British-Israelism, or Anglo-Israelism, is the belief that the lost ten tribes of Israel immigrated to Europe, then England and became the British people of today. Naturally, this doctrine teaches that the United States is included because of its English ancestry.
British-Israelism is not a new doctrine. It's roots are relatively unknown, however, it has been made popular by several religious sects over the years, mainly the Worldwide Church of God under Herbert W. Armstrong. Since Armstrong's death in 1986, the church has removed the belief from its doctrine, as it is nowhere supported Biblically.
For one to believe that British-Israelism is a true doctrine, the conviction that the ten tribes of Israel were, in fact, "lost" must exist. Secondly, it must be proven that these Jews did immigrate to England in large amounts--large enough to re-populate entire countries with legitimate bloodlines.
In 722 B.C. many Israelites were captured and deported under Assyrian rule. This is supported in 2 Kings 17:18. Those who believe in British-Israelism adhere closely to the fact that the mere mention of the lost ten tribes of Israel in the Bible is sparse after the Assyrian deportation. They attribute this lack of Biblical documentation to the claim that the ten tribes were being "replaced" and "mixed" with the races of people in the areas in which they were deported.
However, many historical records and Scriptures indicate that many people from the "lost" tribes remained in the land and were either not scattered at all, or did not remain "lost" for long periods of time. In fact, much merit points to the likelihood that these tribes were not physically lost at all--they simply "lost" their identities. 2 Chronicles 35:18 clearly states that around 85 years following the Assyrian deportation, the people of "Israel" celebrated Passover with the tribes of Judah. 2 Chronicles 15:9 records that long before and after the Assyrians took over Israel, people from Ephriam, Manasseh and Simeon had settled in the South--Judah. Luke 2:36 documents that the prophetess Anna was from the tribe of Asher, one of the "lost" tribes.
Scripturally speaking, the people that were, in fact, deported by Assyria, were never heard from again. This indicates that this group of people that was actually conquered by Assyria was either relatively small, or were not physically scattered over a extremely large area.
According to scholars, it makes more sense that when Judah was deported by the Babylonians, those from the ten tribes would have fled to Assyria to rejoin Jews there. Biblical accounts of the Babylonian deportation do not specifically identify that the Jewish tribes were only from Judah. These accounts are found in Ezra and Nehemiah.
Proponents of British-Israelism are convinced, without a shadow-of-a-doubt, that this doctrine is true. While several books on the subject exist, none seem to provide proof that debunks the Bible's account of what happened to the lost ten tribes. Scholars and theologians agree that it is entirely possible the the deported Israelites could have immigrated to England, however, the probability of that occurrence is very low as best.
In Biblical times, travel was very dangerous and time-consuming, especially for large groups, which to prove British-Israelism, would have had to have been the case. Geographically speaking, such a journey would have been met with very precarious pitfalls. Therefore, it would make much more sense and would have been much easier for these tribes to have immigrated to other areas than England. It also makes absolutely no sense that the Israelites would have been allowed to travel very far outside designated territories as they were under the control of the Assyrians, then the Babylonians. If anything, these peoples would have naturally attempted to return to Israel. (Which they are doing today in droves, with next to none of which coming from the United States or Great Britain.)
It is, therefore, safe to claim that the Assyrian deportation may have resulted in some Israelites showing up in England, however, there is no evidence to support that this happened on a large enough scale to give legitimacy to British-Israelism.
British-Israelism is used to support the absurd claim that England and the United States have inherited the covenant promises God made with Israel, which is nothing more than replacement theology. This doctrine is often the basis and cornerstone of sects that weigh very heavily on "end-time" prophecy and the coming destruction of the United States, Britain, Canada and other countries early on in the Great Tribulation. However, most of the sects, such as those who believe in Armstrongism, tend to completely disregard the true accounts of the histories of the United States and Britain. It's common for these groups to produce Biblical "proof text" after "proof text" while at the same time, they fail to give credit to the fact that the promised land is physical Israel, not the "Church." They also fail to stand by the fact that while a significant percentage of the American population has English heritage, a larger percentage of Americans is made up of ancestry of non-English decent.
The following link provides a more in-depth discussion about the true history of the Assyrian people.
http://www.exitsupportnetwork.com/mike_ep/exam/origins.htm
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Doesn't it make sense that the if Jews are all over the world, that everyone is related?
I hardly doubt that it's safe to say this is a fallacy. Who knows what happened thousands of years ago. There is alot in the Bible that isn't even recorded as being true.
Cranberry,
It makes sense that Jews are all over the world. But just because one is Jewish, doesn't mean they can trace their bloodlines back to the lost tribes of Israel.
Studies have been done to try to prove BI and all of them DISPROVED it... logically, Biblically, scientificly. There simply isn't any truth to the theory. It's bogus. 100 percent on all levels.
Why exactly would the Jews deported from Syria have gone to Britain, of all places? Seriously, why travel thousands of miles to an obscure island on the edge of the known world whose langauge they did not know, and whose pagan religion would have been adverse to everything they knew?
When people migrate, especially as refugees, they usually go to a place reasonably close to where they came from- unless that place also is dangerous, or there is something which attracts them to a particular reasons, usually better jobs, wages or quality of life.
The Israelites at the time of the Persian Conquest had literally no reason to go to Britain. None. Nada. It was not a major world power then, and had little to offer economically, except a few trade goods such as tin and precious metals. I doubt the climate would have appealed to them either. Even the Romans complained about the wet and dreary weather.
As for Joseph of Arimithea, the evidence for him is sketchy at least. Mostly comes from Geoffrey of Monmouth, an eleventh century Welsh Cleric whose book 'History of the Kings of Britain' was regarded as invention and falsehood even my his contemporares.
Post a Comment