By Liaf

No. This is not a joke message (except our enemies may think so). I'm not trying to play with words. Thankfully, the Lord used one of them to lead me to a very nice article that summarizes the refutation of "Anglo-Israelism" nicely. Now I want to set something straight. I am not, per se, officially a part of any British-Israelite, Anglo-Israelite or whatever Israelite group although I sympathize with them. Some of them differ in foundational beliefs from me. For example, I DO believe in the three-fold personage of God. I do believe in heaven and hell. And to their horror, I actually believe in a pre-Trib rapture. Where I differ with the mainline Christendom is this issue as to who, where and what the "lost tribes" of Israel became. As far as I am concerned, this is a historic doctrine with prophetic overtones, not an issue of basic, orthodox doctrines regarding salvation, one's life in Christ, etc. "Anglo-Israelism" permeates all denominations. I suspect that insightful people from the churches that refute us secretly believe in "Anglo-Israelism" but are otherwise afraid to speak up. Such is the pressure of a dominant shepherd or one who would hold a person to "accountability" if they ever believed in the fate of Israel as we teach here just because God said so. I know that some of Billy Graham's associates were secret believers in this teaching (Oh the horrors!)

This article I have posted here is a lengthy rebuttal to Anglo-Israelism by a fellow of the name of Robert Roberts. Mr. Roberts was critiquing Mr. Hine, a believer in Anglo-Israelism. This took place in the late 1800's (so don't bother to respond to any of these fellows today :-) ) However, just as we have the lost tribes "Bible" in Mr. Allen's free on-line book at this site, this article that follows typifies the "Bible" of refutation for the anti-Anglo folks.

We must understand that neither side will be convinced at the other's argument. I had a message about this one time before. However, for those on the fence, as well as those who are that new wine skin, I want them to decide whose argument is stronger. In addition, remember that there is a wealth of messages on this site. Whatever questions are not answered here (in favor of Anglo-Israelism) may very well be explained in another article so feel free to do some searching. With that being said, what follows is the crux of all the refutations. Mr. Hine summarized in a speech the characteristics of the lost house of Israel. Mr. Roberts numerically refutes them and I will refute Mr. Roberts in [Red bracketed comments]. Too bad the guy's dead that he cannot defend himself. We could be going back and forth forever on this. However, I want to demonstrate that we who believe in the Anglo-Israelite teaching do have our reasons fully supported by Scripture (and lots of archeological finds but that is another subject). Here it is:

****Start of article (with Liaf's comments in red)****

ALLEGED "MARKS OF IDENTITY"

Now upon this branch of the subject, Mr. Hine spoke of "300 marks"--three hundred marks of identity--and he said that although we might find one or two of the marks in some other nations, yet only one nation--and that our own nation--answered to all the three hundred marks, and that we must accept as the nation to be identified by the marks; which, in the abstract. is a very proper observation. If the premises of this argument are true, the conclusion doubtless is inevitable. If there are 300 marks by which the ten tribes are now, at this moment, to be recognised, and if we can find these 300 marks anywhere, doubtless the process of identification is very simple and very complete. But, to begin with, where are the 300 marks? Mr. Hine did not give us them last night. We cannot reasonably complain of that, because the mere definition of them would have been enough to occupy the whole of the evening, but he did give us a few, and I jotted them down; and we will go through those seriatim, and see if any one of them is a mark at all. And, if in the process of this examination, I make remarks which may appear to be somewhat vigorous, I hope nobody will take offence. Mr. Hine last night pleaded several times for a "Christian spirit", a mild, kindly, Christian spirit. Well, a Christian spirit is a good thing, provided you get the genuine article. (Marks of disapprobation.) Well, by that I simply mean this, that a Christian spirit does not necessarily consist of smooth and flattering speeches and bland manners. (Applause and hisses.) Those who disagree with that are Mr. Hine's friends, of course, and I am sure that Mr. Hine would not think hissing was evidence of a Christian spirit. (Applause.) I merely had in mind the fact that Paul must be supposed to be a very good illustration of the genuine Christian spirit, and you will find him when in the Island of Cyprus, before Sergius Paulus, when opposed by a certain subtle, plausible man, turning upon him and saying, "Thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the ways of the Lord?" Paul was a Christian, surely, of the unquestionable type, if ever there was one, and he did not evidence an unchristian spirit in characterising a bad thing truly. There is nothing unchristian in that. If you wish to see proof, you have only to read the twenty-third chapter of Matthew, which is one long scathing denunciation by the very Head of Christianity of the Scribes and Pharisees, whom He characterised as "like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones and of all uncleanness". Jesus, the Fountain head of Christianity, would appear at that moment in a very unchristian attitude in the estimation of some people. Therefore let no man misjudge me if I should find occasion to speak hardly in denunciation of "marks" which are no marks.[With all this introduction being said, the modus operandi is similar to many against Anglo-Israelism: butter up the audience by some sort of diversion or maybe even poking fun at it ("where are the 300 marks?"). Just in case this tactic fails, imply that this person is a false prophet (e.g. "provided you get the genuine article") or after the disapproval of some corrected himself with "Christian spirit does not necessarily consist of smooth and flattering speeches and bland manners." I suspect based on past observations this is a way to steer those inclined toward Mr. Hine away by branding him as one with heretical beliefs. ]

If I desire support in this matter, I fall back on Mr. Hine. Presumably Mr. Hine's remarks are characterised by what he thinks a Christian spirit. If so, I shall not be likely, in his estimation at all events, to transgress much to-night, however vigorously I may speak, after this quotation which I will make from Mr. Hine, which it is very curious should be circulated last night, as if it were a sort of precious morsel out of Mr. Hine's writings for the people to relish. The book from which it is quoted is "Cui Bono?" pages 27 and 38 :--

"Men who, with cramped and narrow minds, are forced at every turn to become apologists for God, who, in effect, profanely declare that God cannot be understood in His declaration through the sure word of prophecy, unless the literal meaning be extracted, and another one, supplied by themselves, be accepted: that the word of prophecy cannot be 'a more sure word', 'a light that shineth in a dark place', unless they be indulged in the iniquity of twisting God's Word, DIVERTING HIS MEANINGS by dressing it up in what they call their spiritual constructions, most generally the conveyance of pure nonsense and direct untruths, by which the ministry have made themselves, as a class, above all other classes, the laughing-stock of the million, who consider themselves by these absurdities shut out from the House of God by the very men who ought to know better".

And then again, on page 48 :---" It is the merest nonsense to assert that all sections of dissent are agreed upon the essential doctrines, only differing upon minor points. This iniquitous statement is the dishonest cry of priestcraft. They tell us that, being agreed in little details, there is no need for Christian union. We never hear this idle tale without being impressed of the possibility of our standing before SOME CLERICAL SWINDLER, for it is these very differences in minor details that have done all the damage".

Well, now, if Mr. Hine does not think that unchristian, I am sure that nobody here to-night ought to think any remark I may make unchristian, for I certainly shall not exceed these extracts in zest. I do not find fault with those extracts at all: I think they are richly deserved. At the same time I thought I would just call attention to them by way of disarming an anticipatory criticism with regard to the tenor of my remarks.[Yawn!! I am bored. This is typical. We're supposed to debate Anglo-Israelism and here is this diversion going on and on and on about 'Christian Spirit'. Why is morality always brought up? I often read about or experienced this tactic. When one wants to discredit another's belief, just effectively add the statement "Besides, do you know this person does that?" That has nothing to do with the price of tea in China but it is presented as if it were. I find those quotes from Mr. Hine in order. That's because they are true. If he sounded unchristian, probably it is because the targets he had in mind deserved it. Ok. Let's get to the subject at hand!!!!!]

[Here Mr. Hine came by invitation from the body of the hall to the platform]

Well, then, we will go through so many of the "300 marks" as Mr. Hine was able to get into his discourse last night, and presumably as he was able to get in only a few, we may conclude that they were, in his estimation, tolerably pithy ones, because a man having to make a selection out of 300 would not select the weakest. And I will take them, therefore, in the order in which he gives them, and we shall see what they are like.

1.--"AS THE SAND OF THE SEA SHORE"

He said," They, the ten-tribed people, were to be as the sand of the sea-shore", and then he appealed to the British people being as the sand of the sea-shore. He did not give us the chapter and verse; I wish he would do so; I should advise him in future always to do it, for if his case is good it will strengthen it, and if it is weak it will give other people the opportunity of doing what they ought to do, and helping them out of a bad position. I will go to the place from which he gets this "mark "---Hosea 1:10--in order to find whether it is possible that the statement quoted can be made to apply to the British nation: "Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; [This happens first, then...]and it shall come to pass that in the place[i.e. the place of their exile, because they are known as "not my people" after they are scattered. By the way, when was the Jew ever not known as God's people??] where it was said unto them, Ye are not My people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God. [This indicates they would embrace Christianity nationally. Now I am not so foolish to believe ALL Israelites are saved. But many are or were. These are the chosen ones by grace (Romans 11:4)]" Question: Apart from the point who this Israel may be, when is this prophecy to be fulfilled--this prophecy that Israel were to be as the sand of the sea? The context answers it: "THEN shall the children of Judah AND the children of Israel be gathered together, and APPOINT THEMSELVES ONE HEAD." [Sorry Mr. Roberts. Boy, do you wrest Scripture. 'Then' means the NEXT EVENT. This passage in Hosea is a summary of the events that would transpire, in order, to the house of Israel until the time of the end. Any normal person reading this would understand it that way until they have their minds twisted by the likes of Mr. Roberts. I could just as easily make up a short story about a family sounding similar to this: Sarah Roberts married so she was no longer known as Miss Roberts. Yet the number of the children of Sarah's family shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and even though she was not known as Sarah Roberts, she was now known as Mrs. Hine. Then shall Sarah's children and the rest of the family be gathered together and live happily ever after, etc." Forgive my analogy, but I had to come up with a family equivalent in everyday language. If you were to read this, when would all these events occur? Other than being able to tell the sequence of events, it would be impossible to tell! Yet, according to Mr. Roberts' logic, this all would occur when the families would get together!!] Have the children of Israel and the children of Judah been gathered together? Have they appointed themselves one head yet?

A VOICE: No. [said Mr. Roberts' hypnotized subject. OK. I'm sorry. I just had to throw in ONE poke of fun just like they do, but I will not do that anymore, I promise.]

MR. ROBERTS: Then it cannot apply to the present moment. If this be not the moment, how can we say that the British are the people? Are there no other people equally numerous with the British? I admit that this will be fulfilled: I rejoice to know that in the futurity of God's purpose the children of Israel will be unlimited in number. Yea, in process of due time the whole earth will be occupied with Israelites, and Gentile nationalities will entirely cease, [I wonder where he got that idea--- that's not true in the millennium. See Zechariah 14:17-18, Isaiah 19:25, Revelation 20:8] and will be absorbed and obliterated in the perfection of the eternal ages, when the one head spoken of in this prophecy will have become the leader of a multitudinous people. But how is this a "mark" for the British, if it applies to a time that has not yet come? That is mark number one. [And mark what I say here: this prophecy in Hosea 1 is simply a sequence of events. First they are "not my people", then they increase in numbers, then in the land of their exile, (or destruction if you want to sound 'King-Jamesish') they are then known as 'sons of the living God (see John 1:12 for that definition) and THEN at the end times they would rejoin with Judah, appoint one head, etc.] That's just straightforward reading. For Mr. Roberts' interpretation to come true, I guess at the time of the end you have to see a miraculous population explosion of the Jews virtually overnight--- not over many generations the way normal humans multiply.]

2.--" A NATION AND A COMPANY OF NATIONS"

The next mark is--" God declares that the ten-tribe people shall be a nation and a company of nations" ( Gen. 35. 11). By this, Mr. Hine asks us to understand England as the one nation and her colonies as the "company of nations," [Ironically, I disagree with Mr. Hine. The United States, well in existence then, is the one nation and the British Commonwealth, including England were the 'company of nations'. However, what is really important is believing God would make nations from Abraham, something Mr. Roberts refuses to believe in the literal sense at that moment.] referred to in this promise; but let us see whether it is the ten-tribe people of whom this is said at all. Verse 10: "And God said unto him, Thy name is Jacob; thy name shall not be called any more Jacob, but Israel shall be thy name; and He called his name Israel. And God said unto him, I am God Almighty; be fruitful and multiply a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins." "Of thee "--Jacob whatever the meaning may be, it applies to Jacob, and not "the ten-tribe. people" of Mr. Hine's phraseology. And about that meaning there can be no difficulty' Jacob was multiplied, not into ten, but into twelve minor nationalities in one nationality. Why separate this promise in the least degree from the Jews, who were equally constituents of the national "Jacob" with the ten tribes who are cast off? It applies equally to all the tribes. The translation given us by certain translators sets this in an even clearer light. This gives us the word "even" for "and." It will not be disputed by any Hebrew scholar that "even" is an admissible rendering of the Hebrew wav in construction with a substantive' "A nation, even a company of nations, shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins." And that was so a nation consisting of twelve nations has come out of the loins of Jacob, and played an important part in history. [In this case, I DO NOT disagree with Mr. Roberts! I have no problem with nations coming from twelve tribes IF God stopped making promises at that point. However, if we continue reading the book of Genesis and the Bible, the birthright promises (which include all these nations) were very clearly given to the tribe of Joseph. Ephraim was to become a multitude of nations and Manasseh was to become 'a people' (that's the singular nation). That does not exclude the other tribes from each becoming nations. "What is the difference of the Manasseh nation to the other tribal nations?" you may ask. The difference is that whatever nation Manasseh became would have the birthright blessing--- greater than the others. In other words, God did not have to make nations from the other tribes, but that does not negate the birthright promise if he did. In my experience, in every, yes, every case, NOT A ONE, NO! NOT a ONE Anti-Anglo theologian would or could answer the great promises to Ephraim and Manasseh. They ALWAYS swept them under the rug hoping they'd go away. And notice Mr. Roberts stops short at Genesis 35:11 also!]

3.--" THE HEAD AND NOT THE TAIL"

[I'm going to be honest with you. I am not sure what points both Mr. Roberts and Mr. Hine were trying to make with this third item. From what I read in this article, Mr. Hine apparently used Deuteronomy 28 (and there is a similar passage in Leviticus 26) to identify more characteristics of lost Israel. These Biblical passages deal with blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience. From what I gather, Mr. Roberts cannot understand why the Jew were experiencing only the so-called curse part (the "tail") of the prophecy while Israel enjoyed the blessing part (the "head") even though Mr. Hine claimed that Israel was still practicing idolatry , etc.(therefore should have been cursed according to Mr. Roberts' reasoning). Therefore, Mr. Roberts reasoned, England could not have been the target of these blessings since their state should have dictated God's curse. Actually, I do not see what these Biblical passages have to do with proving or disproving who Israel is. Rather, it's the other way around. Given that we know who Israel is, we can expect blessings or curses in accordance with these passages (not to use them to prove their identity). I never used these passages to prove Israel's identity, or the basis as to whether or not there are lost tribes. Nevertheless, let's look at this third item.]

Then Mr. Hine said, "When Judah shall serve their enemies in all countries, God declares the ten-tribed people shall be the head, and not the tail, above only, and not beneath, the strongest upon the face of the earth." Where does God declare that? Nowhere. [Actually, after Israel experienced their "seven-times" punishment according to Leviticus 26, after they renewed their strength (Isaiah 41:1) and were revived and returned to the Lord (Hosea 6:1-2), God would restore them their inheritance again by making them mighty, especially the birthright nations. I know what anti-Anglo folks are thinking--- "Why not restore Israel to her land instead of in Britain or America or wherever?" The reason is because God appointed them "a place" according to the promise to King David. There they would fulfill their God-appointed destiny of becoming many nations from that (starting) place (they cannot do that from their own land), a blessing to the fallen world and a light (from the elect of the race) to the fallen world. The Jew was to be under Law, Israel under grace until the two sticks were to be rejoined in the end times. That's part of God's ingenious plan. Of course Israel were wanderers amongst the nations and dried up between the time of their exile and until they heard their first gospel message (Hosea 9:16-17) AND until the time of the punishment ended. The allotted time for the punishment was a national curse. Therefore, it would not end when a few chosen by grace within Israel accepted Christ. Frankly, I am surprised that BOTH Judah and Israel 'got off' as easily as they did according to history. God was and is indeed gracious--- He yelled at His kids and did not give them the full spanking.] Mr. Hine did not tell us where he professed to get the statement from, but I will direct your attention to the place from which the phraseology is borrowed, and you will see that it is a sheer misrepresentation that God has thus distinguished between the positions to be contemporarily occupied by Israel and Judah. The place is the 28th chapter of Deuteronomy, verse 13: "The Lord shall make thee the head, and not the tail, and thou shalt be above only, and thou shalt not be beneath." Now, to whom is this addressed? Observe, Moses called the eiders of Israel, the elders of the whole congregation, comprising the whole twelve tribes, and therefore including the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, and therefore the Jews. This applies equally to them all: it applies as much to Judah as to Simeon, as much to Benjamin as to Ephraim: "thou"--the twelve. There was no division of the people into Israel and Judah when Moses uttered those words: there was one nation of twelve tribes. [They were addressed as one nation, and indeed were one nation, but God saw them as TWO people (see Ezekiel 23) because Jacob split Judah and Joseph while blessing them. Therefore IT IS POSSIBLE to justify splitting the Jew from the Israelites depending on the context (as Paul did in Romans 9-11). Indeed, Israel WAS punished, but by the era that Mr. Hine and Mr. Roberts lived in, the punishment was over. These nations were spreading the gospel and God's will was being done for the Kingdom. In the last days, Ephraim will 'fade again like a flower' and we will degrade as Israel did in the past until we experience another 'seven-times' (or seven-year) tribulation a.k.a. the 'time of Jacob's trouble'. I'll give one excellent example of a similar passage where it CANNOT apply to the Jew: DEUTERONOMY 32:26. Using Mr. Roberts' reasoning, if ALL Israelites were Jews, then this curse applies to the Jew as well as to Israel. Yet, when were the Jews ever forgotten? History shows they were sought out and persecuted. Only a people who lose their identity could be forgotten. But I am one step ahead again. I know what some are thinking. If being forgotten was part of the punishment, then why are they not remembered again when the punishment was over? God used that punishment to carry out His purpose--- these Israelites were to become as new wine skins to accept the gospel. If Israel converted back to Judaism, then the whole purpose of being separate from Judah would have been nullified. Indeed, God did enlighten the Israelite's to their identity regardless IF THEY WILL LISTEN, but we now have a new name as the Bible promised and the new is better than the old now.] The "thou" of the prophecy therefore covers all the twelve tribes, Israel and Judah alike. But then, observe there is a condition attached to the statement that the twelve-tribed Israel should be the head, and that condition occurs in the very verse from which the statement is quoted. It is a pity Mr. Hine did not quote the whole verse. He ought not to do what he justly accuses the clergy of doing. He accuses them of" twisting God's words," and" diverting His meanings." Let us see whether Mr. Hine has not been guilty of this in this case: "The Lord shall make thee the head, and not the tail; and thou shalt be above only, and thou shalt not be beneath; IF that thou hearken unto the commandments of the Lord thy, God, which I command thee this day, to observe and to do them: and thou shalt not go aside from any of the words which I command thee this day, to the right hand, or to the left, to go after other gods to serve them."

"IF thou shalt not go after other gods." Did the ten tribes go after other gods? Yes. Mr. Hine claimed it as a "grand identity," as he called it, that the so-called Israelites, upon their arrival on British shores, were idolaters. [I already explained this. The gospel was not preached yet, they were still roaming about, wars, etc. but they were starting to regroup.] If, then, they went aside after other gods, how can he claim for them a promise which was expressly conditional upon their not doing so? But Moses proceeds to tell them what would happen, if, in the other case, they did not hearken, and were not obedient. Verse 15: "It shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the Lord thy God,. to observe to do all His commandments and His statutes which I command thee this day: that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee." It is the same "thou" as in the early part of the chapter; therefore, if it is the ten tribes in one case it is the ten tribes in the other. Therefore, let us read British history by the light of this. "Cursed shalt thou be in the city, and cursed shalt thou be in the field; cursed shall be thy basket and thy store; cursed shall be the fruit of thy body, and the fruit of thy land, the increase of thy kine, and the flocks of thy sheep; cursed shalt thou be when thou comest in, and cursed shalt thou be when thou goest out. The Lord shall send upon thee cursing, vexation, and rebuke, in all that thou settest thine hand unto for to do, until thou be destroyed, and until thou perish quickly; because of the wickedness of thy doings, whereby thou hast forsaken Me." [Sorry Mr. Roberts. The Israelites (hence British) already experienced this, and in your time were enjoying the blessings again. Stop beating a dead horse.]

Now if it be legitimate on Mr. Hine's part to lift out a blessing from its connection of conditionality, and say. "There is a prophecy about England," why is it not legitimate for me to go a little further down the chapter, and lift out these curses, and say, here is a prophecy about England: therefore, England cannot be the ten tribes, because England is blessed, England is the head, and not the tail, England lends money, and does not borrow? There would be just as much force in that argument as in the other, and that is, no force at all. That is the third mark. [Sigh. No wonder I drink (just kidding). Will what I said sink in? Will the spark of dualistic insight (Law/grace, Judah/Israel, Old creation/new creation, etc.) ever sink in?]

4.--" THEY THAT WAR AGAINST THEE, SHALL BE AS NOTHING" Then the next mark he gave in order was a quotation from Isaiah to this effect:" They that war against thee shall be as nothing, and as a thing of nought." We must go to the 41st chapter of Isaiah, to the 12th verse, to look at the quotation in the light of the context, so as to be quite sure that there is no "diverting of the meaning." Who is it of whom it is said that there was a time coming when those who made war against them should be as nothing? You will find it in the 8th verse: "Thou, Israel, art my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham my friend." At the 10th verse, "Fear thou not; for I am with thee: be not dismayed; for I am thy God: I will strengthen thee, yea, I will help thee; yea, I will uphold thee with the right hand of My righteousness. Behold all they that were incensed against thee shall be ashamed and confounded: they shall be as nothing; and they that strive with thee shall perish," and so forth. It is a promise that refers to the comprehensive Jacob, the seed of Abraham; and will Mr. Hine attempt to limit the term "Jacob," the head of the whole twelve tribes, to ten of them? There is no ground for such a proceeding. The truth lies the other way, that "Jacob" when used concerning his natural seed, comprehends Judah as well as Israel; the Jews, as well as any people who may be supposed to be the ten tribes. This therefore takes its place with the others, as a quotation of Scripture which is not at all to the point--a" twist," a" diverting of the meaning"; for, there is nothing in it that can be connected with England, and whatever blessing it pronounces belongs as much to the Jews as the ten tribes, and will in due time be realised.[Let's start off Mr. Roberts in the right path here. We are dealing with the latter chapters of Isaiah. Theologians oftentimes refer to Isaiah 40 onward as the "second Isaiah" (and many have problems believing this was written by Isaiah because the content seems different). However, the content seemingly changes because we are now dealing with Israel in the isles and in a different role and setting. When we are dealing with Israel v.s. Jacob in this chapter, let's not forget to whom this chapter is addressed: the isles in verse one. You see, Mr. Roberts is trying desperately to claim that both Israel and Judah are NOT separated, that all Jews are Israelites and all Israelites are Jews to the contradiction of clear history. Hence, since the Jews did not rise to this height yet, Mr. Roberts was indicating Israel (hence England) could not have yet either. That reasoning has NOTHING to do with this particular prophecy. Nevertheless, without getting too far off into detail, the Israel v.s. Jacob context was answered at the start of the chapter, and Jacob can apply to the ten tribes of Israel as well. I will not disagree with Mr. Roberts that Jacob oftentimes means ALL Israel (12 tribes), BUT it may just apply to the specific tribes of Jacob depending on the context in this example. Likewise Israel usually means the ten tribes, but there are instances where ALL Israel is indicated. Therefore, without the context, the name "Jacob" or "Israel" by itself makes it hard to determine which tribe(s) we are addressing. In addition, if the 'casting away' (i.e. the people exiled and in the isles) are to be taken as the divorced ones, then that bounds the definition of Jacob to the house of Israel in this case since Judah was not divorced.]

5.--JEWS "A TAUNT"; ISRAEL "NOT RECOGNISED"

[Before we even start this next point, I can see a reoccurring theme in Mr. Roberts' argument. He just CANNOT see that Israel (esp. Joseph) and Judah are separate. They were separated in the latter prophecies of Genesis, they were separated in the Biblical historical texts and in prophecy, God clearly saw them as TWO distinct people even down in Egypt (Ezekiel 23). Mr Roberts' would probably argue 'til the cows came home that if Joseph had the birthright, then so does the Jew since they came out and marched together as ONE. Maybe they came out together, they marched together, but God saw them as TWO people. I can see that the whole purpose of splitting the birthright to Joseph and the scepter to Judah goes way beyond his understanding. He's a babe yet. Why did God separate the two unless they each had their own destiny to fulfill UNTIL the time of the end when their dual purpose will be completed by the rejoining of the two sticks? To make this separation of no importance totally circumvents the intrinsic purpose of God's plan to begin with. Don't these types think this out? Is this too deep or what? Nevertheless, let's go onward and see what he says:]

Then we are told that "God declares that the two-tribe people should be known and recognised as a hissing, a taunt, and a proverb; while the ten-tribe people should for a time, even till the fulness of the Gentiles came in, be lost upon the face of the earth, existing but not recognised; that they should not be recognised among the nations." "They were not to know themselves," he said; "they were to be under the impression that they were Gentile people." Where is the statement that the two-tribe people were to be known as a hissing, a taunt, and a proverb, as distinct from the ten who were not so to be known? [I'm not mocking Jehovah Witnesses, per se, they are good people. But have you ever tried to debate them pertaining to the divinity of Christ? It's very frustrating to pound on Scripture time and time again that proves so and yet they ask for the proof. The same can be said here of Mr. Roberts. There are lots of Scripture, some already discussed on the earlier points that show that the house of Israel would lose their identity (try Hosea for starters), but like the JW, he keeps denying it. If he keeps this up, I'm wondering where his head is at--- it's starting to sound stupid. Let me point out two stories about the potter and the clay. The house of Israel in Jeremiah 18 was compared to a marred but workable vessel of clay. In Jeremiah 19, the house of Judah was compared to a broken vessel (and hence one of many Biblical statements about Judah being the likes of a hissing, taunt, etc.). In addition, only the house of Israel was divorced (Isaiah 50:1, Jeremiah 3). Since Israel justified herself more than Judah (Jeremiah 3:11), the indications to Israel in these two passages alone implied a casting away where they would no longer be known as God's people (much like the divorced woman who changes her name is not readily known by her previous identity) , yet God would somehow work with them. Since Judah was under the covenant of the Law and knew better after seeing the fate of Israel, they were broken as if unusable at that time or in the future.] There is no such statement. [I just said it, and there are others.] There is a statement in Deut. 28. :37, from which evidently Mr. Hine has derived the phraseology of his proposition. It is this--" And thou shalt become an astonishment, a proverb, and a byword, among all nations whither the Lord shall lead thee." Who is the "thou" of this statement? For this we have Mr. Hine's answer in the early part of the chapter. He says it is the ten tribes; because, he said, the ten tribes were meant where it reads, "Thou shalt be the head and not the tail"; and this is the same "thou" the same chapter; therefore, on Mr. Hine's authority, I say this "astonishment, proverb, and byword" recognition was to apply to the ten tribes, and not to the two tribes--not that I believe in any such distinction in this particular prophecy, but that is the logical result of Mr. Hine's own contention. It is the destruction of his allegation by his own reasoning.

Then where is the information "that the ten tribes were to be lost on the face of the earth, existing, but not recognised?" It does not exist; it is a mere assertion, an invention, a statement of Mr. Hine's made without the least proof. Perhaps we shall have an opportunity of putting that to the test more specifically on a future occasion; but I make that assertion at the present time, that there is no declaration in the whole Scripture to that effect. There are certain phrases from which the exigencies of this theory have led Mr. Hine to endeavour to extract the idea; but when we come to examine these phrases in detail, we shall find that not one of them has the idea claimed for them by Mr. Hine. I gather that one of them is the prophecy of Balaam, because he quoted it in this immediate connection: " They shall not be reckoned among the nations." He quoted that in illustration of his meaning. Therefore let us go to the prophecy of Balaam and see what that means. Mr. Hine says it means that the ten tribes should not be recognised as the ten tribes in their dispersion amongst the nations. Let us see.

It is in Numbers 23. 9. Israel had just arrived in their twelve tribes out of Egypt under Moses; they had approached the borders of Moab, and were assuming a threatening attitude; and Balak, the king of the country, sent for this prophet Balaam to curse the tribes of Israel, that is, the twelve tribes, for the whole twelve were there. Verse 7: "And he took up his parable, and said, Balak, the king of Moab, hath brought me from Aram, out of the mountains of the east, saying, Come, curse me Jacob, and come defy Israel. How shall I curse whom God hath not cursed? or how shall I defy whom the Lord hath not defied? For from the top of the rocks I see him, and from the hills I behold him: lo, the people shall dwell alone, and shall not be reckoned among the nations." Now, did not this prophecy apply to the whole twelve tribes? Unquestionably; for there they were spread out in one camp at the feet of Balak and Balaam as they stood looking at them from a hill. If so, then if" not reckoned among the nations" means that they were to be unrecognised while among them, we ought not to be able to recognise the Jews, because these two tribes were amongst the twelve of whom it was affirmed. [Again, Mr. Roberts is using the association of Judah with Israel to blanket the meaning to all twelve tribes. Nevertheless, in spite of this association, I would need to read all of Mr. Hine's comments to answer these comments of Mr. Roberts. I DO NOT believe that the passage "not reckoned among the nations" means they would lose their identity (there are plenty of other passages to prove that). However, in a similar manner to Mr. Roberts, I believe they were so stay SEPARATE from their heathen neighbors (e.g. not to marry them) AND in the long range prophetic approach, would indicate a geographical separation and their national uniqueness because they are God's people. This indeed was and is the case with the United States and Britain and her colonies. Now Mr. Roberts would keep arguing as to WHY Judah and Israel were to be separate (hence Judah should enjoy the same geographical settings). OK. I'll state two things plain and simple: First of all God Himself separated them for different destinies and split them apart. (I Kings 12:24, i.e., God Himself separated them, not Herbert W. Armstrong, a quack theologian nor a cult). If they were supposed to be together as Mr. Roberts thinks, they would not be separate now would they? Secondly. If one must choose which of the two houses got Israel's name (after splitting), which was one was it prophesied to receive it? The house of Israel from which was the dominant tribe of Joseph (Genesis 48:16). Hence, if one has the choice to apply these promises to one house or the other but are unsure (I'm speaking broadly now), it would be a fairly safe bet that the majority of the time it would go to the house of Israel unless there is something in the context that specifically spells out a specific tribe.] But that is not the meaning: the meaning is, that they were to be absolutely separate from all other nations. They were not to intermarry with them. They were not to have dealings with them. They were not to be reckoned among them. They were to stand apart in law, in religion, in principle, in their relation to God: in everything. They were to dwell alone. What had this to do either with England, or even with the ten tribes in their dispersion? This "mark" you will see is no mark at all, but a phantasy of Mr. Hine's imagination.

6.--" CALLED BY ANOTHER NAME"

The next" mark" is: "God says they should be called by another name." Mr. Hine did not exactly tell us what he understood by that, but from the connection of the statement I should judge that he meant that it is a prophecy that the ten tribes of Israel should lose the name of Israel, and should be known as Englishmen. Well, let us go to the prophecy and see: Isaiah 65. 15. I would remark that this process of going to the passages and examining them may be more tedious than declamation, and less pleasant to listen to than a string of entertaining assertions such as you were entertained by last evening; but, you know, this is a legal process of testing evidence, and is therefore necessarily less interesting perhaps to the ordinary run of hearers, but as regards minds which are anxious to test the grounds on which they are asked to entertain a certain conviction, this process is more interesting than any amount of declamatory assertion of ingenious ex parte illustration. [Say what? I'm not sure what happened to Mr. Roberts after the word "Englishmen". But we all know that Mr. Hine most certainly "consists of smooth and flattering speeches". What a smooth talker Mr. Hine must have been to extract this response from Mr. Roberts!]

The particular "mark" upon which Mr. Hine apparently relies in this case is to be found in the 15th verse: "The Lord God shall slay thee, and call His servants by another name." Now let us remember Mr. Hine's charge against the clergy of "diverting God's meaning." Let us ask what is God's meaning here, and see how Mr. Hine stands. Let us not merely clip out the sentence, and put it into connection with a preconceived Anglo-Israel theory, and hold it up as a proof. Let us see what the prophet is talking about. Beginning at verse 2, we read: "I have spread out My hands all the day unto a rebellious people, which walketh in a way that was not good, after their own thoughts," and then we have an enumeration of various infractions of the Mosaic law which they had committed; and then, at verse 6, we read: "Behold, it is written before Me: I will not keep silence, but will recompense, even recompense into their bosom, your iniquities, and the iniquities of your fathers together, saith the Lord, which have burned incense upon the mountains, and blasphemed Me upon the hills; therefore will I measure their former work into their bosom." There is no room for uncertainty as to who is spoken of here: for Paul, in Rom. x, 21, applies it to Israel. It is the nation of Israel as a whole, guilty of idolatry. God here denounces judgment against them; but "Thus saith the Lord "--though the nation as a whole is guilty, there is not to be a total national destruction, as you will see from what follows: "As the new wine is found in the cluster, and one saith, Destroy it not; for a blessing is in it: so will I do for my servants' sakes, that I may not destroy them all." [Correct. This is the house of Israel when they are recovenanted in Christ. There are TWO people being addressed in this chapter here: the "Ye" people (Judah), and the Blessed Servant people (Israel) who although they were also punished, would become as the new wine in the gospel age. Verse one started off the chapter indicating who the servant people would be: "unto a nation that was not called by my name" (c.f. Hosea 1:9 and Matthew 21:43) and this cannot apply to the Jews (or Judah) since verse two was applied to the Jews (Judah). But the Jews in verse two are not the Servant people of verse one. Clearly, verse one and two are contrasting people. Notice, and Mr. Roberts quoted the passage himself, the statement about the 'new wine'. Where did we hear that before? Hmmmmmm. Maybe from Jesus? He came to his own (the Jews of Judah) and his own received him not. The religious leaders of the day were too proud and self-righteous and could not see their faults just like this passage says AND JUST AS THE RELIGIOUS CRITICS THINK today when they deny sound teaching about the lost tribes.]

What is the exception? According to Mr. Hine, it is ten-tribed Israel. Hear what this very prophecy which he quotes says: "I will bring forth a seed out of Jacob, and OUT OF JUDAH an inheritor of My mountains; and Mine elect shall inherit it, and My servants shall dwell there." Judah, not Israel, is associated with the blessing reserved in this prophecy. "But ye [the transgressors in Israel denounced in the beginning of the prophecy] are they that forsake the Lord, that forget My holy mountain, that prepare a table for that troop, and that furnish the drink-offering unto that number. Therefore will ! number you to the sword, and ye shall all bow down to the slaughter; because when I called ye did not answer; when I spake, ye did not hear; but did evil before Mine eyes, and did choose that wherein I delighted not. Therefore thus saith the Lord God, Behold, My servants shall eat," who have been already associated with Judah in the prophecy, "but ye," Israel, the idolatrous, "shall be hungry. Behold, My servants shall drink, but ye shall be thirsty; behold, My servants shall rejoice, but ye shall be ashamed "; and in the 15th verse: "And ye shall leave your name for a curse unto my chosen: for the Lord God shall slay thee, and call His servants by another name." [You know what? Mr. Roberts was desperately trying to convince his listeners that Israel and Judah were and are ONE--- and now he finally separates them. And of all things, he calls Israel the "Ye" and Judah the Servants! Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil! In other words, if Mr. Roberts is stating anything, he is now saying that Judah shall drink, rejoice, etc,. etc. while Israel shall be ashamed, hungry, etc. etc. Now let me ask this? What does history attest to? Were Jews Christ's servants? Did they proclaim the gospel?? I see through Mr. Roberts now. He's getting so pi$$ed that he's pronouncing this 'curse' on Israel. The seed from Judah is Christ, the object of Israel's inheritance--- the "elect"!]

This is the sentence quoted by Mr. Hine to prove that the idolatrous ten tribes were to be called Englishmen ! If this is not "twisting" and "diverting the meaning," there can be no such thing. By what other name have the servants of God been called, as contradistinguished from the rebels under the Mosaic constitution of things? Mr. Hine suggests "English." What a mockery of the subject to ask us to recognise in English society the idea of Divine perfection and blessedness as contrasted with what existed in Israel. Let us go to the Scriptures and ask what is this other name. The New Testament furnishes the answer. There we find how that 1,800 years ago, the apostles, by divine command, proclaimed the name of JESUS as a name to be named upon all who should desire to come unto God for worship and salvation. Writing to such, Paul says, "Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity" (2 Tim. ii. 19). That is the new name which God has named upon His servants--the name of Christ, of which Peter proclaimed (Acts iv. 12), "There is none other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved." Here is a glorious fulfilment of the prophecy which Mr. Hine trails in the mud by asking us to understand that it meant that the ten tribes were, by an extraordinary miracle, to forget who they were, and to be called by some other name. He reduces the prophecy to absurdity. [No, he does not reduce it to absurdity. Israel forgot who they were so that they would have been open to accept the gospel. If they retained their identity, then they would have been inclined to accept the ways of the old wine skins and God could not have converted them and used them for the gospel. And later on Paul (and only Paul) originally understood that the non-Israelite Gentiles could be partakers of this inheritance, a.k.a. the graphed-in branch. This is what Jesus meant by casting forth a branch that produced no fruit (Judah) and the Kingdom taken from them and given to a nation that brought forth the fruits thereof (Israel and the included Gentiles)]. He makes it of no consequence whatever; for what does it matter whether the rebellious ten tribes should be called English or Israel, as a mere matter of words? It is a matter of utter insignificance. When the Bible speaks of names, it means things. The Bible deals with realities, and when it speaks of His servants being called by another name, it is pointing to a glorious reality, that in due course of time, the Lord Jesus Christ--"the prophet like unto Moses "--shall come forth as the substance prefigured by Moses and bless all the earth with the true and substantial blessings which will be enjoyed under the shadow of His wings when the present era of faith and preparation shall have accomplished its object. [OK, Mr. Roberts, and let me tell you what that real name is. We already dealt with this in the book of Hosea: 'Sons of the Living God' IN WHICH NO theologian (worth his salt) would deny was specifically addressed to the house of Israel (and the same chapter of Hosea clearly distinguishes the house of Israel from the house of Judah.)]

7.--"THE PLACE IS TOO STRAIT FOR ME"

The next "mark" is alleged to be found in Isaiah 49. 20; and here we are invited to recognise England's over-stocked population and migratory departures into unoccupied parts of the earth for the formation of British colonies. Well, let us see if it is so. The particular words quoted are to be found in verse 20: "The place is too strait for me: give place to me, that I may dwell." Why! the very verse before suggests the entire inapplicability of the statement in the manner contended for by Mr. Hine, for what do we read in the verse before? "Thy waste and thy desolate places, and the land of thy destruction, shall even now be too narrow by reason of the inhabitants, and they that swallowed thee up shall be far away." Why! is England "the land of Britain's destruction?" Mr. Hine makes it one of his points that England has never been defeated. I do not admit the fact, nor the meaning he claims for it if it were a fact; but it is one of his points. Well, if so, how can an undefeated country be "the land of England's destruction"? The land of the nation spoken of in the prophecy has been to that nation "the land of its destruction," for it has found its grave by disaster in the land as regards the bulk of the population, and from that land the survivors have been driven by one invader and another until they are scattered to the ends of the earth, as was foretold ages ago by Moses.

But the context is even more confounding from an Anglo-Israelitish point of view, when we ask who it is that speaks and is addressed in this prophecy. In verse 14 we read: "Zion said, "The Lord hath forsaken me, and my Lord hath forgotten me." "Zion." Why, Zion was the topographical seat of the Judaic royalty. If it had said "Samaria hath said "--for Samaria was the capital of the ten tribes--then there might have been a little ground--not much--but there might have been a little ground for Mr. Hine's suggestion that here Britain speaks, if the ten tribes were from other sources made out to be the English. But "Zion hath said." Zion is one of the hills upon which Jerusalem is built, as you are aware, and therefore it is the kingdom of Jerusalem that is introduced to us here, and not the kingdom of the ten tribes--the Jews, and not what Mr. Hine calls "Israel." [I heard of two interpretations of this chapter by those who believe in lost tribes: the first is as Mr. Hine believes that it refers to the house of Israel. The second interpretation regards the start of the chapter as applying to Israel, but then the subject switched to Judah in verse 14 when the name "Zion" was mentioned. I take the position it applies to the house of Israel completely since the subject at hand was address to the isles in verse one. Nevertheless, let's deal with two apparent concerns Mr. Roberts has thus far: 1) that the isles cannot be the land of their destruction and thus the next passage indicating the place was too straight cannot refer to the overpopulation of Britain. 2) His second point was the fact that "Zion" was the subject before these passages back in verse 14. Therefore, as usual he believes the Jew was indicated in these passages and that the overpopulation issue would happen later in the land of Israel since that was the place of their destruction. Let me hypothetically take the second position and side with Mr. Roberts. If that was referencing the house of Judah, that does nothing to prove or disprove the existence of lost tribes. Long before I knew about this passage, I supported the idea that Britain would be overpopulated and would have to colonize because of Genesis 49:22. Indeed, there are multitudes of passages that support that. Abraham's seed had to be both physically and spiritually numerous even before the millennial Kingdom. And if one did take this interpretation, then there is an interesting answer as to why the Jews ask, "Who are these?" (v21). In the end times when all Israel is regathered, the Jews would be surprised to see other (and unknown) brethren coming back and dwelling in the land! So if the subject is really the people of Judah, that does not damage, and in fact supports the idea that the house of Israel is lost and coming back. As for the first position that this chapter refers to the house of Israel, the word "Zion" is sometimes used generically as meaning the people of God and can include the house of Israel in this case. Further support of this is the next verse indicating their forgetfulness which was indicative of the house of Israel losing their identity. In addition, the word "destruction" was indicating them as a people who would lose their known identity since they were cast out. God would 'cease the kingdom of Israel' and they also would be known as 'not my people'. (Hosea 1:4). This interpretation regarding Zion and the word 'destruction' comes from the on-line book by Mr. Allen. In addition, regarding his point with "Zion", I find traditional sources collaborating with that idea. Even if I am wrong regarding these passages applying to Israel, it would do nothing to the lost tribes belief if they did apply to Judah--- I have no problem with that. After all, us "lost tribes" folks can differ on minor points and still not damage the main issue at hand. Likewise, traditional Christians may differ on 'eternal security' or a 'pre-trib rapture' but that does not disprove the doctrine of the Atonement or the Second Coming.]

Then, observe this: "They that swallowed thee up shall be far away." Mr. Hine makes it a boast, as one of his so-called "identities," that England never has been swallowed up; and a gentleman last night, who delivered an expository prayer, referred in this sense to the prophecy of Moses, that five should chase a hundred, and a hundred should put ten thousand to flight, and remarked, that notwithstanding what had gone wrong in Zululand, which he said somebody was to blame for, though they did not yet know who, the thing would come out all right. (Laughter and applause, mingled with hisses.)

I do not desire to be irreverent; I am simply referring to the fact that the gentleman who prayed last night did make that statement, as showing that their very arguments are inconsistent one with another; for while they apply to England, absolutely, a promise of military superiority conditionally guaranteed to Israel, and boast that England has never been defeated, the)' with equal indiscrimination apply to her, as in this case, prophecies that involve that the power spoken of has been subject to devastation. The meaning of the prophecy is perfectly plain when unmystified by this Anglo-Israel gloss. It is a promise of the restoration of the scattered race of Israel to their own original land, when the land of their destruction shall be too narrow for the multitude of Israel gathered from all parts of the earth. The attempt to make it apply to Britain and her Colonies, instead of shutting up the mouth of infidelity, as the Anglo-Israelites boast about their views, is enough to bring the Bible into even more contempt than it has ever yet been held in by the lowest class of unbelievers. [The rest of these comments do nothing substantive after my main answer in red.]

8.--" THE DESOLATE HERITAGES"

The last material point--there were a great many assertions, but I snatched hold of those only in which there was some semblance of Scripture proof; because you can deal with argument when you are obliged to leave assertions untouched. The last material point was Isaiah 49. 8, where again the subject of the Colonies is supposed to be illustrated. The words relied upon are at the end of the 8th verse," To cause to inherit the desolate heritages," and these desolate heritages Mr. Hine asks us to suppose are the uninhabited parts of the earth. Well, let us look at the context. Let us beware of "diverting the meaning." What is the meaning? Of whom is this causing to inherit the desolate heritages affirmed? Verse 7: "Thus saith the Lord, the Redeemer of Israel, and His Holy One, to Him whom man despiseth, TO HIM WHOM THE NATION' ABHORRETH, to a servant of rulers." Who is that? Who was "despised and rejected of men "? Who was abhorred and cast out by the nation of Israel to whom He was sent? You know. To Him this is said: "I will preserve Thee, and give Thee for a covenant of the people, to establish the earth, to cause to inherit the desolate heritages." Why! it is a part of the work of Christ, not of England. [Oh dear, this is not an easy chapter to comment on since at times the servant is Israel (as the Jews would interpret it), and other times the servant is Christ (as Christians would believe). See the comments in Halley's Bible handbook that attests to the fact that it means both Christ and Israel. In addition, it not only switches back and forth between Israel and Christ, but sometimes they overlap--- first with Christ performing his work (that Israel should have done) and then the benefits enjoyed by Israel while they carry on that work. Nevertheless, let's not forget that when Israel is the subject here, again it is addressed to Israel in the isles. However, I see this as a stalemate since one side (e.g. anti-Anglo folks) will be determined to interpret this chapter one way (Christ alone) and as for myself (and Mr. Hine) are not hesitant to include Israel in addition to the work of Christ and interpret it that way. Thank God there are many other chapters and verses in the Bible to substantiate the fact that Israel are God's servant people. Many believe that verse 6 applies to Christ--- and by extension seemingly the following verses (as Mr. Roberts suggests) also are fulfilled in Christ, not Britain (e.g. v8 and the desolate heritages). However, these CAN be applied to Israel in the fact that they they will be the recipients of Christ's work. I will give an excellent example. The apostle Paul quoted verse Isaiah 49:6 (especially the last half) as applying to himself in Acts 13:47. Sure, Jesus is THE Light. And even if Paul knew the light was Christ, Paul (and by extention Israel) were to spread that light and he used that verse to justify his preaching of the gospel to the Gentiles. That is clear enough. But if we continue with Mr. Roberts' line of reasoning (that this applies to only Messiah), then we run into a problem when we get to verse 12: "Behold, these (plural, not Christ) shall come from far: and lo, these from the north and from the west." Now who are these? The subject is addressed to the people in the isles--- Now I will not comment on whether one wants to believe this is referencing end-time return of Israel or merely the direction they come from during colonization, evangelism, or whatever (I believe prophecy has more than one fulfillment anyway). The issue here is the direction and location from where they reside. These are the people of Israel in the isles. These are the ones that will inherit the desolate heritages. These are the ones, while they reside in the isles, inherit the frontiers and lands of desolation. From that, we can then understand the verse, "Thus saith the LORD, In an acceptable time have I heard thee, and in a day of salvation (Christ's atoning work, not end times) have I helped thee: and I will preserve thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, to establish the earth, to cause to inherit the desolate heritages". I really believe that the subject switched back to Israel, God's servant people who would be the recipients and purveyors of his salvation. Why do I say that? Notice the verse says "have I heard thee" and "I helped thee" and "I will preserve thee". When does Christ, the Holy One of Israel in all his atoning work, in all of his resurrection power and in all of his glory need to be heard, helped, and preserved? Oh, I know, some people believe Christ experienced all that because he tooks the sins of his people, but in actuality, Christ HIMSELF did not need this, but provided to those who did --- Israel. That's why later they lament in verse 14 "The Lord has forsaken me". No! God was going to work with them like Jeremiah's marred vessel! ]

And what heritages are they that are desolate? A heritage is an inheritance, and an inheritance is that which is bequeathed; and what land is there which having been bequeathed is now desolate? This is very easily settled. You have only to go to Hebrews 11. 8 to see: "By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out." What place or land was this which he (Abraham) was afterwards to receive for an inheritance? Stephen settles it in his speech before the Sanhedrim, as recorded in Acts vii. 4. "He (Abraham) came into this land [Palestine where ye now dwell." Is the land--the appointed place of heritage --desolate? Yes; and has been for centuries. [I agree with Mr. Roberts that a heritage can be that which was bequeathed by God to a recipient. Such was the case with the land of Canaan to Abraham. Therefore, he quoted this passage with only that land in mind. But Canaan is not the only place to consider. God promised more to the people of Israel (a.k.a. a home away from home). For God said to King David when they were already secure in the land of Israel, "I will appoint a place for my people Israel." The Bible also indicates that God has allotted land in accordance with the nations. If God appointed "a place" for Israel, would that be a heritage? Yes. And if from that place they colonized to other appointed lands that were forsaken or ruined lands (as in frontiers of America and Australia) would that qualify for desolate heritages? Yes. So what's the issue? This passage does apply to regions other than Canaan. And clearly these events take place after Christ's atoning work but before the millennium by the context of the chapter.] Has Christ's work anything to do with the recovery of these desolate heritages? Yes; for look at Isaiah 61., and here we are in no fear of" diverting the meaning," for this prophecy was quoted by Christ as he stood in the synagogue at Nazareth, as recorded in the fourth chapter of Luke. He read this prophecy on the occasion, and declared that it applied to him. He only read so much of it as applied to his first coming, and I will read you now the part that refers to his second, and you will see: verse 3 :--

"To appoint unto them that mourn in Zion, to give unto them' beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness, that they might be called trees of righteousness, the planting of the Lord, that He might be glorified. And they shall build the old wastes, they shall raise up the former desolations, and they shall repair the waste cities, the DESOLATIONS OF MANY GENERATIONS." The chapter before, verse 14, says: "The sons also of them that afflicted thee shall come bending unto thee; and all they that despised thee shall bow themselves down at the soles of thy feet; and they shall call thee, The City of the Lord, The Zion of the Holy One of Israel. Whereas thou hast been forsaken and hated, so that no man went through thee, I will make thee AN ETERNAL EXCELLENCY, A JOY OF MANY GENERATIONS." The recovery of the land of God from the judicial desolations that have prevailed for many centuries is a part of the work of Christ which is assigned to him in various parts of the Scripture, and, among others, it is assigned to him in that part which Mr. Hine, without the least reason, and diverting it entirely from its meaning, applied to the English nation! [In all this grand elaboration on the part of Mr. Roberts, I do not care if the land of Canaan will also be restored in the end times. That does not change the meaning of Isaiah 49. I am NOT even giving my position on this chapter because whether it refers to the new land of Israel (desolate heritages) or the old homeland is irrelevant. Prophecy often has double fulfillment.]

[Now in this next part, Mr. Roberts attacks God's established covenant with King David. God promised David an eternal throne and an everlasting kingdom and sons from his lineage to rule over the people. I must agree with something here. David's eternal throne (or lack thereof) is the foundation on which Anglo-Israelism stands or falls. After all, IF there is a throne with a Davidic descendent, then it stands to reason there must be a nation (or nations) of people for a king to rule over and these people must be from Israel (thus also proving the lost tribes). Ironically, I find this the easiest to prove as the Scriptures are VERY CLEAR on the perpetual nature of this Earthly throne.]

QUEEN VICTORIA AND THE HOUSE OF DAVID

Then we have an attempt to establish a connection between Queen Victoria and the House of David. I will not take you through the mythical legends of Scotch and Irish barbarians of ancient days. Mr. Hine had much to do with this last night, and he called it "history." Well, in refuting his contention, I will leave out no pages even from his so-called "history." I will leave them all there. [Well, I like the way Mr. Roberts is starting out. He was actually taking the same suppositional attitude I take to challenge my own theology--- nothing tests it better. At least I do not have to start off by drilling into this person that the world eternal means ongoing with NO INTERRUPTIONS. I get so weary trying to explain why something supposedly transient or intermittent is not eternal.] I will gladly make him a present of them all, and say that even if they were all true, and that even if it could be established beyond a doubt that Queen Victoria was descended from Zedekiah, it would still remain a fact that she has no connection with the throne of Israel. [I suppose Mr. Roberts means legally, for if the Queen descended from Zedekiah who was in turn the son of David, then she has everything to do with the throne of Israel. I'll give him credit that he is not that abysmally ignorant.] For this reason: Zedekiah was an interloper, and not reckoned in the royal genealogy. [Well, Mr. Roberts, for that matter neither was Nathan, David's other son, who was the real ancestor to Jesus in the flesh. But let's continue on...] You will find the evidence of that if you turn to 2 Kings 24. We here have an account of the last days of the Kingdom of Judah, just before the Babylonish captivity. Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem, and the result of it is here briefly stated that he put down the reigning king Jehoiachin, the son of Jehoiakim, the son of Josiah. Did this Jehoiachin die without issue so as to necessitate the accession of a collateral branch to fill the gap? Let us see. Concerning this Jehoiachin, the rightful occupant of the throne, we read at the 10th verse: "At that time the servants of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, came up against Jerusalem, and the city was besieged..... And Jehoiachin, the king of Judah, went out to the king of Babylon, he, and his mother, and his servants, and his princes, and his officers; and the king of Babylon took him in the eighth year of his reign." At the 15th verse: "And he carried away, Jehoiachin to Babylon, and the king's mother, and the king's wives, and his officers, and the mighty of the land: those carried he into captivity from Jerusalem to Babylon." At verse 17: "And the king of Babylon made Mattaniah, his father's brother "--that is, Jehoiachin's father's brother--"KING IN HIS STEAD, and changed his name to Zedekiah." The uncle of the king was put in his place as Nebuchadnezzar's nominee. [Actually, the Bible does recognize king Zedekiah. I'll prove it. First of all, in Matthew's genealogy which goes from father-to-son, there is a great, great.... great uncle of Jesus mentioned (Zarah in v.3). Why??? The Bible does not speak idly. THEN... in verse 11, Josiah begat Jechonias AND HIS BRETHREN. Did that include Zedekiah? Ezekiel 17 speaks of Nebuchadnezzar's taking the twigs from the highest branch of the cedar (the house of David) and bringing them to Babylon. The Bible clearly stated that was the king and the princes in the royal lineage. When a king is absent, the NEXT of kin (in this case the uncle) had the right to rule. Indeed, God Himself then promised to crop off his own twig (a tender one) from the highest branch. This was in the feminine form. The only "princesses" around were Zedekiah's daughters. Indeed, Jehoiachin did not even have offspring at this point in time. GOD HIMSELF said he would do it. God established David's covenant. Zedekiah's daughters were of the seed of David. And although the RIGHTFUL lineage was through Jehoiachin, a curse on him in Jeremiah 22:30 prevented any King from reigning any more in Judah. Hence, God had every right to perpetuate David's dynasty to circumvent this curse (and indeed the curse had a reason but that's another topic) via Zedekiah's daughters just in the same manner that a royal kin legally may take the throne in the event (in this case the curse) prevented one from reigning. I have a slight side-road to take and ask here. If this tender twig was not Zedekiah's daughter, then who is it? That genealogy and portion of the house of David is not that of Christ. You see, if Mr. Roberts were to sway anyone away from this claim, he has absolutely NOTHING to answer and he might as well tear out this passage of Scripture and burn it. (see Jeremiah 36:23) ]

Now if it could be shown that Jehoiachin, when he went to Babylon, had no children, and that his pedigree was thus cut off, then you might fall back upon Zedekiah as a collateral branch of the royal family, but even then you see the line would not be direct. But that cannot be shown: the reverse can be shown. Jehoiachin (or, as he is sometimes called, Jeconiah) in Babylon had male issue, and you will find that the royal line is carried forward through this issue, and that Zedekiah is altogether ignored in the true royal genealogy given in the first chapter of Matthew. [Two points: Yes, Jehoiachin did have an offspring in Babylon, but he was cursed just as well, and hence an alternate lineage thru Zedekiah had to be appointed by God just as surely as if there were no offspring of Jehoiachin to keep the dynasty going while the cursed lineage was breached. Second point: Of course Zedekiah was not mentioned as direct in line because the lineage is meant to prove Christ's LEGAL right to the throne when it is given to Him. However, I disagree that Zedekiah is NOT mentioned in the indirect manner as I already shown.] If you turn to that chapter, verse 11, leaving out the immaterial parts of the genealogy, you will find this: "And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon; and after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel, and Salathiel begat Zorobabel," and so on, and it conducts the chain down to Jesus OF NAZARETH (the putative son of Joseph), in whom therefore the genealogical line of the House of David terminates. The royal rights are in the last link of the chain.[And indeed Jesus will King be WHEN IT COMES TIME for him to reign from the throne of David. However, God has the right to continue the monarchy the way he sees fit and as other monarchies would do if a royal heir was absent.]

They are vested in Christ, concerning whom there are many declarations in the Scriptures as to his destined occupancy of the throne of David. Let one suffice. It is the statement of the angel who came to Mary to apprise her of Christ's approaching birth. "The Lord God shall give unto Him the throne of His father David, and He shall reign over the house of Jacob (Israel) for ever, and of His kingdom there shall be no end" (Luke i. 32). The royal rights of his pedigree he took away with him to heaven, [As a King de jure I have no problem with this. But the throne of David, which must continue forever, is an Earthly throne from which Christ is not presently reigning.] and he is coming back by-and-by to give them effect in the restoration of the kingdom of Israel and the government of the whole earth in subjection to that monarchy--but Mr. Hine prefers the interloper [Well, tell GOD that when he took of the same branch.] set up by Nebuchadnezzar, and ignores the legitimate line of succession as settled by the New Testament [just as Mr. Roberts ignored the additional branches mentioned in that genealogy that I pointed out] , and patent even in the reading of the Old. It is in reality a question between Jesus Christ and Queen Victoria, which, with all respect to Her Majesty, she will not expect wise men to settle in her favour. Mr. Hine stakes his theory upon a line of descent which is legendary, uncertain, improbable, and full of fatal gaps and flaws; and a line of descent which, even if it could be proved, would be as utterly worthless as any other line of barbarians by which any of us has descended from Adam.[Well, I guess He took a proverbial penknife, cut out prophecy and burned it in everlasting fire. His position was certainly set.]

THE CORONATION STONE

I will not trouble you with the nonsense about the stone in Westminster Abbey, which is sufficiently refuted by the geology of the case. The stone is of the old red sandstone formation of Scotland, and has nothing in common with the limestone rocks of Palestine. [That's good. I really was in no mood to deal with that issue today. However, there is dispute, even amongst the lost tribe believers as to whether this is the real stone of Jacob or not. That does nothing for the prophecy of an eternal throne other than to see where this curious custom of having a coronation on a stone came from.]

JEWS AND "ISRAELITES"

Then Mr. Hine remarked that unless the distinction between Judah and Israel was recognised, it was impossible to understand the Scriptures. With the remark in that form I agree, but with the application he gives to the remark I think every reasonable man, in view of the evidence, is bound entirely to disagree. The remark he makes in one of his publications, which I find I have not with me, is to the effect that the Jews and Israel are as distinct one from another as England is from France, that they are so separate and incompatible that you might as well talk of mixing fire and water, or something to that effect. Probably Mr. Hine himself will recollect the sentence to which I am alluding. Now while it is true that the house of Jacob was divided into two political sections, which, for the sake of distinction, were known---one as the Kingdom of Judah, and the other as the Kingdom of Israel, it is entirely untrue that there is a distinction between the terms Jew and Israel, as defining two parts of the same stock in all succeeding time. [I wonder why there are oodles and oodles and oodles of Scripture where the prophets clearly divide prophecies and promises to either one house or the other?? I wonder for what purpose Mr. Roberts believed God separated them to begin with? Mr. Roberts is desperately trying to keep them together. Notice he separated them for that earlier Isaiah passage to fit his ideology, then it was OK to separate them, but now he wants to put them back together.] Jews are Israelites, and Israelites are Jews, in Scriptural usage. (Cries of No, no, no.) [I pity some of those lost tribe folks having to endure all this.] I will prove that it is so. (Applause.) There is a very great deal of proof, I assure you, upon this point. I shall only have time to give a sample or two. [OK, a sample or two will suffice if it has any substance.]

The first illustration I ask you to look at is to be found in connection with Paul, who says, Romans 11. 1: "I say then, Hath God cast away His people?" and, in order that you may be sure what people He is speaking about, look at the verse immediately before, the last verse of the preceding chapter. "To Israel He saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people. I say then, Hath God cast away His people? God forbid. For I also AM AN ISRAELITE "--I, Paul, am an Israelite. Is he therefore not a Jew? (Voices, "No"; Some voices, "Yes.") Let us see. Look at the twenty-second chapter of Acts. Paul is just taken into custody by the Roman governor, and he is standing on the castle stairs before a turbulent Jewish crowd, and he has obtained permission to address that crowd in self-defence; and listen to his opening words, verse 3' "I am verily a man which am a Jew." (Applause.) Therefore in Bible language, an Israelite may be a Jew, and a Jew may be an Israelite.

I will give you further evidence. You will recollect the restoration from Babylon, and I presume there will be no difference of opinion amongst Anglo-Israelites that those who came from Babylon were Jews, for this is a strong point in their theory. That being so, I invite their attention to the following fact, to be found in the 2nd chapter of the book of Nehemiah. Taking the first chapter for the sake of the connection, Nehemiah was an office-bearer of Artaxerxes, the king of Persia he had not taken part in the return from captivity, but he was very much interested in his fellow-countrymen, who had gone back to Jerusalem from Babylon, and accordingly we read in the 2nd verse of the first chapter, that "Hanani, one of my brethren, came, he and certain men of Judah; and I asked them concerning the Jews that had escaped, which were left of the captivity, and concerning Jerusalem." Afterwards he obtains permission of the king to go to Jerusalem, to build it up. And he went, and what happened? At chapter two, verse 10, we read, "When Sanballat the Horonite, and Tobiah the servant, the Ammonite, heard of it, it grieved them exceedingly that there was come a man to seek the welfare of the CHILDREN OF ISRAEL." Therefore the Jews were children of Israel. (Anglo-Israelites' Hear, hear.) If so, what argument can you rest upon the term Israel, seeing that it may, for anything you know, apply in any case to the two tribes as well as the ten? [Simple. You go to the prophecies and/or Biblical context regarding the promises or situation. Jews are children of Israel as seed, but not all Israelites are Jews since Jews came primarily from the tribe of Judah. Likewise, the Bible oftentimes mentioned the house of Israel apart from the house of Judah. According to Mr. Roberts' reasoning, if this were the case, then the prophecy could be equally applied to Judah. Then what was the point of the Bible separating the 'house of Israel' and 'house of Judah'?] I do not know whether the logic of that is perceived, but I think the force of it is pretty evident.

Yielding to the cogency of this line of argument, those who believe England to be Israel, and rest that belief on the distinction between Israel and Judah--which distinction, however, if proved, would not prove the case--yielding to the force of these considerations, they have invented the formula' "All Jews are Israelites, but all Israelites are not Jews." (Anglo-Israelites' Hear, hear.) Very well, then, let us see. We will take the book of Esther. Artaxerxes, here described as Ahasuerus, reigned as king over the 127 provinces of Persia. Now that jurisdiction covered the whole of the region to which the ten tribes had been removed; and how are they described? How are the kinsfolk, the national relations, "the people of" Esther and Mordecai, described' for Haman, their adversary, contrived to obtain a decree for the extermination of their whole people; the entire nation. Esther iii. 13 "The letters were sent by post into all the king's provinces, to destroy, to kill, and to cause to perish, ALL JEWS, both young and old, little children and women,. in one day, even upon the thirteenth day of the twelfth month," and you will find it stated in the 12th verse, that that decree was sent "to the governors that were over every province, and to the rulers of every people of every province according to the writing thereof, and to every people after their language." [So, when does Esther take place? Hmmmm. Like maybe 200-300 years AFTER the 'house of Israel's' captivity? By then, the house of Israel was not known as Jews nor Israelites, but other names, e.g. Khumri, Gimera, Cimmerians, etc. etc. Too bad there was no Internet back in Mr. Roberts' time. He could have checked out this site where I did a whole migration series regarding the post-captivity names of Israel. So where can he safely assume they were known as Jews just because the decree included the region that the lost Israelites supposedly resided in? Remember ol' Hosea? What did he say God called Israel? "Not my people"??? So how would they be known a few hundred years later?--- Maybe they'd be known at the time of their captivity or shortly thereafter, but the Assyrians were good at renaming captive peoples so that others would not know them.] So that this decree covered a variety of nationalities, and in all these nationalities the Jews were to be extirpated, whereas, according to Mr. Hine's theory, the Jews, having been a short time in Babylon, had gone back to Jerusalem, and were there at this time. The ten tribes were Mordecai's people, as well as the two tribes; they were in the Empire of Persia, and they are here described as Jews.

How comes this to be? What is the meaning of the term "Jews"? Well, it doubtless comes from Judah. (Anglo-Israelites: Hear, hear.) Yes: that is the philology of the word; but you know the conventional use overrides the philology in thousands of cases in our every-day talk. Why, the very word English, of which so much is made in this controversy, is an example. It comes from the Angles, who, in conjunction with the Saxons, invaded England to help the Britons against the Picts and Scots of the north. Afterwards came Danes and Normans and others, and laid the foundation of our heterogeneous stock. But the name Angle-land, which the country early acquired in connection with the Angles, remained; and the people occupying it came to be called Angle-ish or English, quite irrespective of original extraction. There is a very small Angle element in the English population, and yet we are all Angle-ish according to the philology of our name. So in this case we must not tie ourselves up in the philology. We have to ask, what is the Scriptural usage in regard to this term "Jew," which was originally and popularly derived from the Jewish kingdom, having outlived the Israelitish for centuries, and in connection with which alone the Hebrew race was politically known. We have to ask whether, as a matter of fact, the Scriptures adapt themselves to popular usage in the matter in speaking of the people of Israel as Jews. And you will find it is so. [Well, my Bible says God will sift them through the nations yet shall not the least grain fall upon the earth. And He saw to it that the proper people of Israel came to their appointed destination. I take it that Mr. Roberts' point regarding Europe is to apply that idea to the meager number of Israelites joined with Judah at the return and therefore one can safely apply "Jew" to all twelve tribes everywhere. However, The house of Judah is also a national state. One (such as Paul) can be from another tribe and yet have national associations with Judah (hence calling himself a Jew nationally). If some from the other tribes were with Judah, this would be the case (nationally). However, the bulk of the people from the house of Israel (and even some from Judah with them) were taken captive over a hundred years before Judah, and therefore are known as the Israelites. The known people of Judah, including a meager number with them, are known as Jews. That's all neither here nor there. The fact remains that the tribal and national distinction remains separate to this day until the two sticks are rejoined in Ezekiel 37. If one reads that passage of Scripture, the house of Israel is referred to as Joseph, yet other tribes are with him. That's because many and most people are from that birthright tribe and hence the name Israel is often synonymous with that tribe. Likewise, Judah has with them "the children of Israel his companions". YET... they are very clearly portrayed as TWO peoples.]

What does Jesus say? He says: "Salvation is of the Jews" (John iv. 22). Does he mean salvation is of the two tribes, to the exclusion of the ten? [No! No! No! The statement "salvation is of the Jews" means that grace came from Judah because of the royal lineage of Messiah! Grace came from Judah---- hence "salvation is of (or from) the Jews" The birthright promise is one to the RACE--- the birthright was JOSEPH's, not Judah's. But racial blessings are Earthly. That does not mean all Israelites are saved. But they were more inclined to accept the gospel message as I've already illustrated in the past comments. And through their greatness those called of grace within the house of Israel (which were far more people than the Jews) would have the means to proclaim that salvation. Salvation is from the Jews, and open to Jews, Israelites and Gentiles as Paul later pointed out. Hear! Hear! I'm starting to sound like those poor Anglo-Israelites--- this whole article was very long.] If so, what becomes of Mr. Hine's contention, that salvation is the peculiarity of the ten tribes, that while Judah is cursed, Israel is blessed; that while the Jews are exiled from Divine favour, Israel are within the pale of His recognition and blessedness? Well, but do we find these Jews to whom salvation appertained called Israel also? Yes. When Paul arrived a prisoner at Rome, you will recollect the first thing he did on his arrival was to gather his countrymen, to commune with them on the subject of his arrest. We are told (Acts 28. 17) that he called the chief of the Jews together, and after telling them certain things, he says at the 20th verse, "For this cause therefore have I called for you, to see you, and to speak with you, because that for the hope of ISRAEL I am bound with this chain." The hope of Israel and the hope of the Jews are therefore the same thing.

*** This is the end of the article (the remaining words of that article were Mr. Roberts' closing remarks regarding the debate and not content). The rest of the words below that follow are from me, Liaf, in normal type and black color***

So, in 25 words or less, can I wrap up the theology of Mr. Roberts? Yes, I think so. First of all, let me point out that he started off this discussion with the implication and belief that Mr. Hine was not genuine. He twisted Scripture around too much. Therefore, like any false prophet, I'm sure Mr. Roberts believed Mr. Hine was headed straight for hell in a hand basket. I think that's a safe assumption to make. Therefore, let me state Mr. Roberts' theology concisely since he believes all Jews are Israelites and all Israelites are Jews. Instead of using "Jews" and "Israelites", I'm going to make a comparison: "green" and "trees" instead. It sounds nicer. OK. Here's Mr. Roberts' theology:

Seriously, in spite of the sarcastic, albeit precise summary of his theology, is it no wonder the church is losing people. What, pray tell, is wrong with believing that God would take care of His people even if they turned up elsewhere? Does this knowledge bring peace or fear to this nation? Once the rapture occurs, evangelists would have you live in fear believing it's "every man for himself" and I've even heard some teach that the United States would be annihilated. That certainly helps this fearful nation in times of terrorist threats, doesn't it? After all, this whole great nation of ours just happened by chance; God does not watch over His people. I'll mention some others that would have you live in fear--- Sadam Hussein, Ben Laden, Ghaddafi. They hate America too. They DO NOT believe we are God's people--- we are infidels, worthless and a (materially lucky) fluke in their eyes.

The likes of Mr. Roberts just cannot see that all through the Bible that the house of Israel and the house of Judah were very specifically addressed. They were destined by God to be separate for a purpose UNTIL they are rejoined in the time of the end which did not occur yet. The lost tribes of Israel is a HISTORICAL FACT if nothing else can be understood. No serious historian denies this. Jews and scholars believe this. It's in encyclopedias and historical works (e.g. Josephus) and I know for a fact that the Moravian College near where I live teaches that there are lost tribes. For me, the real issue is WHO the lost tribes became. That's where people disagree. For that, we turn to the Bible (knowing THERE ARE lost tribes) and look at all the prophecies to the house of Israel--- it's as simple as that. But the likes of Mr. Roberts and your typical three-pieced suited evangelists can't see past their stomachs to even understand that there ARE lost tribes. They avoid the issue all together by denying Bible prophecy AND history attesting to the fact that Israel would become lost. They call the covenant to David "eternal", but do not believe the throne exists here on Earth today. Yet what was the provision of that covenant? Part of it was that the throne would last "unto all generations". Even if you could twist the meaning that the throne is now in heaven with Christ, there still would have been about a 600 year gap between Jehoiachin and Christ. The throne was meant to go from King David onward--- that provision was in "the covenant of salt" as our web site title says. If ANY part of the covenant was broken, then ALL of it was broken and as such there would be NO MESSIAH! Don't listen to the likes of them who would argue otherwise. They are FALSE PROPHETS. They are no more born again than the chair you are sitting on to read this message. IN ADDITION, if we look carefully at Mr. Roberts' rebuttals, he offers nothing substantive as an alternative explanation to the passages except that all these blessings to Israel are yet to come, namely, the millennium. However, included in all these promises are settings that cannot take place in the millennium. Some of the many examples are found in Genesis 48:19, Genesis 49:22-24, Deut. 33:17, Jer. 51:20, and Micah 5:8

Whew! This was a looooong message rebuttal. But I've answered it all. If I had to consider the difficulty on a scale from 1-10, I'd say this was a 3.5, maybe 4. Then again, although I consider myself very knowledgeable on this subject, I am not an expert scholar. There are people far better versed than I am to answer the critics. And if I could do it, I'm sure they could do an even better job with the additional knowledge they have.

Let me end by saying "stay tuned" in a week or so I will submit another message with more proof and evidences of the lost tribes and who they became.

BACK to Lost Tribes Index

HOME