But now discarding the whole heap of Anglo-Israel
fiction, let us glance at the question of the so-called
"lost" Ten Tribes in the light of Scripture history
and prophecy. Anglo-Israelism first of all loses the
Ten Tribes, for whom it claims a different destiny from
the "Jews," whom it supposes to be descendants of the
Two Tribes only, and then it identifies this "lost"
Israel with the British race. But there is as little historical
ground for the supposition that the Ten Tribes are
lost, in the sense in which Anglo-Israelism uses the term,
as there is Scriptural basis for a separate destiny for
"Israel" apart from "Judah."
The most superficial reader of the Old Testament
knows the origin and cause of the unfortunate schism
which took place in the history of the elect nation after
the death of Solomon. But this evil was to last only
for a limited time; for at the very commencement of
this new and parenthetical chapter of the nation's
history it was announced by God that He would in this
way afflict the seed of David, but not for ever (1 Kings
xi. 39).
A separate kingdom, comprising Ten of the Twelve
Tribes, was set up under Jeroboam in B.C. 975, and its
whole history, of about 250 years, is one long, dark tale
of usurpation, anarchy, and apostasy, unrelieved by
the occasional gracious visitations of national revival
which light up the annals of the Judean kingdom under
the House of David.
After many warnings and premonitory judgments
the kingdom of the Ten Tribes was finally overthrown
in the year B.C. 721, when its capital, Samaria, was
destroyed, and the bulk of the people carried captive
by the Assyrians, and made to settle in "Halah and
Habor, and by the river Gozan, and in the cities of the
Medes" (2 Kings xvii. 6; 1 Chron. v. 26).
Now I would beg you to notice two or three facts.
I. The kingdom of "Judah" after the schism consisted
not only of Judah and Benjamin, but also of the
Levites who remained faithful to the House of David
and the theocratic centre.[15] Even those who were in
the northern cities forsook all in order to come to
Jerusalem, as we read in 2 Chron. xi. 14: "And Rehoboam
dwelt in Jerusalem, and built cities for defence in
Judah, ... and the priests and Levites that were in
all Israel resorted to him out of all their coasts. For
the Levites left their suburbs and their possessions, and
came to Judah and Jerusalem; for Jeroboam and his
sons had cast them off from executing the priest's office
unto the Lord."
II. Apart from Judah, Benjamin, and Levi, there
were in the southern kingdom of Judah after the schism
many out of the other Ten Tribes whose hearts clung to
Jehovah, and the only earthly centre of His worship
which He appointed. Immediately after the rebellion,
we read that "after them" (that is, following the
example of the Levites) "out of all the tribes of Israel,
such as set their hearts to seek Jehovah, the God of
Israel, came to Jerusalem to sacrifice to Jehovah, God
of their fathers. So they strengthened the kingdom
of Judah" (2 Chron. xi. 16).
In every reign of the kingdom of Israel numbers of
the religious and more spiritual of the Ten Tribes must
have seceded and joined "Judah." This we find to have
been more especially the case during the times of national
revival in the southern kingdom, and in the reigns of
those kings who feared and sought the Lord.
Thus, for instance, we read of Asa, that "he gathered
all Judah and Benjamin, with the strangers with them
out of Ephraim and Manasseh, and out of Simeon; for
they fell to him out of all Israel in abundance, when they
saw that Jehovah his God was with him, so they
gathered themselves together at Jerusalem; ... and
they entered into a covenant to seek Jehovah God of
their fathers with all their heart, and with all their
soul" (2 Chron. xv. 9-15).
There are also several other mentions of "the children
of Israel that dwelt in the cities of Judah" and were
subjects and members of that kingdom.
III. The final overthrow of the northern kingdom
took place, as we have seen, in the year B.C. 721; but
when we read that the "King of Assyria took Samaria
and carried Israel away into Assyria," we are not to
understand that he cleared the whole land of all the
people, but that he took the strength of the nation with
him. There were, no doubt, many of the people left
in the land; even as was the case after the overthrow
of the southern kingdom by the Babylonians later on
(2 Kings xxv. 12). The historical proof for my assertion
is found in the fact that about a century after the fall
of Samaria, we find in the reign of Josiah some of
Manasseh and Ephraim, "and a remnant of all Israel,"
in the land, who contributed to the collection made by
the Levites for the repair of the house of the Lord in
Jerusalem, and joined in the celebration of the great
Passover in the eighteenth year of that zealous and
promising young king.
These were the component elements of which the
southern kingdom of "Judah" was made up, when it,
too, reached the stage, when, on account of its idolatries
and apostasy from the living God, "there was no more
remedy" (or "healing"—2 Chron. xxxvi. 16). It
consisted, as we have seen, of Judah, Benjamin, Levi,
and many out of all the other Ten Tribes of Israel, "in
abundance."
Jerusalem was finally taken in B.C. 588, by Nebuchadnezzar—just
133 years after the capture of Samaria
by the Assyrians. Meanwhile the Babylonian Empire
succeeded the Assyrian. But although dynasties had
changed, and Babylon, which had sometimes, even under
the Assyrian régime, been one of the capitals of the
Empire, now took the place of Nineveh, the region over
which Nebuchadnezzar now bore rule, was the very
same over which Shalmaneser and Sargon reigned before
him, only somewhat extended.[16]
The exact location of the exiles of the southern
kingdom we are not told, beyond the Scripture statements
that all the three parties of captives carried off
by Nebuchadnezzar (that in the first invasion in the
reign of Jehoiakim, B.C. 606; and in the second, in the
reign of Jehoiachin, B.C. 599; and in the final overthrow
of Jerusalem, in the reign of Zedekiah, B.C. 588), were
taken "to Babylon" (2 Kings xxiv. and xxv.;
Daniel i.).
Now Babylon stands not only for the city, but also
for the whole land, in which the territories of the Assyrian
Empire, and the colonies of exiles from the northern
kingdom of "Israel" were included. Thus, for instance,
we find Ezekiel, who was one of the 10,000 exiles carried
off by Nebuchadnezzar with Jehoiachin, by the river
Chebar in the district of Gozan—one of the very parts
where the exiles of the Ten Tribes were settled by the
Assyrians more than a century previously.
With the captivity the divisions and rivalry between
"Judah" and "Israel" were ended, and the members
of all the tribes who looked forward to a national future
were conscious not only of one common destiny, but
that that destiny was bound up with the promises to
the House of David, and with Zion or Jerusalem as its
centre, in accordance with the prophecies of Joel, Amos,
and Hosea, and of the other inspired messengers who
ministered and testified more especially among them
until the fall of Samaria. This conviction of a common
and united future, no doubt facilitated the merging
process, which cannot be said to have begun with the
captivity, for it commenced almost immediately after
the rebellion under Jeroboam, but which was certainly
strengthened by it.
Glimpses into the feeling of the members of the two
kingdoms for one another, and their hopes and aspirations
for unity, we get in the writings of Jeremiah,
Ezekiel, and Daniel, who prophesied during the period
of exile. The most striking prophecy in relation to
this subject is Ezek. xxxvii. 15-28:
"The word of the Lord came again unto me, saying,
Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write
upon it, For Judah, and for the children of Israel, his companions
(that is, those of Israel who before the captivity
fell away from the Ten Tribes and joined the southern
kingdom): then take another stick, and write upon it,
For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and all the house of
Israel, his companions: and join them one to another
into one stick; and they shall become one in thine hand."
Then follows the Divine interpretation of this symbol:
"Behold, I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand
of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel, his companions, and
I will put them with him (or literally, I will add them
upon, or to him), namely, with the stick of Judah, and make
them one stick, and they shall be one in My hand. And
the sticks whereon thou writest shall be in thy hand before
their eyes. And say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God,
Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among the
nations, whither they be gone, and will gather them on
every side, and bring them into their own land; and I
will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains
of Israel; and one king shall be king to them all; and
they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be
divided into two kingdoms any more at all: neither shall
they defile themselves any more with their idols, nor with
their detestable things, nor with any of their transgressions:
but I will save them out of all their dwelling-places
wherein they have sinned, and will cleanse them; so
shall they be My people, and I will be their God. And
My servant David shall be king over them; and they all
shall have one shepherd; they shall also walk in My judgments,
and observe My statutes, and do them. And they
shall dwell in the land which I have given unto Jacob My
servant, wherein your fathers dwelt; and they shall dwell
therein, they, and their children, and their children's
children for ever: and David My servant shall be their
prince for ever" (Ezek. xxxvii. 20-25, R.V.).
Now let it be remembered that the foreground and
commencement of the restoration and future of this great
prophecy, especially to all the exiles at that time, was
the restoration from Babylon, or "Assyria," as it was
sometimes called.
As a matter of fact, these prophecies, and particularly
Ezek. xxxvii. 15-28, set forth not one single act or event,
but a process which, commencing with the prophet's
own time, extends into the distant future, and ends in
the final goal of the blessed condition of Israel under
Messiah's reign in the millennial period. Thus, while the
full visible manifestation of that unity, symbolised by
the two sticks becoming one in the prophet's hand, will
only be realised after the final regathering of the whole
nation in their own land, and when the true "David,"
namely, Messiah, "David's greater Son," shall be both
King and Prince over them for ever—the merging and
uniting process commenced, as a matter of fact, before
the Babylonian captivity, was accelerated in the exile,
when in their like sorrows and troubles the hearts of
the people were doubtless drawn to one another in
mutual sympathy and love.
The point, however, to be noticed in this and other
prophecies is the clear announcement which they contained
that the purpose of God in the schism—as a
punishment on the House of David—was now at an
end, and that henceforth there was but one common
hope and one destiny for the whole Israel of the Twelve
Tribes—whether they previously belonged to the
northern kingdom of the Ten Tribes, or to the southern
kingdom of the Two Tribes—and that this common hope
and destiny was centred in Him Who is the Lion of the
Tribe of Judah, and the rightful Heir and descendant
of David.
In like manner Jeremiah, in his great prophecy of
the restoration and future blessing (chaps. xxx. and
xxxi.), links the destinies of "Judah" and "Israel," or
Israel and Judah together; and speaks of one common
experience from that time on for the whole people.
"For lo, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will turn
again the captivity of My people Israel and Judah,
saith the Lord: and I will cause them to return to the
land that I gave to their fathers, and they shall possess
it. And these are the words that the Lord spake
concerning Israel and Judah" (Jer. xxx. 3, 4, R.V.).
Daniel also, towards the end of the seventy years'
captivity, includes not only the men of Judah and
inhabitants of Jerusalem in his intercessory prayer, but
"all Israel that are near, or far off, from all the countries
whither Thou hast driven them," who, he confesses,
were alike involved in sin and judgment, and equally
cast on the mercy of God on the ground of promises
made to the fathers.
Now let us go a step farther. Just seventy years had
elapsed since the first band of captives were carried
away to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar in the year
B.C. 606. "That the word of the Lord by the mouth
of Jeremiah might be fulfilled, the Lord stirred up the
spirit of Cyrus, King of Persia, that he issued a proclamation
throughout all his kingdom, and put it also
in writing, saying: Thus saith Cyrus, King of Persia, the
Lord God of heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of
the earth; and He hath charged me to build Him a
house at Jerusalem that is in Judah. Who is there
among you of all His people? His God be with him,
and let him go up to Jerusalem, which is in Judah."
This proclamation, which was in reference to all the
people "of the Lord God of heaven," was issued in the
year B.C. 536, two years after the conquest of Babylon
by Cyrus, and was, we are told, promulgated "throughout
all his kingdom," which was the same as that over which
Nebuchadnezzar and his successors reigned before
him, only again somewhat extended, even as the
kingdom of Babylon was identical with that of Assyria,
as already pointed out. Indeed, Cyrus and Darius I.
are called indifferently by the sacred historians by the
title of "King of Persia" (Ezra iv. 5), "King of Babylon"
(Ezra v. 13), and "King of Assyria" (Ezra vi. 22).
The first response to this proclamation was a caravan
of "forty-two thousand three hundred and sixty, beside
their servants and their maids, of whom there were
seven thousand three hundred and thirty-seven, and
two hundred singing men and singing women," who,
under the leadership of Zerubbabel, who was a lineal
descendant of the royal house of David, and of Joshua
the high priest, made their way from "Babylon to
Jerusalem."
Now the leading spirits of this returned party of
exiles were, no doubt, "the chief of the fathers of Judah
and Benjamin, and the priests and Levites"; at the
same time they included "all those" from all the
other tribes without distinction, "whose spirit God had
raised to go up to build the house of the Lord, which is
in Jerusalem" (Ezra i. 5).
They are no longer counted after their tribal origin,
but in families, and after the cities to which they
originally belonged, which, for the most part, are not
easy to identify; hence it is difficult to say how many
belonged to "Judah," and how many to "Israel"—but
that there were a good many in this company of those
who belonged to the northern kingdom of the Ten
Tribes, is incidentally brought out by the mention of
two hundred and twenty-three men of Ai and Bethel
alone. Now, Bethel was the very centre of the ancient
rival idolatrous worship instituted by Jeroboam, and,
though on the boundary of Benjamin, belonged to
"Ephraim."
Between the first organised large party of immigrants
under Zerubbabel and Joshua, and the second under
Ezra, a period of fifty-eight years elapsed; but we are
not to suppose that in the interval there were no additions
to the community, which now represented the
whole united nation in Jerusalem. We read, for instance,
incidentally, in Zech. vi. 9, 15, of a party of four prominent
men who arrived in Jerusalem in B.C. 519 as
representatives of the "captivity" (that is, of those who
still remained in those parts where they were exiles),
bringing with them a present of silver and gold for the
Temple, the building of which was resumed about five
months before, as a result of the stirring appeals of
Haggai. This shows that there was continual intercourse
and communication between the community in
Palestine and the majority of the people who were still
"in Babylon"; and we may be certain that little
parties and individuals, "whose spirit God had raised,"
continually found their way to the holy city.
In B.C. 458, Ezra, "the scribe of the law of the God of
heaven," in accordance with the decree of Artaxerxes
Longimanus, organised another large caravan of those
whose hearts were made willing to return to the land
of their fathers. Part of this most favourable royal
proclamation was as follows: "I make a decree that
all they of the people of Israel, and of his priests and
Levites in my realm, which are minded of their own free
will to go up to Jerusalem, go up with thee"; and in
response to it "this Ezra went up from Babylon, ...
and there went up (with him) of the children of Israel,
and of the priests and of the Levites, and the singers
and the porters, and the Nethinim, unto Jerusalem in
the seventh year of Artaxerxes the king" (Ezra vii. 7).
This party consisted of about one thousand eight
hundred families; and apart from the priests, Levites,
and Nethinim, was made up of "the children of Israel,"
irrespective of tribal distinctions, from all parts of the
realm of "Babylon," or Assyria, now under the sway
of the Medo-Persians.
The narratives contained in the books of Ezra and
Nehemiah, under whose administration the position of
the restored remnant became consolidated, cover a
period of about 115 years, and bring us down to about
B.C. 420. Jewish history during the second period of
the Persian supremacy is wrapped somewhat in obscurity;
but we know that nearly throughout the whole
period of its existence it was more or less friendly to
the Hebrews. There was certainly no revocation of the
edicts of Cyrus and of Artaxerxes permitting those
"which were minded of their own free will" to go and
join their brethren in Palestine; and that there were
many other large and small parties of exiles who did so,
subsequent to those mentioned in Ezra and Nehemiah,
may be taken for granted.[17]
Anyhow, it is a fact that the remnant in the land
grew and grew until, about a century and a half later,
in the times of the Maccabees, and again about a century
and a half later still, in the time of our Lord, we find
"the Jews" in Palestine, a comparatively large nation,
numbering millions; while from the time of the downfall
of the Persian Empire we hear but very little more
of the Israelite exiles in ancient Assyria or Babylon.
By the conquest of Alexander, who to this day is a
great favourite among the scattered nation, the regions
of ancient Babylonia and Media were brought comparatively
near, and a highway opened between East
and West. From about this time settlements of "Jews"
began to multiply in Asia Minor, Cyprus, Crete, on the
coasts and islands of the Ægean; in Macedonia and
other parts of Southern Europe; in Egypt and the
whole northern coast of Africa; whilst some made their
way further and further eastward as far as India and
China. There is not the least possibility of doubt that
many of the settlements of the Diaspora in the time of
our Lord—both north, south, and west, as well as east
of Palestine—were made up of those who had never
returned to the land of their fathers since the time of
the Assyrian and Babylonian exiles, and who were
not only descendants of Judah, as Anglo-Israelism
ignorantly presupposes, but of all the Twelve Tribes
scattered abroad (James i. 1).
As a matter of fact, long before the destruction of
the second Temple by Titus, we read of currents and
counter-currents in the dispersion of the "Jewish"
people. Thus Artaxerxes III., Ochus, on his way to
re-conquer Egypt, "having taken Apodasmus in Judea,
conveyed the Jewish population into Hyrcania near the
Caspian Sea." When he made himself master of Egypt
we read of his finding Jews there, and, being incensed
against them on account of a stubborn defence against
him of places entrusted to their keeping, "he sent part
of them into Hyrcania, in the neighbourhood of the
country which the tribes already inhabited, and left the
rest at Babylon"; while soon after many thousands
were taken to Egypt by Alexander; and Ptolemy Soter,
one of his chief generals, who had become King of
Egypt, and had invaded Syria and taken Jerusalem in
B.C. 301, carried off one hundred thousand of them,
and forced them to settle chiefly in Alexandria and
Cyrene.
To summarise the state of things in connection with
the Hebrew race at the time of Christ, it was briefly
this:—
I. For some six centuries before, ever since the partial
restoration in the days of Cyrus and his successors, the
descendants of Abraham were no longer known as
divided into tribes, but as one people, although up to
the time of the destruction of the second Temple, tribal
and family genealogies were for the most part preserved,
especially among those who were settled in
the land.
II. Part of the nation was in Palestine, but by far
the larger number were scattered far and wide, and
formed innumerable communities in many different
lands, north and south, east and west.[18] But wherever
dispersed and to whatever tribe they may have belonged,
they all looked to Palestine and Jerusalem as their national
centre, and, with the exception of those (and they were
no doubt many) who had ceased to cherish "the hope
of Israel" and were gradually assimilating with their
Gentile neighbours, were all one in heart with their
brethren in the Holy Land. "They felt they were of
the same stock, stood on the same ground, cherished
the same memories, grew up under the same institutions,
and anticipated the same future. They had one common
centre of worship in Jerusalem, which they upheld by
their offerings; and they made pilgrimages thither
annually in great numbers at the high festivals." Thus
Philo could represent to the Roman Emperor Caligula
that "Jerusalem ought not to be considered only as
the metropolis of Judea, but as the centre of a nation
dispersed in infinite places, who were able to supply
him with potent succours for his defence. He reckoned
among the places that were still stored with Jews, the
isles of Cyprus and Candia, Egypt, Macedonia, and
Bithynia, to which he added the empire of the Persians,
and all the cities of the East, except that of Babylon,
from whence they were then expelled."
There is ample confirmation on this point in the New
Testament. Thus, for instance, we are incidentally
told in the second chapter of the Acts of the Apostles,
that among the representatives from the Diaspora who
were found in Jerusalem at that memorable feast of
Pentecost—who were doubtless there also during the
previous Passover, when the crucifixion took place—were
"Parthians and Medes and Elamites, and dwellers
in Mesopotamia, in Judea and Cappadocia, in Pontus
and Asia, in Phyrgia and Pamphylia, in Egypt and
parts of Libya and Cyrene, and sojourners from Rome,
Cretans and Arabians": all of them either Jews or
proselytes miraculously hearing in their own tongues the
mighty works of God.
Here it is to be noted that, at the commencement of
the Christian era, we find in this motley and cosmopolitan
Jewish crowd representatives from Israelitish
settlements in the very parts where they were carried
by the Assyrians and Babylonians some seven centuries
before, but who are all called "Jews," and all alike
regarded Jerusalem as their national metropolis.[19]
III. The name of "Jew" and "Israelite" became
synonymous terms from about the time of the Captivity.
It is one of the absurd fallacies of Anglo-Israelism to
presuppose that the term "Jew" stands for a bodily
descendant of "Judah." It stands for all those from
among the sons of Jacob who acknowledged themselves, or
were considered, subjects of the theocratic kingdom of
Judah, which they expected to be established by the
promised "Son of David"—the Lion of the tribe of
Judah—whose reign is to extend not only over "all the
tribes of the land," but also "from sea to sea, and from
the river unto the ends of the earth."
"That the name 'Jew,'" writes a Continental Bible
scholar, "became general for all Israelites who were
anxious to preserve their theocratic nationality, was
the more natural, since the political independence of
the Ten Tribes was destroyed." Yes, and without any
hope of a restoration to a separate national existence.
What hopes and promises they had were, as we have
seen, linked with the Kingdom of Judah and the House
of David.
Anglo-Israelism teaches that members of the Ten
Tribes are never called "Jews," and that "Jews" are
not "Israelites"; but both assertions are false. Who
were they that came back to the land after the
"Babylonian" exile? Anglo-Israelites say they were
only the exiles from the southern kingdom of Judah,
and call them "Jews." I have already shown this to
be a fallacy, but I might add the significant fact that
in the Book of Ezra this remnant is only called eight
times by the name "Jews," and no less than forty times
by the name "Israel." In the Book of Nehemiah they
are called "Jews" eleven times, and "Israel" twenty-two
times. As to those who remained behind in the
one hundred and twenty-seven provinces of the Persian
Empire, which included all the territories of ancient
Assyria, Anglo-Israelites would say they were of the
kingdom of "Israel"; but in the Book of Esther,
where we get a vivid glimpse of them at a period subsequent
to the partial restoration under Zerubbabel and
Joshua, they are called forty-five times by the name
"Jews," and not once by the name "Israel"!
In the New Testament the same people who are called
"Jews" one hundred and seventy-four times are also
called "Israel" no fewer than seventy-five times.
Anglo-Israelism asserts that a "Jew" is only a descendant
of Judah, and is not an "Israelite"; but Paul
says more than once: "I am a man which am a Jew."
Yet he says: "For I also am an Israelite." "Are they
Israelites? so am I" (Acts xxi. 39; xxii. 3; Rom. xi.
1; 2 Cor. xi. 22; Phil. iii. 5).
Our Lord was of the House of David, and of the tribe
of Judah after the flesh—"a Jew"; yet it says that it
is of "Israel" that He came, who is "over all, God
blessed for ever" (Rom. ix. 4, 5). Devout Anna was a
"Jewess" in Jerusalem, yet she was "of the tribe of
Aser." But enough on this point.
IV. From the time of the return of the first remnant
after the Babylonian exile, sacred historians, prophets,
apostles, and the Lord Himself, regarded the "Jews,"
whether in the land or in "Dispersion," as representatives
of "all Israel," and the only people in the line
of the covenants and the promises which God made with
the fathers.
At the dedication of the Temple, which was at last
finished "on the third day of the month Adar, which
was in the sixth year in the reign of Darius the king,"
they offered "for a sin-offering for all Israel, twelve
he-goats according to the number of the tribes of Israel"
(Ezra vi. 17).
Similarly, on the arrival of Ezra with the new caravan
of immigrants, they "offered burnt-offerings unto the
God of Israel, twelve bullocks for all Israel, ... and
twelve he-goats for sin-offering" (Ezra viii. 35), showing
that the returned exiles regarded themselves as the
nucleus and representatives of the whole nation. In
the post-Exilic prophets we have no longer two kingdoms,
but one people—one in interests and destiny,
although they had formerly for a time been divided.
To show that the revived nation was made up of
members of the Northern as well as the Southern kingdoms,
the prophet Zechariah calls them by the comprehensive
name of "Judah, Israel, and Jerusalem"
(Zech. i. 19); or, "the house of Judah and the house
of Joseph" (Zech. x. 6). In the prophecy occasioned
by the question addressed by the deputation from Bethel,
in reference to the continuation of the observance of the
fasts, he says: "And it shall come to pass that as ye
were a curse among the nations, O house of Judah and
house of Israel, so will I save you, and ye shall be a blessing;
fear not, and let your hands be strong" (Zech.
viii. 13).
Here the formerly two houses are included; together
they are for a time among the nations "a curse," and
together they shall be saved, and be "a blessing."[20]
Malachi, nearly a century later, when the people in
the land had become a prosperous nation, and when,
in consequence, the majority was rapidly falling into a
state of religious formality and godlessness, addresses
them as "Israel" or "Jacob," which surely includes
all his descendants, in contrast to Esau and his descendants
(Mal. i. 1-3).
In the last words of the last of the post-Exilic prophets
we have the expression "all Israel" addressed to
the people in the land; and then the long period of
silence sets in, lasting about four centuries, during parts
of which Jewish national history is lost somewhat in
obscurity. When the threads of that history are taken
up again in the New Testament, what do we find? Is
there one hint or reference in the whole book to an Israel
apart from "that nation" of the "Jews," to whom, and
of whom, the Lord and His apostles speak? There is,
indeed, reference and mention of the Diaspora, "the
dispersed among the Gentiles" (John vii. 35), forming,
as we have seen, the greater part of the nation, and
some of them still settled in the ancient regions of
Assyria and Babylon; but wherever they were, they
are all interchangeably called "Jews," or "Israelites,"
who regarded Jerusalem, with which they were in constant
communication, as the centre, not only of their
religion, but of their national hopes and destiny.
The "Israelites" who in the time of Christ were dispersed
among the Parthians, Medes, and Elamites (Acts
ii.), were as much one with the sojourners in Egypt,
Greece, and Rome, as the "Jews" in Bagdad, Persia,
or on the Caspian Sea to-day, are one with their wandering
brethren in London, Berlin, New York, or Australia,
although they then, as now (apart from the Hebrew,
which ever remains the sacred tongue, and thoroughly
understood only by the minority), spoke different
languages and dressed differently, and conformed to
different social and family customs.
But let me give you a few definite passages from the
New Testament in justification of my statement that
the Lord Jesus and the apostles, equally with the post-Exilic
prophets centuries before, regarded the "Jews"
as representatives of "all Israel," and as the only people
in the line of the "covenant, and the promises which God
made unto the fathers."
(a) In Matthew x. we have the record of the choice,
and of the first commission given to the apostles.
"These twelve," we read, "Jesus sent forth, and commanded
them, saying, Go not into the way of the
Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye
not; but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
Of course, the merest child knows that this journey of
the twelve did not extend beyond the limits of Palestine,
but the "Jews" dwelling in it are regarded as the house
of Israel, although many members of that "house"
were also scattered in other lands.
In this charge of the Lord to the apostles, we see also,
by the way, in what sense Israel is regarded as "lost."
Now Anglo-Israelites are very fond of this word, but
they use it in an unbiblical and unspiritual sense. The
Ten Tribes, like the other Two, were, in the time of
Christ, even as they still are, "lost"; but not because
they have forgotten their national or tribal identity,
but because they "all like sheep have gone astray, and
have turned every one to his own way." Or, as Jeremiah
pathetically puts it: "My people hath been lost sheep;
their shepherds [their false teachers and leaders] have
caused them to go astray; they have turned them away
on the mountains; they have gone from mountain to
hill; they have forgotten [not their national origin,
but] their resting place"—viz., Jehovah, who is the
true dwelling-place of His people in all generations. It
was this terrible fact of their spiritually lost condition
which again and again moved our Lord Jesus to compassion
for those multitudes which followed Him,
because they were "distressed" or "plagued," and
were scattered abroad as sheep not having a shepherd.
(b) On the first day of Pentecost, Peter, with the
eleven, addressed the "men of Judæa," and the great
multitude from among the dispersed "Jews," as "Ye
men of Israel," and wound up his powerful speech with
the words: "Let all the house of Israel, therefore, know
assuredly that God hath made Him both Lord and
Christ—this Jesus whom ye crucified" (Acts ii. 14, 36).
In chapter iii. of Acts, as "all the people ran together
unto them in the porch that is called Solomon's, greatly
wondering," at the notable miracle in the name of Jesus
Christ of Nazareth, Peter said: "Ye men of Israel,
why marvel ye at this Man?... The God of Abraham,
and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath
glorified His servant Jesus, whom ye delivered up and
denied before the face of Pilate when he had determined
to release Him.... Repent ye, therefore, and turn
again, that your sins may be blotted out, that so there
may come seasons of refreshing from the presence of
the Lord.... Ye are the sons of the prophets and of the
covenant which God made with your fathers, saying unto
Abraham, 'And in thy seed shall the nations of the earth
be blessed.'"
From Acts xiii. onward we find Paul among the
"Jews" in the Dispersion; and how does he address
them? By the same name as Peter addressed their
brethren in Palestine: "Men of Israel, ... the God
of this people Israel chose our fathers, and exhorted the
people when they sojourned in the land of Egypt"
(Acts xiii. 16, 17); and when he was at last brought to
Rome "and gathered the chief of the Jews" in that
city to him, he assured them that he had neither done
anything "against the people, or the customs of our
fathers," nor did he come to Rome "to accuse my
nation," but "because of the hope of Israel am I bound
by this chain"—namely, "the hope of the promise
made of God unto our fathers; as he had previously
explained before Festus and Agrippa—unto which our
Twelve Tribes, earnestly serving God night and day,
hope to attain" (Acts xxviii. 17-20; xxvi. 6, 7).
Paul knew of no "lost Ten Tribes," but on his testimony
the "Jews" in Palestine and in the Dispersion
were the "Israel" of all the Twelve Tribes, to whom the
"hope of the promise made of God unto the fathers"
belonged.
(c) And, as it is in the Gospels, and in the Acts of the
Apostles, so also in the Epistles. It would be easy to
multiply passages, but one more must suffice.
The ix., x., and xi. of Romans form the prophetic, or
"dispensational," section of that great epistle, and was
written for the special instruction of Gentile believers
in the "mystery" of God with Israel. Now I cannot,
of course, stop here to give an analysis of that wonderful
and comprehensive scripture, which is also a vindication
of God's ways with man; but there is not a hint or
suggestion in it of a "lost Israel," apart from the one
nation whose whole history he summarises from the
beginning to the end, and which is now, alas! divided
into the small minority—the "remnant according to
the election of grace," who believe, and the majority
who believe not, until the day of grace for the whole
nation shall come, and "so all Israel shall be saved,
even as it is written, 'There shall come out of Zion the
Deliverer; He shall turn away ungodliness from
Jacob.'"
But in the touching introduction to this section
(Rom. ix. 1-6), in which the apostle gives utterance to
his "great sorrow and unceasing pain of heart" because
of the unbelief of his own nation, "his brethren and his
kinsmen according to the flesh," for whose sake he had
been wishing, if it were possible, even to be himself
"anathema from Christ"—how does he call these
unbelieving "Jews" who had rejected their Messiah,
and were blindly persecuting His servants? Here are
His words: "Who are Israelites; whose is the adoption,
and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the
law, and the service of God, and the promises; whose
are the fathers, and of whom is Christ as concerning the
flesh, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen."
Now I must try to draw this very long letter to an
end. I have not followed Anglo-Israelism in all its
crooked paths of misinterpretation of Scripture and
history; I have only shown you the baselessness of its
foundations, and that the premises upon which the whole
theory rests are misleading and false. I have also given
you a summary of the true history of the tribes, which
I trust may prove helpful to you in the study of God's
Word; and the conclusion at which you and every
unbiassed person must arrive on a careful examination
of the facts which I have adduced is, that the whole
supposition of "lost tribes," in the sense in which
Anglo-Israelism uses the term, is a fancy which originated
in ignorance; and that "the Jews" are the whole,
and the only national Israel, representing not only the
"Two Tribes," but "all the Twelve Tribes" who were
"scattered abroad."
I have thought it necessary to enter all the more fully
into this point, because even some otherwise sober-minded
teachers and writers, who are not Anglo-Israelites,
have fallen into some confusion in dealing
with this subject; and no wonder, for already Josephus,
who vaguely locates a separate multitude belonging to
the Ten Tribes somewhere beyond the Euphrates
("Antiq." xi. 1, 2)—a Jewish tradition which locates a
mighty kingdom of the Ten Tribes beyond the fabled
miraculous river Sambation, which no one can cross
because it throws up stones all the week, and only
rests on the Sabbath; and the Talmud (Jer. Sanhedrin,
29, c.), which speaks of three localities whither they had
been banished, viz., the district around the above
wonderful Sambation, Daphne, near Antioch; and the
third locality could neither be seen nor named because
it was continually hidden by a cloud—all these show
how early people's minds became muddled on this
subject.[21]
Coming to the legends about the Ten Tribes in more
modern times, Eldad Ben Mahli Ha Dani came forward
in the ninth century claiming to give specific details of
the contemporary existence of the Ten Tribes and of
their location at that time.
"Dan, Naphtali, Gad, and Asher were," according to
him, "in Havilah; Zebulun and Reuben in the mountains
of Paran; Ephraim, and half of Manasseh, in South Arabia;
Simeon, and the other half of Manasseh, in the land of
Chazars (?)." According to him, therefore, "the Ten Tribes
were settled in parts of Southern Arabia, or perhaps
Abyssinia, in conformity with the identification of Havilah.
The connection of this view with that of the Jewish origin
of Islam is obvious; and David Reubeni revived the view
in stating that he was related to the king of the tribes of
Reuben situated in Khaibar in North Arabia.
"According to Abraham Farisol, the remaining tribes
were in the desert, on the way to Mecca, near the Red
Sea; but he himself identifies the River Ganges with the
River Gozan, and assumes that the Beni-Israel of India
are the descendants of the Lost Ten Tribes. The Ganges,
thus identified by him with the River Sambation, divides
the Indians from the Jews. The confusion between
Ethiopia and Farther India, which existed in the minds of
the ancients and mediæval geographers, caused some
writers to place the Lost Ten Tribes in Abyssinia. Abraham
Yagel, in the sixteenth century, did so, basing his conclusions
on the accounts of David Reubeni and Eldad
Ha Dani. It is probable that some of the reports of the
Falashas led to this identification. According to Yagel,
messengers were sent to these colonists in the time of
Pope Clement VII., some of whom died, while the rest
brought back tidings of the greatness of the tribes and
their very wide territories. Yagel quotes a Christian
traveller, Vincent of Milan, who was a prisoner in the
hands of the Turks for twenty-five years, and who went
as far as Fez, and thence to India, where he found the
River Sambation, and a number of Jews dressed in silk
and purple. They were ruled by seven kings, and upon
being asked to pay tribute to the Sultan Salim, they
declared that they had never paid tribute to any sultan
or king. It is just possible that this may have some
reference to the 'Sâsanam' or the Jews of Cochin.
"It is further stated that in 1630 a Jew of Salonica
travelled to Ethiopia, to the land of Sambation; and that
in 1646 one Baruch, travelling in Persia, claimed to have
met a man named Malkiel, of the tribe of Naphtali, and
brought back a letter from the king of the children of
Moses: this letter was seen by Azulai. It was afterwards
reprinted in Jacob Saphir's book of travels (Eben Sappir,
1. 98).
"So much interest was taken in this account that in
1831 a certain Baruch ben Samuel, of Pinsk, was sent to
search for the children of Moses in Yemen. He travelled
fifteen days in the wilderness, and declared he met Danites
feeding flocks of sheep. So, too, in 1854, a certain Amram
Ma'arabi set out from Safed in search of the Ten Tribes;
and he was followed in 1857 by David Ashkenazi, who
crossed over through Suakin to make enquiries about the
Jews of Abyssinia."[22]
But all these are legends and fancies. "We in this
twentieth century," to quote the words of a Christian
writer, "to whom there is no longer any part of the
earth unknown, know that in no country whatever,
however far from civilisation it may be, do the Ten
Tribes dwell. The 'travellers' tales' have been proved
to be false; the Ten Tribes, as such, do not exist."
In this connection I may quote Professor A. Neubauer,
a prominent learned Jew, who sums up his studies in a
series of illuminating articles on the subject which will
be found in Vol. I. of The Jewish Quarterly Review, with
these words:—
"Where are the Ten Tribes? We can only answer,
Nowhere. Neither in Africa, nor in India, China, Persia,
Kurdistan, the Caucasus, or Bokhara. We have said that
a great part of them remained in Palestine, partly mixing
with the Samaritans, and partly amalgamating with those
who returned from the captivity of Babylon. With them
many came also from the cities of the Medes, and many,
no doubt, adhered to the Jewish religion which was continued
in Mesopotamia during the period of the Second
Temple."
Some Christian writers cling to the view that while
some of the "Ten Tribes" amalgamated with the
"Jews," there is nevertheless a distinct people somewhere,
who are descendants of the Israel of the ancient
northern kingdom, which is to be brought to light in
the future, and, together with "Judah," will be restored
to Palestine, and enter into the enjoyment of the promises.
Thus the Nestorians, who inhabit the inaccessible
mountains of Kurdistan (which is part of ancient
Assyria), the Afghans, the North American Indians,
and even the Japanese have been variously identified
as that people; but this view rests upon what I believe
to be a misconception of the meaning and scope of some
of the prophecies.
It may be true that the Nestorians, and the Afghans,
and some other Eastern tribes are descendants of the
original Israelitish exiles in Assyria, but having more
or less mixed themselves up by inter-marriage with the
surrounding nations, and having given up the distinctive
national rites and ordinances, such as circumcision,
the observance of the Sabbath, etc., they have,
like many "Jews" in modern times (who gradually
assimilate with Gentile nations), cut themselves off from
the hope of Israel, and are no longer in the line of the
purpose which God has in and through that "peculiar"
and separate people.
In conclusion let me very briefly call your attention
to the remarkable prophecy in Amos ix., which will
show you that the view which I have enunciated in my
letter is the only one in keeping with the sure word of
prophecy.
The prophet Amos, though himself a Judean, his
native village, Tekoa, being about twelve miles south
of Jerusalem, was commissioned by God to prophesy
more particularly to the northern or Ten-Tribed
kingdom; and for that purpose he went and took up
his abode in Bethel, which was the centre of the idolatrous
worship set up by Jeroboam in opposition to the
worship and service of the divinely-appointed sanctuary
in Jerusalem. There his duty was to announce the
coming judgment of God on the Israel of the Ten Tribes,
on account of their apostasy. The last paragraph of
his book (chap. ix. 8-15), uttered not more than about
seventy years before the final overthrow of Samaria in
B.C. 721, is one of the most remarkable and comprehensive
prophecies in the Old Testament, and this is
the inspired forecast of the history of the Ten-Tribed
kingdom which is given in it: "Behold, the eyes of the
Lord God are upon the sinful kingdom, and I will destroy
it from off the face of the earth; saving that I will not
utterly destroy the house of Jacob, saith the Lord. For
lo, I will command and I will sift (or 'toss') the house
of Israel among all the nations, like as corn is sifted (or
'tossed' about) in a sieve, yet shall not the least grain fall
upon the earth. All the sinners of thy people shall die
by the sword, which say: The evil shall not overtake or
prevent us."
Here, then, we have the whole subject as to what
was to become of the Ten Tribes in a nutshell.
(a) First, as a kingdom, they were to be destroyed
from off the face of the earth, never to be restored; for
its very existence as a separate kingdom was only permitted
of God for a definite period as a punishment on
the house of David: and when, after a period of about
two hundred and fifty years of unbroken apostasy, it
was finally broken up by the Assyrians, there was an
end of it, without any promise of a future independent
political existence.
(b) But when it was destroyed as a kingdom, what
became of them as a people? This prophecy tells us:
"Saving that I will not utterly destroy the house of
Jacob, saith the Lord"—that is, they are to return to
the house of Jacob. They are to form part of the one
family made up of all the descendants of Jacob without
distinction of tribes. But as one house of Jacob, or
"of Israel" (as the next verse interchangeably calls
them), something terrible and unique is to befall them;
and what is it? To be "lost" some two thousand six
hundred years, and then to be identified with the Anglo-Saxon
race? Oh no! this is what was to happen:
"For lo, I will command and I will sift (or 'toss') the
house of Israel among all nations, even as corn is tossed
about in a sieve"—or, in the words of Hosea, another
prophet, who spoke primarily to the Ten Tribes, "My
God will cast them away" (not for ever, as the whole
book shows, but for a time), "because they did not
hearken unto Him; and they shall be wanderers among
the nations."
I draw your attention all the more to this point,
because a good deal has been made by some writers of
the expression in Isa. xi., where Israel is called "outcast,"
from which they infer that "Israel" is to be
found somewhere in one place, in contradistinction to
the "dispersed of Judah." But this is a fallacy. In
Jer. xxx. Judah and Israel are together called "an
outcast," but it by no means implies that they are
therefore to be sought for and found in one particular
region of the world.
It is clear from the prophecies of Amos and Hosea,
which, as we have seen, were primarily addressed to the
Ten Tribes, that if they were in the first instance "cast
out" by force from their own land, as the word in the
Hebrew means, it was with a view that they should be
"tossed about" and "wander" among "all nations."
Now note, Anglo-Israelism tells you to identify the
Ten Tribes with one nation; but if you are on the line
of Scripture and true history, you will seek for them
"among all nations."
And which people is it that is known all over the
earth as "the tribe of the weary foot and wandering
breast"? Anglo-Israelites call them "Jews" in the
limited sense of being descendants of "Judah"; but
God's Word tells us that it is "the house of Israel,"
or "the house of Jacob"; and, as a matter of fact, since
"Judah" joined their brethren of the Ten Tribes on
the destruction of Jerusalem by the Chaldeans in B.C.
588, the two have kept on their weary march together,
"wandering among the nations." Eastward and
westward (only a remnant of all the tribes returning to
the land for a time), nowhere finding ease for any length
of time, nor do the soles of their feet have rest—even
as Moses, at the very beginning of their history, and long
before the division among the tribes, prophesied would
be their united experience in case they apostatised from
Jehovah their God. And thus they will continue ever
more mixed up and intermingled among themselves,
with all genealogies lost, and not one of them either
east or west being able any longer documentarily to
prove of what tribe or family he comes—until the day
when He that scattered Israel will gather him, and by
His own Divine power and omniscience separate them
again into their tribes and families.
My last words on this subject must be those of warning
and entreaty. Do not think, as so many do, that
Anglo-Israelism, even if not true, is only a harmless
speculation. I consider it nothing short of one of the
latter-day delusions by which the Evil One seeks to
divert the attention of men from things spiritual and
eternal. Here are a few of its dangers:—
I. It goes, sometimes to the length of blasphemy (as
shown in the extracts I have copied for you at the
beginning of this letter), in misinterpreting and misapplying
Scripture. One of its foundation fallacies is
that it anticipates the Millennium, and interprets promises—which
will only be fulfilled in that blessed
period, after Israel as a nation is converted—to the
British nation at the present time. But by this process
it distorts and confuses the whole prophetic
Scripture.
II. It fosters national pride, and nationalises God's
blessings in this dispensation, which is individual and
elective in its character.
Its proud boastful tone, its carnal confidence that
Britain, in virtue of its supposed identity with the
"lost" tribes, is to take possession of all the "gates"
of her "enemies" and become practically mistress of
the whole globe, is enough to provoke God's judgment
against the nation, and to make the spiritual believer
and every true lover of this much-favoured land
tremble. It diverts man's attention from the one
thing needful, and from the only means by which he
can find acceptance with God. This it does by teaching
that "a nation composed of millions of practical
unbelievers in Christ, and ripe for apostasy, in virtue
of a certain fanciful identity between the mixed race
composing that nation and a people carried into captivity
two thousand five hundred years ago, is in the enjoyment
of God's special blessing and will enjoy it on the same
grounds for ever, thus laying another foundation for
acceptance with God beside that which He has laid,
even Christ Jesus."
After all, in this dispensation it is a question only as
to whether men are "in Christ" or not. If they are
Christians, whether Jews or Gentiles, their destiny is
not linked either with Palestine or with England, but
with that inheritance which is incorruptible and undefiled
and which fadeth not away; and if they are
not Christians, then, instead of occupying their thoughts
with vain speculations as to a supposed identity of the
British race with the "lost" Ten Tribes, it is their duty
to seek the one and only Saviour whom we must learn
to know, not after the flesh, but in the Spirit, and without
whom a man, whether an Israelite or not, is undone.
III. Then, finally, it not only robs the Jewish nation,
the true Israel, of many promises in relation to their
future by applying them to the British race in the
present time, but it diverts attention from them as the
people in whom is bound up the purpose of God in
relation to the nations, and whose "receiving again"
to the heart of God, after the long centuries of unbelief,
will be as "life from the dead to the whole world."