church of God.

As the Church of God (Seventh Day) General Conference split apart, Armstrong received an opportunity to begin a radio ministry. As we have seen, since at least 1929 he had believed that God had commissioned him specifically to broadcast the Third Angel's/Anglo-Israel/kingdom message to the world. With the assistance of the Oregon members, his internationally known work began. An advertising man by background, he wanted to give his listeners more than a weekly radio program. For them, he created _The Plain Truth_ magazine.

_The Plain Truth_ never mentioned the Third Angel's Message by name. By this time, Armstrong may no longer have accepted Adventist views on this doctrine. Yet the teaching was there — he just framed it in other terms. The emphasis, besides Anglo-Israelism, became the coming kingdom of God. Everything he said got back to the kingdom or Israel or the Ten Commandments. Everything he did, he understood in terms of his assumed commission.

Early issues of _The Plain Truth_ echoed these themes. "The Times of the Gentiles correspond with the Times of Judah's national punishment."60 These Times of the Gentiles, he explained, had begun to taper off since 1917, but would continue until 1936. He taught that 1936 marked the "End of the Age." Coming soon were the heavenly signs and the Day of the Lord. The Great Tribulation, he said, had already started! It began in 1928.

#### The present depression, or tribulation, is there symbolized as occupying the entire low passage continuing from May 29, 1928, when the tribulation struck Europe, until September 1936. (Herbert W. Armstrong, "What is Going to Happen," _The Plain Truth,_ June–July 1934, 5)

With the world in the midst of the Great Depression, many American Christian fundamentalists found it easy to believe the Great Tribulation had begun. Thus, Armstrong was certain that only the coming of Jesus would end the Depression. Before then, the world would plunge into its last war.

When Mussolini invaded Ethiopia, Armstrong cried, "He is marching to Armageddon!"61 At first, Armstrong thought Mussolini would destroy the United States. Then in 1940, he commented that he might have been wrong. He said that it now appeared that Hitler would do the United States in.62

Throughout the war, his message remained the same. Fascism would conquer America. Naturally, he continued to feel divinely commissioned to warn America. Toward that goal, in September 1942, he published the first edition of _The United States and Britain in Prophecy._ Missing was any mention of the seven-times theory as it related to the Jews. Armstrong probably still believed in the previous interpretation, but in the booklet he wrote that the "seven times" of punishment applied to the lost tribes of Israel. For them, he said the seven times spanned the period from 718 B.C. (the incorrect date of Samaria's conquest) until A.D. 1803 (the date of the Louisiana Purchase). Still, the earlier interpretation continued to affect his thinking. He firmly believed that the Times of the Gentiles was over, and that the world was in the Great Tribulation.

Whenever the war news appeared favorable, Armstrong simply discounted it. He saw all news through the lens of his prophetic viewpoint and his belief in his own unique commission. In early 1944 he wrote to his contributors:

#### This time is a time of great suspense. Apparently the Allied forces are not prepared, yet, to launch the much-advertised invasion of Hitler's Europe.... We have made but the slightest little dents in the Jap defenses in the Pacific, and at the present rate (played up dramatically in news headlines and broadcasts as if actually we're winning the war) it will take us about twenty years, and more resources than we possess, to take enough of these island defenses to smash thru to the central objective and WIN....

#### The prophecies of Almighty GOD tell us bluntly that WE ARE GOING TO LOSE — unless our people will REPENT and turn to ALMIGHTY GOD in real earnest, and in FAITH — trusting HIM to deliver us! And instead of doing that, we are trusting in the enthusiastic and exaggerated news reports, believing we are WINNING, and meantime as a nation OUR SINS ARE INCREASING AT A TOBOGGAN-SLIDE RATE!

#### God has called me to the special mission of WARNING THIS NATION. But I cannot do it alone.... You are one of my co-workers, and I am depending upon you to remain steadfastly back of me, with your earnest believing PRAYERS, as well as the material help you are sending. We must never let up.... This business of SHOUTING and THUNDERING out this warning on which our destiny as a nation depends. (Herbert W. Armstrong, co-worker letter dated, based on its content, to early 1944. Emphasis is his. For those familiar with Armstrong's preaching style, notice the emphasis on shouting.)

The success of his work further convinced Armstrong that his self-perceptions were correct and his work righteous. How else could one explain his success if God were not behind it? He felt that God backed his prophetic opinions and stood behind him. He believed that he spoke with the authority of God.

As the war drew to its obvious close, Armstrong's message changed. He dropped all insistence that the war would lead to America's destruction. Gone was the cry that the Tribulation had already begun. Yet the substance of the message did not change. The Third Angel was present, only transformed.

Despite what our senses told us, the Allies had not defeated Germany. The Nazis had gone underground. Next time, Europe would unite under an evil fascist-papal alliance. It would conquer, subjugate and depopulate the United States. The church had to warn the Anglo-Saxon nations about God's wrath. The church had to call them to repentance and urge them to keep God's Sabbath and holy days. The church also must tell the world the good news beyond: God was sending Jesus Christ to set up his kingdom.

Following the war, Armstrong established Ambassador College to train ministers for the church. These young men went out, visited people on baptizing tours and established congregations. Through their influence, many lives changed for the better. Yet the prophetic speculations continued. The ministry created various blueprints in attempts to figure out the date of Jesus' return. All prophetic schemata failed.

### The Worldwide Church of God changes

In 1986 Armstrong died. Shortly before his death he published _Mystery of the Ages,_ a book in which he summarized his major beliefs. In it he stated that the Bible was a coded book, "not intended to be understood until our day in this latter half of the twentieth century."63 God had used him, he claimed, to decode the Bible through _Mystery of the Ages._ In an unmistakable reference to himself, he declared that Isaiah's famous prophecy about "the voice of him that crieth in the wilderness [Isaiah 40:3]," was being fulfilled.64 John the Baptist only typified Malachi's prophesied Elijah-to-come, he said. The more important fulfillment was the end-time messenger. Armstrong saw himself fulfilling that role.65

The idea that God had specially commissioned him to "shout" the Third Angel's Message to the whole world had grown bigger through the years. Though the phrase "the Third Angel's Message" had long since dropped from his vocabulary, the basic belief that God had given him a unique commission remained. That he continued to see his mission linked to Anglo-Israelism is evident from reading _Mystery of the Ages._

In chapter five, Armstrong hearkened back to _The United States and Britain in Prophecy,_ a book he said he wrote "more than 50 years ago."66 The chapter summarized much of what was in that book, quoting it extensively. In _Mystery of the Ages,_ Armstrong continued claiming that unless the Anglo-Saxon peoples repented of their sins, Old Testament prophecies foretold their horrible conquest by a united Europe. After America's conquest, he thought the next thing to happen would by the crushing of Europe by "communist hordes."67 Thus, America's sins would soon usher in the Great Tribulation.

Before his death, Armstrong appointed Joseph W. Tkach as his successor. In June 1988 Tkach withdrew _Mystery of the Ages_ from circulation. In early 1991 he informed the ministry of his plans to review and perhaps update _The United States and Britain in Prophecy._ He solicited their comments. All mention of Anglo-Israelism disappeared from Worldwide Church of God publications. Then, in July 1995, the church announced in the _Pastor General's Report_ that Anglo-Israelism lacked any credible evidence and that the church would no longer teach it. A study paper followed to the ministry, giving detailed reasons why this was so.

The church had come to realize that Anglo-Israelism had distracted it from the God-given commission to preach Jesus and the salvation that came through faith in him.

Armstrong always urged the ministry to be faithful to the Bible. He never claimed that he wrote infallible scripture. He never claimed that he understood all biblical truth. Yet he did claim to have a special understanding of Bible prophecies, and he did function as a prophet. Often he sounded more like an Old Testament prophet than a New Testament apostle. He called himself the watchman of Israel. He said he was the Elijah to come. How was that different from being a prophet? For those who still believe his claims, his failed predictions pose a dilemma.

Today we know that many varied influences shaped Armstrong's prophetic teachings. Despite what he believed, not everything he taught came from the Bible. Many things he taught were the products of his life and times. Are we any different today?

The ministry of the Jesus Christ, to be credible, must use the Scriptures correctly. If it does nothing more than show us how not to teach the Bible, a proper understanding of the sad history of Anglo-Israelism can help. To echo Paul, "Let God be true, and every man a liar.... 'So that you may be proved right in your words and prevail in your judging'" (Romans 3:4, NIV). All who think they have cornered biblical truth have not. They have fallen into error. To avoid this error, Christians need to subject their doctrines to informed critiques. So too, this history.

### Endnotes

1 A photograph of this letter appears in both the 1967 and 1973 editions of Armstrong's _Autobiography._ It is not in the 1986 two-volume edition. Nor does the _HWA Personal Papers Catalog by Date_ list it.

2 Melton J. Gordon, _Encyclopedia of American Religions_ (Wilmington, North Carolina: McGrath Publishing Co., 1978), 447.

3 A.B. Grimaldi, "History of the Rediscovery of Israel," _The Watchman of Israel,_ July 1919 (vol. 1, no. 9), 195.

4 Grimaldi, "History of the Rediscovery of Israel," _The Watchman of Israel,_ July 1919 [vol. 1, no. 9], 193–6).

5 Cecil Roth, _The Nephew of the Almighty_ (London: Edward Goldston Ltd., 1933).

6 How much weight should we give to Grimaldi's account? The problem with Grimaldi is that he tried too hard to give Anglo-Israelism credibility by "proving" it was not a recent innovation. In so doing he uncritically lumps Brothers and Wilson together as fellow Anglo-Israelites. He makes no mention of Brothers' insanity, nor the extremes to which Brothers' insanity took him. That Grimaldi gives one of two versions of the Abade story further weakens his credibility.

7 John Wilson, _Our Israelites Origins_ , 1st American ed., 1850, _Millerites and Early Adventists_ (University Microfilms), Section 3, Reel 15, part 24.

8 Louis Billington, "The Millerite Adventists in Great Britain, 1840-1850," _The Disappointed: Millerism and Millenarianism in the Nineteenth Century,_ Ronald L. Numbers and Jonathan M. Butler eds., 2nd ed. (Knoxville, Tennessee: University of Tennessee Press, 1993), 59, 66.

9 The Jehovah's Witnesses are considered an Adventist sect because their founder Charles Taze Russell was a disciple of the Adventists Jonas Wendell and Nelson H. Barbour, from whom he learned the conditional state of the dead.

10 A. N. Dugger and C. O. Dodd, _A History of the True Religion_ (Jerusalem, Israel: 1968), 296. Prior to 1923, the Church of God (Seventh Day) was called the Church of God (Adventist). Despite the name change, the 1926 U.S. census continued to call the Church by its older name. The older name clearly identifies its origin among the Adventist movement. For the sake of clarity I have used the current name, Church of God (Seventh Day) throughout the article. However, those doing historic research on this sect, should be aware of the variety of names the local congregations of this sect have been known by throughout its formative period from 1863-1923. See note 15.

11 Another much smaller sect, claiming to uphold the original teachings of the Church of God (Abrahamic Faith), also retains the older name. This leads to some confusion, of which researchers should be aware. Much ill feeling exists among the smaller group for the larger.

12 Restorationism should not be confused with the modern Christian Reconstructionist movement, which seeks to order America's government along the lines of the old covenant. Christian Reconstructionism is post-millennial while restorationism is pre-millennial.

13 R.V. Lyon, _The Scattering and Restoration of Israel,_ Thomas G. Newman publisher (Seneca Falls, New York: 1861), 31, 33, 34. This tract explains Lyon's basic teachings on prophetic Israel. Many of his tracts can be found in the Jenks Memorial Collection in the library of Aurora College in Aurora, Illinois.

14 Richard C. Nickels, _A History of the Seventh Day Church of God_ (Portland: Giving and Sharing, 1973), 252–4, 248–9.

15 Up until the 1880s, congregations that later became the Church of God (Seventh Day) called themselves by several names. The Church of Christ probably was the most common name used, while the names The Church of God and the Church of the Firstborn can also be found.

16 _The Hope of Israel,_ 28 January and 5 May 1868.

17 _The Advent and Sabbath Advocate_ , 9 December 1884.

18 _The Advent and Sabbath Advocate_ , 5 May 1885.

19 Perhaps _The Bible Banner_ of 1884 was another independent Church of God periodical. A 1905 offshoot of the Church of God (Seventh Day) published a paper using that name, yet there is no indication the two periodicals were related. Through the years, various churches have titled their periodicals _The Bible Banner_. A recent search on the Internet turned up two such publications, neither of which were the ones mentioned above. The list probably does not end with them.

20 _The Advent and Sabbath Advocate_ , 19 May 1885.

21 Nickels, 251.

22 During A.F. Dugger's association with the Church paper, it underwent several name changes. Originally called _The Hope of Israel,_ it later became the _Advent and Sabbath Advocate_ then the _Sabbath Advocate and Herald of the Advent._ Not until late 1900 was it decided to call the paper _The Bible Advocate and Herald of the Coming Kingdom_. That has since been shortened to the simpler _Bible Advocate._

23 Nickels, 153–4. Nickels sources are tracts published by A.N. Dugger from Jerusalem sometime between Dugger's move there in the early 1950s and 1975. See also "The Chastisement of the Jewish People," _The Bible Home Instructor._ My copy of _The Bible Home Instructor_ is a 1982 reprint with a few edits to bring it up to date. It deletes most of the original illustrations. (Reprint by George L. Johnson, Decatur, Michigan.)

24 Nebuchadnezzar's siege began in 605 B.C., not 606 (Edwin R. Thiele, _The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings_ [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1983], 183–5). 2,520 years later is not A.D. 1914, but 1916. (One must add 1 to the sum when crossing from B.C. to A.D. dates.) Dugger was off by two years.

25 Richard Nickels incorrectly identified Guinness as Australian (Nickels, 153).

26 H. Grattan Guinness, _The Approaching End of the Age,_ E. H. Horne editor and reviser (London: Morgan and Scott Ltd, 1918), 257–258.

27 Dr. and Mrs. H. Grattan Guinness, _Light for the Last Days,_ edited and revised by E. P. Cachemaille (London: Marshall, Morgan and Scott Ltd., 1934). Not quite as popular as his first book, it still underwent seven editions prior to 1893.

28 Ibid., 244.

29 Ernest R. Sandeen, _The Roots of Fundamentalism_ (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker, 1978), 147.

30 Nickels, 153.

31 J. Gordon Melton, _Encyclopedia of American Religions,_ 4th ed. (Detroit: Gale Research Inc., 1993), 119.

32 Edmond Charles Gruss, _Apostles of Denial_ (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker, 1978), 173.

33 _Directory of Sabbath-Observing Groups_ , 6th ed. (Fairview, Oklahoma: The Bible Sabbath Association, 1986), 138.

34 Nickels, 250.

35 _The Bible Advocate_ , 1 March and 3 May 1927.

36 When I visited the main Portland library in the 1980s it had three separate catalogues. The newest was its computerized catalogue, another was the card catalogue that the computerized system had replaced, and the third was an even older card catalogue that apparently dated from the time of Armstrong's studies. That older catalogue was stored on the second floor. It had several Anglo-Israelite titles not found in the newer catalogues, including the 1917 edition of Allen's work.

37 Barkun, Michael, _Religion and the Racist Right: The Origins of the Christian Identity Movement,_ revised ed. (The University of North Carolina Press: Chapel Hill, North Carolina, 1997), 22–3.

38 As far as we know, only one copy of one volume of Beauchamp's magazine has survived. Volume I (November 1918 through October 1919) of _The Watchman of Israel,_ is preserved in the library of Southern Illinois University in Carbondale, Illinois. _The Watchman_ took as its theme the poem 'The Call of Judah" that drew its imagery from Isaiah 21:11 ("Watchman, what of the night?") and the star of Bethlehem. The poem interpreted the star as the sign of the promised "day of Israel." The watchman was the one who proclaimed the meaning of the stars to a darkened world.

J.H. Allen wrote the lead article of the first issue. Among the books advertised were the two works by Guinness mentioned earlier in this paper.

39 J. Gordon Melton, _Encyclopedia of American Religions,_ 4th ed. (Detroit: Gale Research Inc., 1993), 669.

40 Armstrong to Mr. and Mrs. Runcorn, 28 February 1928, HWAP, #807, 3, 5.

41 Beauchamp published another edition of _Judah's Sceptre and Joseph's Birthright_ in 1930.

42 Armstrong to S.S. Davison, 26 September 1928, HWAP, #808.

43 Armstrong to Dugger, 1 January 1929, HWAP, #828. Dugger to Armstrong, 22 January 1929, HWAP, #849.

44 P. Gerhard Damsteegt, _Foundations of the Seventh-day Adventist Message and Mission_ (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1977), 135–46.

45 The surviving manuscript shows evidence that it has been edited. Pages 1–19[a] have been typed on a different, obviously newer typewriter, than the rest of the manuscript. The book title for these pages is _The Real Truth About Israel._ Based on a comparison of the manuscript with other writings of Armstrong from the late 1920s, it is my judgment that the surviving first 19 pages represent a rewriting of the original text. Pages 19[b] onward have been typed on a much poorer quality typewriter. The themes of these pages are those with which Armstrong concerned himself in the late '20s. The title of the book for this older section is _What is the Third Angel's Message?_ The entire manuscript, as it now exists in its rewritten form, is document 8850 of the Herbert W. Armstrong Papers [HWAP] collection of the Worldwide Church of God. Correspondence that shed light on the development of the manuscript include documents 828, 829, 849, 850, 884, 931, 2559. Many addition letters of Armstrong's from 1929 deal with Anglo-Israelism and its relationship to the Third Angel's Message. [Since first writing this footnote, the original 19 pages of Armstrong's manuscript have been discovered among uncatalogued papers of the Herbert W. Armstrong Papers collection confirming the general observations made above.].

46 _The Autobiography of Herbert W. Armstrong_ (Pasadena, California: Ambassador College, 1973 ed.), 330.

47 Does he mean "I have spent all my available time writing," or "What time I had available, I have used for writing." Either understanding is grammatically possible. But note the context of his comments.

48 Within the Worldwide Church of God, some came to believe that this woman must have been an angel, yet Armstrong never made such a claim. A careful reading of the context shows her to have been mysterious only because they did not know who she was or how she came to know their need. The wood he stacked was at the "mysterious" woman's house and it was she who paid Armstrong. Despite this, the Armstrongs never learned her name.

49 Armstrong to Dugger, 19 April 1929, HWAP, #842.

50 Dugger to Armstrong, 28 July 1929. For additional bibliographic information please see note 1.

51 That Armstrong was influenced by a dispensationalist hermeneutic is evident from his approach to Daniel and Revelation, as well as his respect for the Scofield Reference Bible, _the_ dispensationalist commentary. Using classic dispensationalist language, he wrote in _What Is the Third Angel's Message,_ page 147, "this present age, or dispensation" is called "the Church, or Gospel Dispensation." His Adventist influences have already been addressed.

52 Armstrong to Mr. and Mrs. Gross, 18 January 1930, HWAP, #806. Armstrong to Ballenger, 9 August 1930, HWAP, #931. The Grosses apparently were the Pentecostal family through whom he learned to trust God for healing.

53 See note for comments on the surviving text of _What Is the Third Angel's Message?_

54 Armstrong's dependence on Allen is more evident in his later work, _The United States and British Commonwealth in Prophecy._ Though Allen is never mentioned in that text, the book so tightly follows Allen that the plagiarism is obvious.

Armstrong's first direct quote of Allen in _What is the Third Angel's Message?_ is from page 227 of _Judah's Sceptre and Joseph's Birthright_ : "It is a well-known fact that the history of no country on the face of the earth has so puzzled historians as that of Ireland." Armstrong's second quotation, "It is unmistakably recorded in British history that the earliest settlers in Wales and southern England were called _Simonii,_ " is found in Allen on page 275. Allen frequently used phrases such as "It is a well-known fact," and "It is unmistakably recorded" to lend an air of authority to his work.

Armstrong uncritically points to Allen as the authority who tells us that _Simonii_ is the plural of Simeon. Armstrong's lack of any training in lexicography, etymology, linguistics and historiography made him vulnerable to unfounded conclusions that appeared to support Anglo-Israelism. Training in sound linguistic and hermeneutical principles would have made him a bit more cautious.

55 To arrive at 1917, Armstrong incorrectly dated the fall of Jerusalem to 585 B.C., though he was aware that 587 was the more widely accepted date. See Thiele, _Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings,_ rev. ed. [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1983] for a scholarly discussion of how Jerusalem's fall can accurately be dated.

56 _What Is the Third Angel's Message?,_ 120.

57 Ibid.

58 For an excellent survey of this phenomenon in American evangelicalism read Paul Boyer's _When Time Shall Be No More_ (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Belknap/Harvard, 1992). It helps one see how Armstrong's prophetic views were in line with their social-historical context.

59 Ibid., 165.

60 Herbert W. Armstrong, "What is Going to Happen," _The Plain Truth,_ June–July 1934, 4.

61 Herbert W. Armstrong, _The Plain Truth,_ July, 1935, 5.

62 _The Plain Truth,_ August–September 1940, 2.

63 _Mystery of the Ages_ (New York: Dodd, Mead and Co., 1985), xi.

64 Ibid., 9.

65 Ibid., 10.

66 Ibid., 161. In saying this he placed the date for the first writing of _The United States and Britain in Prophecy_ as pre-1935. Actually, it was written later. As we have shown, _The United States and Britain in Prophecy_ was built upon an earlier manuscript, _What Is the Third Angel's Message?_ It is to that manuscript he must refer.

67 Ibid., 195.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

back to table of contents

You may also wish to read David Baron, _The History of the Ten "Lost" Tribes: Anglo-Israelism Examined,_ available free at the Open Library.

## About the Author...

Ralph Orr was a minister and an employee of the Worldwide Church of God, which is now known as Grace Communion International. More information about the doctrinal changes in the Worldwide Church of God can be obtained in the free e-book _Transformed by Truth,_ by Joseph Tkach. It is available in the same place as you obtained this e-book.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

back to table of contents

## About the Publisher...

Grace Communion International is a Christian denomination with about 50,000 members, worshiping in about 900 congregations in almost 100 nations and territories. We began in 1934 and our main office is in North Carolina. In the United States, we are members of the National Association of Evangelicals and similar organizations in other nations. We welcome you to visit our website at www.gci.org.

If you want to know more about the gospel of Jesus Christ, we offer help. First, we offer weekly worship services in hundreds of congregations worldwide. Perhaps you'd like to visit us. A typical worship service includes songs of praise, a message based on the Bible, and opportunity to meet people who have found Jesus Christ to be the answer to their spiritual quest. We try to be friendly, but without putting you on the spot. We do not expect visitors to give offerings—there's no obligation. You are a guest.

To find a congregation, write to one of our offices, phone us or visit our website. If we do not have a congregation near you, we encourage you to find another Christian church that teaches the gospel of grace.

We also offer personal counsel. If you have questions about the Bible, salvation or Christian living, we are happy to talk. If you want to discuss faith, baptism or other matters, a pastor near you can discuss these on the phone or set up an appointment for a longer discussion. We are convinced that Jesus offers what people need most, and we are happy to share the good news of what he has done for all humanity. We like to help people find new life in Christ, and to grow in that life. Come and see why we believe it's the best news there could be!

Our work is funded by members of the church who donate part of their income to support the gospel. Jesus told his disciples to share the good news, and that is what we strive to do in our literature, in our worship services, and in our day-to-day lives.

If this e-book has helped you and you want to pay some expenses, all donations are gratefully welcomed, and in several nations, are tax-deductible. If you can't afford to give anything, don't worry about it. It is our gift to you. To make a donation online, go to www.gci.org/participate/donate.

Thank you for letting us share what we value most — Jesus Christ. The good news is too good to keep it to ourselves.

See our website for hundreds of articles, locations of our churches, addresses in various nations, audio and video messages, and much more.

Grace Communion International  
3129 Whitehall Park Dr.

Charlotte, NC 28273-3335

1-800-423-4444

www.gci.org

### You're Included...

We talk with leading Trinitarian theologians about the good news that God loves you, wants you, and includes you in Jesus Christ. Most programs are about 28 minutes long. Our guests have included:

Ray Anderson, Fuller Theological Seminary

Douglas A. Campbell, Duke Divinity School

Elmer Colyer, U. of Dubuque Theological Seminary

Gordon Fee, Regent College

Trevor Hart, University of St. Andrews

George Hunsinger, Princeton Theological Seminary

Jeff McSwain, Reality Ministries

Paul Louis Metzger, Multnomah University

Paul Molnar, St. John's University

Cherith Fee Nordling, Antioch Leadership Network

Andrew Root, Luther Seminary

Alan Torrance, University of St. Andrews

Robert T. Walker, Edinburgh University

N.T. Wright, University of St. Andrews

William P. Young, author of _The Shack_

Programs are available free for viewing and downloading at www.youreincluded.org.

### Speaking of Life...

Dr. Joseph Tkach, president of Grace Communion International, comments each week, giving a biblical perspective on how we live in the light of God's love. Most programs are about three minutes long – available in video, audio, and text. Go to www.speakingoflife.org.

back to table of contents

##

Grace Communion Seminary

Ministry based on the life and love of the Father, Son, and Spirit.

Grace Communion Seminary serves the needs of people engaged in Christian service who want to grow deeper in relationship with our Triune God and to be able to more effectively serve in the church.

Why study at Grace Communion Seminary?

 Worship: to love God with all your mind.

 Service: to help others apply truth to life.

 Practical: a balanced range of useful topics for ministry.

 Trinitarian theology: a survey of theology with the merits of a Trinitarian perspective. We begin with the question, "Who is God?" Then, "Who are we in relationship to God?" In this context, "How then do we serve?"

 Part-time study: designed to help people who are already serving in local congregations. There is no need to leave your current ministry. Full-time students are also welcome.

 Flexibility: your choice of master's level continuing education courses or pursuit of a degree: Master of Pastoral Studies or Master of Theological Studies.

 Affordable, accredited study: Everything can be done online.

For more information, go to www.gcs.edu. Grace Communion Seminary is accredited by the Distance Education Accrediting Commission, www.deac.org. The Accrediting Commission is listed by the U.S. Department of Education as a nationally recognized accrediting agency.

back to table of contents

## Ambassador College of Christian Ministry

Want to better understand God's Word? Want to know the Triune God more deeply? Want to share more joyously in the life of the Father, Son and Spirit? Want to be better equipped to serve others?

Among the many resources that Grace Communion International offers are the training and learning opportunities provided by ACCM. This quality, well-structured Christian Ministry curriculum has the advantage of being very practical and flexible. Students may study at their own pace, without having to leave home to undertake full-time study.

This denominationally recognized program is available for both credit and audit study. At minimum cost, this online Diploma program will help students gain important insights and training in effective ministry service. Students will also enjoy a rich resource for personal study that will enhance their understanding and relationship with the Triune God.

Diploma of Christian Ministry classes provide an excellent introductory course for new and lay pastors. Pastor General Dr. Joseph Tkach said, "We believe we have achieved the goal of designing Christian ministry training that is practical, accessible, interesting, and doctrinally and theologically mature and sound. This program provides an ideal foundation for effective Christian ministry."

For more information, go to www.ambascol.org

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

back to table of contents

