Refresh Yourself With Rivers of Living
Water
Online
Audio
Daily Webcasts
Sermons, Services and
Bible Studies
Library
Bookstore
Discussion
and News Lists
Bible
Study Resources
Success
Resources at Destiny Central
How
You Can Help
Links
rcg@destiny-worldwide.net
|
A Rebuttal To The “Worldwide News” Article
By Mr. Ralph Orr Entitled
“United States And Britain In Prophecy”
by Steven M. Collins
The December 19, 1995, issue of The Worldwide News contained an article
by Mr. Ralph Orr on the subject of the “United States and Britain in Prophecy.” That article rejected a long-standing
belief of the Worldwide Church of God that the people of the United States of America and Great Britain are primarily descended from the Israelite Tribes of
Manasseh and Ephraim. The errors in that article demand a scholarly response.
Mr. Orr’s article raises some
legitimate issues which deserve detailed answers; however, it also contains
arguments which are misleading and/or inaccurate. Mr. Orr’s article opens
with a “red herring”: an attempt to equate Anglo-Israelism
with racism. He states: “The scriptures proclaim a grace-based, not a
race-based message.” I quite agree. However, the “old” WCG, and its major
offshoots, never included “Anglo-Israelism” in any
race-based message of salvation. I can recall no instance in which the
Worldwide Church of God (WCG), or its offshoots, proclaimed that “you had to
be an Israelite to be saved,” which is what Mr. Orr’s statement implies.
The “old” WCG had large
international ministries to reach people in nations which were regarded as
non-Israelite. There were extensive efforts to preach God’s Word to
Spanish-speaking nations in Latin
America, the Philippines, etc., and many black brethren were welcomed into the
Churches of God (non-Israelite racial origin was no barrier to Church
membership). Furthermore, the WCG (and its major offshoots) have never been
criticized as “anti-Semitic” (i.e., anti-Jewish). Indeed, we have identified
Jews as the modern “House of Judah,” and have sought positive relationships
with members of the Jewish faith.
Mr. Orr’s article mistakenly
implies that any attempt to understand the Biblical origins of modern nations
is racist. The whole purpose of the WCG’s effort to
identify the origins of modern nations, was for
purposes of understanding Biblical prophecies! Since the Bible identifies
nations by their Biblical names (i.e., “Israel,” “Judah,” “Assyria,” etc.), one must first identify which modern nations
are descended from these ancient nations, in order to apply ancient
prophecies to the modern world. There was (and is) nothing “racist” about
this effort.
Mr. Orr also states that “some
came to believe our message was race-based, not grace-based,” and that “some
found the Anglo-Israel belief in The United States and British
Commonwealth in Prophecy as excuse enough, not to repent of
racism.” He cites no specific examples to support these statements, and
(based on the WCG’s inclusion of all races into its
membership) it is apparent that anyone reacting in the manner ascribed by Mr.
Orr was simply not paying careful attention to the Church’s message. Let’s
examine some facts about Anglo-Israelism.
In the late nineteenth century,
many in Great
Britain
recognized that the prophecies about Ephraim had come to pass in the
blessings given to the British
Empire. This belief (“British-Israelism”) was even held by influential people. Col. J.
C. Gawler, Queen Victoria’s Keeper of the Crown Jewels, wrote two “British-Israel”
publications entitled, “Our Scythian Ancestors Identified with Israel,” and, “Dan, the Pioneer of Israel.”l However, was British-Israelism “racist” as Mr. Orr implies? Consider
this quote from one of their nineteenth century booklets entitled: “Jeshurun . . . An Elementary Paper on our British
Israelite Origin,” which stated:
“Opponents accuse us of vaunting
our Israelitish origin as a precious gift of
salvation by inheritance. A great error! The fact is,
the study is only valuable to those who receive and acknowledge the gift of
Christ as the only Mediator through whom we obtain salvation.”2
(Emphasis not added.)
That British-Israelite writer
shared Mr. Orr’s rejection of “race-based” messages of salvation. As this
quote indicates, the British-Israelites were horrified by the allegation that
they taught a “salvation by race” concept. It is easy to misunderstand
a message. Even the Apostle Paul’s teachings had been so woefully
misunderstood by some, that he issued a strong denial that his message
included a rejection of God’s Old Testament laws, Romans 3:31.
Anglo-Israelism
was also present in nineteenth century America. In 1857, a pastor named F. E. Pitts gave a two-day
presentation advocating Anglo-Israelism to a
joint session of the U.S. Congress! Can you imagine such an event occurring
in modern, nihilistic America? Ironically, Pastor Pitts was an antimonarchist who was
hostile to Britain’s royal family (as his messages make plain).3
Anglo-Israelism
should be evaluated strictly on its merits. In any discussion of whether the
ten tribes of Israel both exist and are identifiable in the modern world, we
must first objectively determine what the Bible (God’s Word) teaches on the
subject. Many modern Christians believe that we are living in the Biblical
“latter days” which will immediately precede the return of Jesus Christ. The
“old” WCG (and its main offshoots) shared this belief with many Protestant,
evangelical denominations.
In Genesis 49, Jacob (Israel) was inspired to prophesy that all the tribes of Israel would be present among the nations on earth during the
“latter days.” This prophecy offers many clues to assist people in
identifying Israelite nations in the latter days (this infers God knew that
by the time the latter days arrived, the tribes of Israel would be “hidden” from world awareness, and such clues
would be needed). Based on very divergent prophecies about the traits and
locations of the latter-day tribes of Israel, it is clear the Bible is speaking of separate nations
(or ethnic groups). This is consistent with the prophecy in Ezekiel
37:15-28, that the “house of Judah” and the “house of Israel” (the
so-called “lost ten tribes”) would not be reunited until after the Messianic
kingdom is established (i.e., David is prophesied to be their joint king
when the dead are resurrected). These “latter day” prophecies make it clear
that while modern Jews can be the “house of Judah,” they cannot possibly include the “house of Israel” during the latter days. Therefore, if we are guided
by a literal interpretation of the Bible, we must look for the ten tribes of Israel among the non-Jewish nations of the world.
Many modern Christian
denominations unknowingly call God “a liar” when they teach that the “lost
ten tribes” have “died out,” or “can’t be identified,” because the Bible’s
inspired prophecies say otherwise! Also, the New Testament affirmed the
inspired nature of Old Testament prophecies. Jesus Christ’s statement in Matthew
5:17, “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets,”
affirms not only the Old Testament laws of God, but its prophecies as well!
Some regard Paul as a “liberal,” but he wrote in II Timothy 3:16: “All
scripture [including prophecies!] is given by
inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine. . . .” The Apostle Peter
added:
“We have also a more sure word
of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed . . . no prophecy of
the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not
in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake
as they were moved by the Holy Spirit,” II Peter 1:19-21.
It is vital to notice Paul and
Peter’s words: “all scripture” and “of the scripture.” They were speaking
about (and validating) the canonized Hebrew Scriptures with which they were
familiar (i.e., the “Old Testament”). Peter specifically affirmed that
the early Church accepted Old Testament prophecies as divinely inspired!
Therefore, we have established that in any discussion of the ten tribes of Israel, the early New Testament Church accepted the Old
Testament prophecies about them as inspired and binding.
Mr. Orr’s article indicates that
the “new” WCG has “lost its faith” in the literal interpretation of the
Bible. This is a common view in many secular churches. If the WCG no longer
accepts the Bible as the infallible word of God, it should openly say so instead of
“picking and choosing” which parts of the Bible it accepts and which parts it
rejects.
Mr. Orr asserts “the New
Testament takes a strikingly different approach than that of Anglo-Israelism.” Really? We have seen that Jesus Christ, Paul,
and Peter, all affirmed the divinely inspired content of all Old
Testament prophecies (including those about the tribes of Israel). There is no “strikingly different approach” in the New
Testament approach of Jesus Christ, Peter, or Paul, regarding prophecies
about the ten tribes, so Mr. Orr’s statement is either misleading or
factually incorrect. Is Mr. Orr repudiating Biblical prophecy, or is he still
attacking the false notion that “Anglo-Israelism is
Racist”?
Mr. Orr does make a valid point
when he states: “when reading Anglo-Israelite literature, one notices that it generally depends on folklore, legends,
quasi-historical genealogies and dubious etymologies.” I, too, have read
Anglo-Israelite literature based on this kind of weak evidence. Folklore and
legends may actually come to a right conclusion, but such evidence is
admittedly too weak to convince either scholars or skeptics on the subject.
However, it must be realized that in the nineteenth century, British-Israelite
writers were governed by very different literary conventions. Prior to the
general acceptance of evolutionary mythology, the Bible was held in such
high esteem that if writers could find support for their conclusions in the
Bible, they felt no need for the support of documented secular sources.
Today, the situation is reversed: scholars do not accept anything in the
Bible unless it is supported by secular evidence.
Mr. Orr continues: “Rarely . . .
are the disciplines of archeology, sociology, anthropology, linguistics, or
historiography applied to Anglo-Israelism.” His
point, while not completely applicable to Anglo-Israelite literature, is true
in some cases. However, historical evidence for Anglo-Israelism
does exist! British-Israelite publications in the nineteenth century
contained considerable hard evidence which was never included in the WCG
literature on the subject. Additionally, the modern scientific community
has discovered much new evidence concerning Israelite history, which was not
available to the nineteenth century writers. However, one has to search
diligently through secular sources to find this evidence, because it is not
discussed in a Biblical context.
Let us now examine a supposed
“conflict” in the Bible which Mr. Orr’s article discussed. He notes that II
Kings 17:18 states (regarding the removal of the ten tribes from Israel when Samaria
fell): “only the tribe of Judah was left.” The fall of Samaria was approximately 721 B.C.4
Mr. Orr correctly notes that “at face value, the verse appears to say
that only the tribe of Judah escaped captivity.” Yet he does not take this scripture
literally because during the reign of King Josiah of Judah (circa 639-608 B.C.5), II Chronicles 34:9
states Josiah collected donations to repair the Temple “from the people of Manasseh, Ephraim, and the entire
remnant of Israel.” Indeed, verse 6 adds that Naphtalites
and Simeonites were also then present in Palestine!
Faced with this apparent
contradiction, Mr. Orr resorts to the typical rationalizations used by
“minimalists” and “apologists” in various Christian denominations. While the
specifics vary, their responses always have the “bottom line” conclusion that
“you can’t take the Bible literally.” Jesus Christ himself might say to such
people: “O ye of little faith. . . .” Let us examine a combination of
Biblical and secular evidence to demonstrate that there is no conflict here, and that both sections of the Bible are historically
true and can be taken literally.
The supposed conflict is this:
How can the Bible say all the tribes of Israel (except Judah) were removed
from Palestine in 721 B.C., but also assert that significant numbers of the
ten tribes were again present in Palestine by Josiah’s reign a century later?
Notice first that II Kings 17:18
does not prophesy: “no Israelites will ever return to Palestine.” It only asserts that none of the ten tribes were
present in Israel in the year 721 B.C., just after the Israelite
capital of Samaria fell.
The answer to the supposed
conflict is partially found in Mr. Orr’s own article. He observes:
“Fundamental to the Anglo-Israel argument is the belief that all significant
parts of the house of Israel went into captivity. Biblical and archeological scholars
harbor serious doubts about the accuracy of this view.” This statement
reveals Mr. Orr has not widely read available Anglo-Israel literature. For
example, Col. Gawler’s nineteenth century
publication (mentioned earlier) conclusively makes the case that many
Israelites did not go into captivity! To assert that it is
“fundamental to the Anglo-Israel argument” that “all significant parts of
the house of Israel went into captivity” is simply not true. Indeed, the
solution to our apparent “contradiction” lies in the fact that they did not!
Col. Gawler’s
writings also belie another myth that the detractors of Anglo-Israelism like to spread: that all Anglo-Israel adherents
are “anti-Jewish.” Col. Gawler wrote that Jews
attended the meetings of the nineteenth century British-Israelites and
credits a “Jewish gentleman of great learning”6 for directing him
to Jewish historical sources which confirmed that many Israelites escaped
the Assyrians and settled independently in a new location.
Col. Gawler
noted that the medieval geographer, Abraham Ortelius,
recorded that, when the kingdom of Israel fell, many of the ten tribes
migrated to Tartary and “took the name Gauthei because they were very jealous of the
glory of God.7 Gawler also cited
Armenian historians who noted that a large mass of Israelites migrated
(through Armenia) into Tartary. Tartary
was a region near the Black Sea (which later became a springboard for the huge
migrations of the Goths into Europe in the third to sixth centuries A.D.). Another medieval Jewish writer is
quoted as asserting these migrating Israelites “evaded the calamity [of an
Assyrian captivity], going off with their flocks and turning nomads, and that
the chief or prince whom they appointed could muster 120,000 horse and 100,000
foot.”8 With a military escort of almost a quarter-million men, it
is clear the escaping Israelites could easily have numbered well over one
million people.
In II Esdras
13:39-46, there is an account that a large group from the ten tribes of Israel escaped the Assyrians and journeyed for one-
and-one-half years to a place called Arzareth. This
passage (in an apocryphal book) records that these Israelites were determined
to “keep their statutes which they had not kept in their own country,” and
adds the Most High held back the waters of the Euphrates River so they could
escape the Assyrians. Here again we see an account that the Israelites who
escaped captivity were in a repentant state of mind. Does the Bible support
this view? Yes!
In II Chronicles 28:5-8,
we read of a war between Israel and Judah just decades before the fall of Samaria, in which God gave the victory to the Israelites who
killed 120,000 Jewish soldiers, and were leading 200,000 Jews into captivity
in Israel. Clearly, the house of Israel still had a very sizeable population at that time.
Loaded with much spoil, the victorious Israelites were met by a prophet (Obed) who gave them a warning from God not to carry their
Jewish brethren into captivity. The house of Israel had long spurned God’s prophets, but verses 13-15
record the elders of Ephraim heeded this prophet. Indeed, they gave back all
the spoil to the captive Jews, fed and clothed them, and gently assisted the
“feeble” to make the journey back to Judah. Interestingly, this account indicates the elders of Israel made this decision to “bend over backwards in obeying
God” without any input from their king.
A few years later when Samaria fell, II Kings 17:24-31 records the
Assyrians had to repopulate the land
of Israel with foreigners because the land was abandoned. Verse
25 (“the Lord sent lions among them”) implies the land had been
depopulated for so long that it had “reverted to the wild.” The cuneiform
texts of the Assyrian kings claim that when Samaria fell, only 27,290 people were taken captive9
(a very paltry total considering that only a few years previously the
Israelites had slain and taken captive hundreds of thousands of Jews). The
Assyrians made no claim of taking the rest of the Israelite nation captive at
that time.
As discussed above, historical
sources indicate the escaping Israelites migrated north of Armenia into the Black
Sea region. Many ancient
historians note that the Black
Sea region thereafter acquired
the names of “Iberia” and “Scythia” (the “Sacae”). Genesis
21:12 prophesied that Abraham’s seed would be known by the
name of Isaac, and since ancient Hebrew deleted vowels, Isaac’s name is
present in the root consonants of “Sac” or “Saac.”
The Sacae Scythians kept the name of Isaac in their
tribal name, fulfilling the prophecy of Genesis 21:12. Iberia preserved the name of the Hebrews’ namesake “Eber,” and, importantly, Iberian kings bore the name of “Phares.” The Roman historian Tacitus
mentions Iberia and their kings named “Pharesmanes,”10 as
does the famous British historian George Rawlinson.11
King David had been promised by
God that his seed would “never lack a man sitting on the throne of the house
of Israel,” Jeremiah 33:17. Some Israelites who migrated to
the Black Sea had kings named “Pharesmanes,”
and “Phares” was the lineage from which King David
was born, Matthew 1:3-6. This strongly argues that the Israelites who
migrated to the Black Sea abandoned their old king to the Assyrians and selected a
prince from the house of David to be their new king. Why else would they
proclaim the name “Phares” in their dynastic name?
There is much more evidence that Davidic kings ruled over other Asian
Israelites as well, but the above will suffice for this article.
Greek historians indicate that
the Black Sea Israelites (now called “Sacae”
Scythians) were obedient to prominent Old Testament laws. Herodotus notes
they avoided swine’s flesh12, and scrupulously avoided foreign
idols and religious customs.13 Herodotus recorded that a Scythian
king (with the Israelite name: “Saulius”) executed
a prominent Scythian for participating in a Greek festival honoring “the
mother goddess,” and a Scythian king was even executed for participating in
an idolatrous religious celebration.14 By no means did all
Scythians exhibit Israelite customs. The “Turanian”
Scythians, for example, were not related to the Sacae
Scythians, and their tribes exhibited some bizarre customs. When discussing
“Scythians,” one must be careful to determine which Scythians tribes are
being discussed, because not all of them were Israelite.
The Bible supports the thesis
that many of the ten tribes resettled in the Caucasus/Black Sea region. In
the reign of King Hezekiah of Judah (soon after Samaria fell), II Kings 19:37 states that Sennacherib, the king of Assyria,
was assassinated by his sons who sought safety by fleeing to “the land
of Ararat.” When fleeing for their lives, these assassins would go
to an area which was so anti-Assyrian that they would be certain to receive
asylum. They fled to the region of Ararat (the Caucasus/Black Sea region)
where refugees of the ten tribes had established a new homeland. The
anti-Assyrian Israelites would surely give refuge to assassins of an Assyrian
king, and the fact these assassins fled to Ararat is consistent with
historical records that Israelites had migrated to that region.
The Bible also confirms that the
Israelites who fled to the Black
Sea experienced at least a
limited revival in serving the God of Israel. In Jeremiah 3:11-12, God
sent a message to the ten tribes of Israel via Jeremiah in about 620 B.C. (100 years after Israel had been removed from Palestine). God’s message was:
“. . . backsliding
Israel hath justified herself more than treacherous Judah. Go and proclaim these words toward the north,
and say, Return thou backsliding Israel, saith the Lord . . . .”
Did God’s use of the word
“return” mean “return to God,” “return to Palestine,” or both? Whatever the
intent, history records the Israelites did “return” to Palestine at that time! While the above quote was not a glowing
tribute to the ten tribes’ spiritual condition, God nevertheless acknowledged
that they were clearly more obedient to God at that time than the tribe of Judah. Also, He directs Jeremiah to address his message to the
ten tribes: “to the north.” If He was addressing Israelites
carried captive to Assyria, God would have said “to the east.” Draw a line
straight north of Jerusalem (where Jeremiah was) and you will come exactly to
the Black Sea region of the Sacae Scythians.
Were the ten tribes of Israel “lost” a century after the fall of Samaria? Obviously not! God himself sent a message at that time
via the prophet Jeremiah to the “free Israelites” near the Black Sea.
What does this have to do with
the supposed conflict raised in Mr. Orr’s article? That will now be answered,
but it was first necessary to establish the Israelite origin of the Sacae Scythians before any sense could be made of what
follows.
Secular historians record that
(circa 625-605 B.C.) the Scythians poured out of the Black Sea/Caucasus
region to invade the regions to the south. Their armies marched in the
direction of Assyria and Palestine. The Scythian armies who marched to Assyria
devastated Assyria’s homeland. The Encyclopaedia
Britannica states simply: “Nineveh was captured and destroyed by the Scythian army . . .
and the Assyrian empire was at an end.”15 However, the Scythian
army that marched into Palestine was peaceful as they continued to Egypt (which avoided an invasion by paying tribute to the
Scythians). Herodotus notes that while the Scythians also conquered Media and
“took possession of all Asia,” they marched into Palestine, “doing no harm to anyone.”16
Harper’s Bible
Dictionary records that this massive Scythian presence in Palestine occurred in the reign of King Josiah (639-608 B.C.),17 and during the ministry of the prophet
Jeremiah (who had sent God’s message to the ten tribes which said “return”).
The Scythian invasions clearly exhibit motives that confirm their Israelite
origin. By conquering Media, they liberated
the Israelites held captive in “the cities of the Medes,” and by destroying
the Assyrian Empire, they exacted revenge for the Assyrian destruction of the
old kingdom of Israel. [Interestingly, while the Assyrians drove the ten
tribes out of Palestine, we can now know that the ten tribes of Israel ultimately destroyed Assyria and
its empire.]
If the Scythians had been
marauding nomads from the steppes (a common assumption of history books),
they would have looted Palestine and Judah as well. However, Herodotus’ account of their presence
in Palestine indicates a friendly/protective occupation. This makes
sense when we understand the Sacae Scythians recognized
the Jews as a brother tribe. Even the Bible acknowledges the Scythian
presence in Palestine during Josiah’s reign, in the very passage to which Mr.
Orr points as a Bible contradiction! The Greeks called the Black Sea
Israelites “Sacae” or “Scythians,” however, the
Bible called them by their Israelite tribal names because the Jews still
recognized the Scythians as Israelite tribes! That is why II Chronicles
34-35 records King Josiah issuing donations and Passover invitations to
people of Manasseh, Ephraim, Naphtali, Simeon, and
“Israel.” King Josiah was, in fact, interacting with the Sacae Scythians who had just recently reoccupied their
old tribal lands! These passages are powerful Biblical proof that the Sacae Scythians were the ten tribes of Israel! Precisely when Greek history records that the Sacae Scythians had poured into Palestine, the Bible states many of the ten tribes of Israel were again present in the land.
II Chronicles 34:6 records that the ten tribes of Israel had reoccupied their old homelands “with mattocks.”
While the Scythians attacked Assyria with swords, they occupied Palestine with agricultural tools! The ten tribes apparently
intended to reclaim and resettle the old kingdom of Israel. However, history records they decided to return to
their new Black Sea homelands within a few decades. Werner Keller states the
Scythians returned to the Black
Sea region within ten years18,
while Herodotus records they remained in the Mideast 28 years before returning.19
The events of King Josiah’s
reign take on new meaning when it is realized
that the more devout ten tribes of Israel had reoccupied Palestine during his reign! King Josiah’s spiritual reform of Judah began in the eighth year of his reign, II Chronicles
34:1-3. What motivated him to do this? The eighth year of his reign was
623 B.C., about when the Sacae Scythians (the ten
tribes of Israel) reoccupied Palestine. He began to destroy pagan idols and images even though
he did not recover the “book of the law” until at least ten years later
(verses 3-15). Who taught him how to please the God of Israel? The Scythian
Israelites! Jeremiah records the Israelites were closer to God at that
time, and Herodotus wrote the Scythians avoided unclean meat and forbid the
use of idolatrous images.20
After 10-28 years, the
Israelites mostly returned to “the north” after discovering that Palestine was no more a “land of milk and honey.” It had been
occupied by foreigners (brought in by Assyrians) for a century, and was now
undesirable compared to the Israelites’ Black Sea
region. However, a few Israelites likely stayed in Palestine, accounting for limited contingents of Israelites being
present in future generations. After the Scythian Israelites left Palestine, a city in the old tribal territory of Manasseh (Beth-Shan) was renamed “Scythopolis”21 in
honor of the Scythians who had liberated Palestine from Assyrian domination. The city was still named Scythopolis when it was one of the cities of the
Decapolis22 in which Jesus walked, Mark 7:31.
The above is an example of how a
careful reconciliation of secular history and Biblical historical accounts
mutually verify the accuracy of the Bible! What Mr. Orr regards as a
conflict is, in fact, no conflict at all. Since the accounts are factually
and literally true, the many rationalizations utilized by Mr. Orr to put new
meanings on the terms “Judah” and “Israel” are moot.
Mr. Orr is correct in stating:
“The Bible records that Jews and Israelites were still living side by side in
the days of the early Church,” but he errs in asserting that it was because
Israelites were joined to the house of Judah. Mr. Orr’s assumption is contradicted by Josephus, a
contemporary of the early Church. Josephus states that during the time
of the early Church:
“There are but two tribes
in Asia and Europe subject to the Romans, while the ten tribes are
beyond Euphrates till now, and are
an immense multitude, and not to be estimated by numbers.”23
(Emphasis added.)
Josephus makes it quite clear
that the “two tribes . . . subject to the Romans” were Judah and Benjamin,
and that the “ten tribes” of Israel were still in Asia during the days of the early Church. Ezra 1 and Nehemiah
11 also confirm that only Judah and Benjamin had returned to Judea and
(with Levi) became the ancestors of the Jews of Roman Judea. Note also that
Josephus did not regard the ten tribes as “lost” during the 1st century A.D.
He even names the Euphrates River as one of their borders. It is important that Josephus
recorded that the ten tribes’ population had grown very immensely in Asia; it
confirms the Israelites had not “disappeared” or “died out.” Indeed, it
confirms the Biblical prophecy of Hosea 1:6-10 that God would make the
ten tribes of Israel “too numerous to count” after He removed them
from Palestine.
At the time of Josephus, the Euphrates River had long been the recognized border between the Roman
and Parthian Empires. Josephus’ euphemism, “beyond Euphrates,”
was tantamount to saying the ten tribes were “in Parthia.” Parthia was an immense Asian Empire, which stretched from the Euphrates River to India. Historians have long recognized that the Parthians (who fought many wars with Rome) were fellow
tribesmen of the Sacae Scythians.24
There is an immense volume of evidence that the Parthian Empire was ruled by
the ten tribes of Israel, but there simply is not space enough to examine
that evidence in this article.
During the time of Jesus Christ
and the early Church, there was a long period of “detente” between the Roman
and Parthian Empires during which extensive travel and trade between the two
empires took place. The “Wise Men from the east,” Matthew 2:1, who
brought gold, frankincense and myrrh to the young Jesus were Parthians (“Magi” and “Wise Men” were the official titles
of Parthia’s priests and nobility).25 Acts
2:9 states that “Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia . . .
and Asia,” were present in Jerusalem to keep the Feast of Weeks. All the
above named regions were part of Parthia’s Empire. Verse 10 states these devout people were
“Jews and proselytes (i.e., non-Jews).” The “non-Jews” were Israelites from
the Parthian Empire, and Peter openly called them “men of Israel” when he addressed them, Acts 2:22. Mr. Orr mistakenly puts a different meaning on
Peter’s comment, but Peter (like Josephus) knew the many Parthians
in his audience were Israelites, and addressed them as such.
Because Parthian merchants,
pilgrims, and diplomats could travel freely in Roman Palestine at the time
of Christ, there were many Israelites present in Judea throughout the time of
Christ, especially (as Acts 2 confirms) during the Annual Holy Days.
Sadly, the arguments in Mr.
Orr’s article are consistent with those of Biblical “minimalists” and
“apologists,” people who have lost their faith in a literal interpretation of
the Bible, and therefore “apologize” for it. As we can see, no apologies for
the Bible are needed; its historical accounts can be taken literally!
There is a valid challenge which
needs to be made to those who oppose “Anglo-Israelism.”
If they claim to be Christians who believe the Bible is the inspired word of
God, then they should accept Hosea 1 and Genesis 49, which
prophesy that the ten tribes of Israel would have huge populations after their captivity and
will be present and identifiable among the nations during the “latter days.”
If they do not agree with the “Anglo-Israel” identifications of which modern
nations are Israelite, they should offer their own alternative
identifications for the modern ten tribes of Israel. If a person really
believes the Bible is God’s literal word, they will offer such alternatives.
Those who cannot (or will not) offer alternatives,
reveal that they don’t really believe in a literally-true Bible. They are simply
wasting our time.
In conclusion, there is abundant
evidence that Biblical historical accounts are literally true, and that the
United States of America and Britain are the modern descendants of the
Israelite tribes of Manasseh and Ephraim (space did not permit a discussion
of that subject in this article). There is also much historical evidence that
the ten tribes of Israel can be traced in all parts of their history from the
fall of Samaria till the present.
The author of this article has
spent many years researching evidence about the tribes of Israel, and this information has been published in 1996 in a
major book, The “Lost” Ten Tribes of Israel. . . Found!
It is 440 pages long. This book contains the information offered in this
article and much, much more. It examines the subject of the ten tribes of Israel from a historical, linguistic, archeological, and
anthropological basis. It traces the empires, migrations, and histories of
the ten tribes from the time of King David until the present. It not only
documents the whereabouts of the tribes of Israel in the modern world, but also documents that the
Israelites ruled major empires at several stages of their history. After
reading The Lost Ten Tribes of Israel...Found! you can believe in “Anglo-Israelism”
(and the veracity of the Bible) not in spite of the scientific evidence, but rather
because of it! This book is based on hard evidence, not folklore and
legend.
If you are interested in a
scientific documentation of the history and modern locations of the ten
tribes of Israel, you may order a copy of this excellent book. See
ordering information below.
(Steve Collins plans
additional books documenting further evidence of the identity of the Lost Ten
Tribes of Israel.)
Endnotes
1. “Our Scythian Ancestors
Identified with Israel,” and “Dan...the Pioneer of Israel,” Col. J.C. Gawler,
were published by W.H. Guest of London, England in 1875 and 1880, respectively.
2. “Jeshurun...”, Mrs. E.C. Daubenay, published
by W.H. Guest, London, p. 7.
3. “The U.S.A. in Bible Prophecy,” F.E. Pitts, originally published in
1862, now printed by Hoffman Printing Co., Muskogee, OK.
4. Harper’s Bible Dictionary,
“Samaria,” p. 895.
5. Ibid, “Josiah,” p. 510.
6. Gawler,
Our Scythian Ancestors Identified with Israel, p. 9.
7. Ibid, p. 9.
8. Ibid, p. 9.
9. The Bible as History,
Werner Keller, p. 246.
10. The Annals of Imperial Rome, Tacitus, Books VI, XI-XIV.
11. The Sixth Great
Oriental Monarchy, George Rawlinson, pp.
231-270, 320-321.
12. The History,
Herodotus, 4.63.
13. Ibid, 4.76.
14. Ibid, 4.76-80.
15. Encyclopaedia
Britannica, 1943 Ed., Vol. 2, “Babylonia and Assyria”, p. 857.
16. The History,
Herodotus, 1.104-105.
17. Harper’s Bible Dictionary,
“Josiah,” p. 510.
18. The Bible as History,
Werner Keller, p. 273.
19. The History , Herodotus, 1.106.
20. Ibid, 4.76-80.
21. The Bible as History,
Werner Keller, p. 273.
22. Harper’s Bible Dictionary,
“Beth-shan,” p. 109, and “Decapolis,” p. 215.
23. Antiquities of the Jews,
Josephus, XI, 2.
24. The Sixth Great Oriental
Monarchy, George Rawlinson, p. 19, and The
Scythians, Tamara Rice, p. 45.
25. The Sixth Great Oriental
Monarchy, George Rawlinson, p. 85.
|
