Refuting the British Israel Refuters

The old Worldwide Church of God (WCG) taught something that has been labeled as British-Israelism (BI) or Anglo-American Israelism.

In WCG's case, the teaching was that the British were primarily the descendants of Israel's grandson Ephraim, with the USA originally primarily composed of the descendants of Israel's grandson Manasseh. WCG taught various tribes mainly migrated to countries in Europe.

After the death of the WCG's Pastor General, Herbert W. Armstrong, a lot of apostasy hit that church and its leadership renounced BI and related doctrines.

There have also been many who have denounced aspects of BI and have claimed to refute it.

In this article, I will attempt to deal with several of the claims that some who denounce and/or claim that they have refuted BI.

This article is based on the premise that the Bible is true and biblical prophecies must come to pass. It is understood that those that do not agree with that premise may feel that they denounced British-Israelism--but those of us who have accepted numerous biblical prophecies supporting it disagree.

Science and DNA

If there are enough advances in science, it may one day be possible to have scientific certainty of the modern identifications. Yet, now, we have biblical certainty that there must be descendants of Jacob who received the promised blessings (Genesis 48). And that biblical certainty, along with various facts, helps us to be able to identify them.

One scientific controversy related to the “lost tribes” has to do with Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) testing.

Some say lack of DNA evidence disproves Israelite connections to many lands, including in Europe.

So the scientific reality is that there are limits of usefulness of DNA. Dominant and recessive genes, mutations, interbreeding, other factors, and likely unknown factors impact the usefulness of DNA—scientists do realize there are DNA limitations related to descent.

The science associated with DNA is changing and, in time, there may be more specific markers or sub-markers that will prove to be totally useful in this endeavor.

A “demic diffusion” refers to populations spreading out. “The Levant” is a geographical term historically referring to a large area in the Eastern Mediterranean region of Western Asia. Western Asia is also known as the Near East.

So, it is not surprising with “haploidtype” that “Middle Eastern populations generally connect much closer to typical northwestern European samples such as the Irish and Danes.”[vii] (MtDNA stands for mitochondrial DNA.)

DNA experts realize that DNA is not sufficient to be considered the disqualifying determinant in ancestry. Note the following related to Jews:

Furthermore, related to “demographic history,” “large surveys of mtDNA variation in Europe have thus far failed to reveal any such patterns.”[ix]

A 2022 DNA study found that while there are genetic connections of modern Jews to those of the Middle Ages, there was considerable genetic diversity in some. [x]

Hence, scientists tend to realize that DNA is not as reliable of an ethnic marker as many people believe. Even some who have reported DNA connections for the tribes of Israel, have found significant variations (e.g. reference [xii]). The reality of descent, and not DNA, is consistent with the assertions in this book on the identity of the tribes of Israel.

Therefore, those who say current DNA knowledge disproves British Israelism or disproves that the bulk of the lost tribes made it into Europe are in scientific error.

Thus, the travels of these descendants, including through Scythia, seems to have some modern support. Plus, there are a lot of mixes of peoples that have happened throughout history.

We also need to understand that the two houses of Israel themselves had differing DNA profiles. Genesis 38:1-2 shows that Judah had a child from a Canaanite, therefore the House of Judah had early Canaanite infusion. The House of Israel, in contrast to Judah, had more of an Aramaic infusion. In the Book of Genesis, we see that Isaac and Jacob took wives of their own ethnic heritage from the region of Padan Aram (cf. Genesis 25:20; 27:46-28:1-2). For this reason, although both Israel and Judah were Semitic (Shemitic/Semitic tends to refer to the white descendants of Shem), there would have been a different DNA element in each national heritage. “Therefore, Europeans descended from the House of Israel would be expected to have a DNA that differed from the House of Judah.”[xiv]

Furthermore, keep in mind that that Joseph married a woman in Egypt (Genesis 41:45) and his descendants would tend to have different DNA markers than those of his brothers who tended to marry Hebrew or Aramaic women.

Science has shown that mitochondrial (mt) haploid DNA, the type which is considered best used for ancient DNA assessments, passes from the mother.[xv] Yet, “mt DNA is totally inappropriate as a means of proving a close relationship with anybody.”[xvi] So, caution is advised.

It should be noted that sometimes the Y-chromosome is used for DNA analysis, which comes from the male.[xvii]

The above tends to confirm observations made by some that many of those who migrated to the area of the USA were ethnically different from other Europeans that they lived near, but who stayed in Europe.

Raymond McNair pointed to cranial shape differences as well as geographic ones for those who migrated away from Germany as opposed to those who remained—essentially concluding that most earlier German immigrants were actually Manassites.[xix] Yair Davidiy has also written that the Germans who ended up in America came from areas of Germany dominated by Manasseh[xx]--he further reported that several DNA tests have tended to confirm the view that the scattered tribes in Europe and elsewhere descended from Israel was correct.[xxi]

Though controversial, based upon the information above on Atlantic Modal Haplotype #3, travels, and other data, Raymond G. Helmer concluded related to Manasseh, the USA, and Y-chromosome DNA:

In short – haplotype R1b came to the United States from exactly the immigrants that we would expect to carry it.[xxii]

Let it also be pointed out that certain ancient Jewish sages and others have recognized that the British peoples descended from the tribe of Ephraim.[xxiii] Some also felt that by the time the U.S.A. formed, a high amount of the people who went to the land that the U.S.A. dominates had descended from the ancient tribe of Manasseh.[xxiv]

At this time, DNA does not fully prove nor disprove all distant ethnic ancestors.

Protestant and Former WCG Objectors

In addition to secularlists who oppose the idea, there are ones who claim to believe the Bible that have attempted to refute British-Israelism.

One BI belief is that some of the Scythians descendants of Israel. This is based on both historical accounts and scripture.

Consider that around 721 B.C., the captive tribes of Israel were placed in cities in the “land of the Medes” (2 Kings 17:6, 18:11; cf. 1 Chronicles 5:26). That land ended up being next to (and even part of) land that the nomadic Scythians later occupied.

One pastor, who had been in the old WCG said that Scythians being too barbaric to be migrating Israelites.

But that is not a proper argument. Plus scripture contrasts that.

Various researchers have claimed that after the ‘lost tribes’ of Israel journeyed from Israel to the land of the Medes, that was followed by being part of Scythia, and then into Europe.

Now, regarding the Scythians:

Central Asia enters history around the seventh century BC with the Scythians, a people described as having European morphological traits by both ancient Chinese and Herodotus.[i]

Æschylus says “The Scythians governed by good laws”. Herodotus says, “Swine they never use, nor
suffer them to be raised in their country at all”
(4:63).[ii]

On the back cover of our Lost Tribes and Prophecies: What will happen to Australia, the British Isles, Canada, Europe, New Zealand and the United States of America? book is a depiction of a Scythian on ancient pottery—if you see it you will note that he has European/Caucasian features. While not all Scythians were Israelites, many were.

Some of the Scythians moved north in various waves. Dibar Apartian reported:

Greek historians, who tell of these unexpected migrations, admit they know nothing of the origin of these immigrants. At most they tell us these peoples came from the areas around the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea.

Some historians recognize that these peoples, in their entirety, were composed of organized tribes, these saying that they were delivered from the yoke of the Assyrians! … A number of works have been written on the migration of the Cimmerians in Western Europe. History finds them … first in “Scythia,” to the north of the Black Sea, …

History tells us that a little earlier around the same time, a part of the Scythians marched against the regions of the north whose people actually were connected with Persia. That part called themselves “Saka” or “Sacae”; it was later known under the general name “Scythia.” … there exists a definite rapport between Sanskrit and Hebrew, thus between the languages of the Indo-European family (which includes Celtic) and the Semitic family ...[iii]

That being said, there is academic controversy associated with migrations of peoples. There are many unknowns about the Scythians and migrations of the tribes of Israel.

But God knows—and HIS WORD CAN BE TRUSTED.

Some have pointed to various scriptures about descendants of Israel being “scattered” (Psalm 44:11; Jeremiah 50:17; Ezekiel 34:6), as proof the identities of the tribes could not be possible. Yet, God says He will gather them from the nations (Isaiah 43:5-6, 54:7, 56:8; Jeremiah 23:3, 31:10; Ezekiel 36:22-25; Hosea 1:11; cf. Psalm 106:47). While some gathering will happen during the millennium, it should be pointed out that many of the prophecies to the tribes had to be fulfilled before the millennium (e.g. Genesis 49:10,17,23-24,27)—so they are not all future.

Furthermore, in addition to Amos 9:8-10 where God says He will be able to sift the children of Israel to bring them where He wanted them to be, notice the following:

11 ‘For thus says the Lord GOD: “Indeed I Myself will search for My sheep and seek them out. 12 As a shepherd seeks out his flock on the day he is among his scattered sheep, so will I seek out My sheep and deliver them from all the places where they were scattered on a cloudy and dark day. (Ezekiel 34:11-12)

So even though “they were scattered on a cloudy and dark day,” this does not mean that they would not fulfill God’s plan. God clearly says He can find them. And that is also plainly taught in the New Testament (cf. (Revelation 7:4-8).

There are also some DNA clues. In 2010 it was reported:

… that when teams of geneticists led by Professor Bryan Sykes took DNA samples in the Celtic regions of Britain they discovered ancestries in the Caucasus, which lay within ancient Scythia, and Mediterranean Europe. iv

Thus, the travels of these descendants, including through Scythia, seems to have some modern support.

Now, let’s see a writing by the Apostle Paul:

11 Where there is neither Gentile nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian nor Scythian, bond nor free. But Christ is all, and in all. (Colossians 3:11, DRB)

The three comparisons above are making contrasts. First, with the Gentiles not being Jews (descendants of Judah), the circumcised vs. those not circumcised, and the Gentile barbarians not being Scythians. Many of the Scythians descended from Israel. The Scythians lived north of Judah, beyond the Euphrates river.

As far as the tribes go, notice that the Book of James starts off as follows:

1 James, a bondservant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, To the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad (James 1:1).

So, the idea that the tribes were scattered was known in the first century. The fact that James addressed his letter to these tribes indicates that he knew where at least some were.

And where were they?

Not too long after James wrote, the Jewish historian Josephus wrote:

...[W]herefore 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 (Flavius Josephus. Antiquities of the Jews, 11:5:2).

Thus, Josephus recognized that the bulk of the ten tribes were still not part of Judea. He wrote what he did when he was south and west of the Euphrates river. Josephus essentially seemed to believe that the bulk of the Israelis were all part of and/or mixed with groups like the Caucasian Scythians as they were among the peoples that were beyond the Euphrates.

The fact is that during the time of Jesus, Josephus DID NOT believe that the ‘ten lost tribes’ were part of Judea in the Roman Empire.

Section References

[i] Calafell F, et al. Genetics and Population History of Central Asia. In: Archaeogenetics: DNA and the population prehistory of Europe. Cambridge, 2000, p. 260

[ii] Spencer MW. THE MISSING LINKS OR THE ANGLO-SAXONS, THE TEN TRIBES OF ISRAEL, Volume 1. Holliswood Press, 1901, pp. 179-180

[iii] Apartian D. The French-Speaking Peoples In Prophecy. 1961, 1967; translated into English by Carol Kalin in 1975

iv Hutchinson R. Book review: The Highland Clans, by Alistair Moffat. The Scotsman – April 26, 2010. http://news.scotsman.com/features/Book-review-The-Highland-Clans.6223804.jp viewed 04/26/10

Jesus once told His disciples to go to the “lost sheep of the HOUSE OF ISRAEL” (Matthew 10:6). In the 4th century, historian Eusebius wrote:

But to preach to all the Name of Jesus, to teach about His marvelous deeds … others should go to the Parthian race, and yet others to the Scythian, … and some have crossed the Ocean and reached the Isles of Britain.[i]

Connections to the Brits, Parthians, and Scythians are in historical documents.

Scythians

As related earlier, in his epistle to the Colossians, the Apostle Paul mentioned Scythians. While not all called Scythians were descendants of the tribes of Israel, it appears that significant numbers of them were.

As far as more of them later moving, the late Dr. Herman Hoeh wrote:

Greek writers, in the time of Christ, recognized that the regions of northern Asia Minor were non-Greek (except for a few Greek trading colonies in the port cities). New peoples, the Greeks tell us, were living in northern Asia Minor in New Testament times.

Here is the surprising account of Diodorus of Sicily {1st century BCE}:

... Many conquered peoples were removed to other homes, and two of these became very great colonies: the one was composed of Assyrians and was removed to the land between Paphlagonia and Pontus, and the other was drawn from Media and planted along the Tanais [the River Don in ancient Scythia — the modern Ukraine, north of the Black Sea, in southern Russia]”.[ii]

Notice the areas from which these colonies came — Assyria and Media. The very areas to which the House of Israel was taken captive! …

Parthia was defeated by Persia in A.D. 226 {now believed to have been 224}. Expelled from Parthia, the Ten Tribes and the Medes moved north of the Black Sea, into Scythia. (See R. G. Latham’s The Native Races of the Russian Empire, page 216.) From there, around A.D. 256, the Ten Tribes migrated with their brethren from Asia Minor into Northwest Europe.[iii]

Around the 2nd century CE, the Scythians tended to drop out of known history as far as much of the mainstream has been concerned.

In the 3rd century, the Roman Bishop Hippolytus taught that in the 1st century the Apostle Andrew preached to the Scythians,[iv] many of whom likely would have been descended from the tribes of Israel.

There were different groups called Scythians and it appears that many ended up in Europe and some in the British Isles.

The late Raymond McNair asserted:

MOST OF THE SCYTHS WERE ISRAELITES

Who were these Scythians, or Scyths, as they were often called? And how did the name “Scythian” originate?

This was one of the names that the Ten-Tribed House of Israel bore in their captivity. The most likely derivation of this word is as follows:

This word “SCYTHIAN” appears to be derived from the Hebrew word “SUCCOTH.” We shall later see that the language of the Scythians (Scythiac) was very similar to the Hebrew. Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance defines this word as follows. “Cukkouth, sook-kahthr’; or Cukkoth, sook-kohth’;... booths; Succoth, the name of a place in Egypt and of three in Palestine” (Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance, Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary, p.82).

The Hebrew language was written only in consonants. The vowels had to be supplied by the reader. If one takes out the vowels from the Hebrew word “Succoth” the basic part of the word is “Scth.” In Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance it is spelled phonetically both with a “c” and also with an “s.” Remember the “c” and the “s” often have the same sound, as in our English words, “cell” and “sell.” Both English words are pronounced exactly alike. ...

“Ye shall dwell in booths seven days; all that are Israelites born shall dwell in booths: That your generations may know that I made the children of Israel to dwell in booths, when I brought them out of the land of Egypt” (Lev. 23:42,43).

This was to be observed by Israel “forever” (v.41). The Hebrew word used in verses 42 and 43, translated as “booths” is from the Hebrew SCTH or SKTH. The Greek word for “Scythian” is “Scuthes,” and is pronounced much like the Hebrew word for “booth.”[v]

The above is in line with the generally accepted view that Scythians mean nomads, which is consistent with staying in temporary dwellings, booths.

The late Dibar Apartian claimed:

Among all the peoples known under the general name “Scythians,” the Sacae were the descendants of the children of Israel! Not only is it possible for us to notice a parallel by comparing the traditions of the two peoples, but history even recognizes that the majority of the peoples of the British Isles, particularly the “Scots” and the “Saxons,” are the descendants of the Scythians (New English Dictionary, Article: “Scots”), thus of the Israelites![vi]

Some who either were Scythians, or traveled through the area known as Scythia, were part of the ten tribes of Israel.

Identities of Israelitish Peoples in Europe

While there are differences in understanding of identities, Jewish writer Yair Davidiy published:

In Sercia (east Scythia) the RHABBANAEI of Reuben bordered the Garianaei of Gad ... Ribuiari ... is another form for Reuben ... Ribuari may have been similar to the Franks own name for themselves.[vii]

The French descend mainly from Reuben.[viii]

The “CHATAE SCYTHAE” ... The Chinese records say that that portion of the Naphtalities who had been north of them moved westward prior to 450 c.e. They also say that they had previously been north of the Altai mountains and were part of the Massagete, blue-eyed and fair-haired.[ix]

Finland has been identified ... as .. .especially Issachar.[x]

BENJAMIN also seems to have been represented by the NORMANS.[xi]

Britain was dominated by the Tribe of Joseph and especially the section of Ephraim ... From Britain came many of the settlers of South Africa, New Zealand, Australia, and Canada.[xii]

... characteristics of Menasseh are found in the U.S.A.[xiii]

... The Irish of today... have characteristics applicable to DAN and Simeon ... The forefather of the Danes in Danish tradition was called DAN.[xiv]

THE STATE OF ISRAEL AND THE JEWS ... Most Jews come from the tribe of Judah followed by the tribes of Benjamin and Simeon together with Levi ... Judah is the determining factor.[xv]

As far as Ireland goes, notice the following:

The legendary account of the origin of the Gaels and their coming to Ireland is as follows:

They came first out of that vast undefined tract, called Scythia-a region which probably included all of Southwest Europe and adjoining portions of Asia. ... They were called Gaedhal (Gael) because their remote ancestor, in the days of Moses, was Gaodhal Glas. [xvi]

The above (from no later than the 11th century) is consistent with the Irish coming from some Israelite tribe—the connection to Moses for Goídel Glas comes from the legendary Lebor Gabála (Book of Invasions).[xvii]

The Declaration of Arbroath of April 6, 1320 states that the Scots came there from a journey originating “from Greater Scythia ... it came, twelve hundred years after the people of Israel crossed the Red Sea, to its home in the west where it still lives today.”[xviii] Though some refuters believe otherwise, this is an ancient claim to what could be called British-Israelism.

In the late 16th century an Irish work, A View of the Present State of Ireland (1596), points to Scythians settling in Ireland.[ixx]

In 1650 John Speed and in 1807 Raphael Holinshed published papers claiming that the British Isles were settled by Scythians in the “earliest times.”[xx]

And while many moderns claim the early sources were only legends or myths, there are numerous ancient historical connections of some Scythians coming to the British Isles.

It should be noted, however, that 21st century scholars concur that those called Sacae were Scythian.[xxi] But most do not make the British connection. But that lack of connection by them, obviously does not refute BI or the Scythian component of it.

We in the Continuing Church of God believe that the descendants of Israel traveled to many places.

Section Reference

[i] Eusebius of Caesarea: Demonstratio Evangelica, Book 3, Chapter 5. Translated by W.J. Ferrar. Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge. London. The Macmillan Company. New York 1920, p. 113

[ii] Book II, — 43

[iii] Hoeh H. Where Did the TWELVE APOSTLES Go? Plain Truth, May 1964

[iv] Hippolytus. On the Twelve Apostles

[v] McNair R. Key to Northwest European Origins. Ambassador College Thesis, May 1963

[vi] Apartian DK. The French-Speaking Peoples In Prophecy. Translated from the French by Carol Kalin in 1975. Ambassador Collage, 1961

[vii] Davidy. The Tribes, pp. 161-162

[viii] Davidy. The Tribes, p. 440

[ix] Davidy. The Tribes, pp. 199-200

[x] Davidy. The Tribes, p. 217

[xi] Davidy. The Tribes, p. 232

[xii] Davidy. The Tribes, pp. 377,390

[xiii] Davidy. The Tribes, p. 403

[xiv] Davidy. The Tribes, pp. 432,438

[xv] Davidy. The Tribes, p. 433

[xvi] MacManus S. The Story of the Irish Race, A Popular History of Ireland. Irish Publishing Company, 1921, p. 8

[xvii] Goídel Glas. Oxford Reference. Oxford University Press. Oxford University Press
Copyright © 2022

[xviii] The Declaration of Arbroath: 700th Anniversary Display 1320–2020. National Reocrids of Scotland, 2020

[ixx] Shuger D. Irishmen, Aristocrats, and Other White Barbarians. Renaissance Quarterly Vol. 50, No. 2, Summer, 1997, pp. 494-525

[xx] Johnson JW. The Scythian: His Rise and Fall. Journal of the History of Ideas Vol. 20, No. 2, Apr. 1959, p. 256

[xxi] Unterla ̈nder M. et al. Ancestry and demography and descendants of Iron Age nomads of the Eurasian Steppe. Nature Communications, March 3, 2017, p. 2

Latter Days Not Meaning End Time in the Far Future?

Various ones have tried to suggest that Hebrew which was translated "latter days" or "last days" in Protestant translations does not mean way in the future or near the return of Jesus.

Well, let's look at how the Jews, who would seem to know Hebrew better than most others, translates Genesis 49:1:

And Jacob called unto his sons, and said: 'Gather yourselves together, that I may tell you that which shall befall you in the end of days. (Jewish Publication Society)

Jacob called for his sons and said, "Gather and I will tell you what will happen to you at the end of days. (Complete Jewish Bible)

Clearly, Jewish translators consider this to be for the distant future from when Moses gave it.

Then in Genesis 49 Moses gave prophecies related to the tribes of Israel.

Some believe that one or more of the tribes of Israel ended up in the British Isles. It is not a new idea. The French Huguenot magistrate M. le Loyer’s The Ten Lost Tribes, published in 1590, provided one of the earliest expressions of the belief that the Anglo-Saxon, Celtic, Scandinavian, and associated peoples were the direct descendants of the Old Testament Israelites.[i] But there was an even earlier reference by John Bale in 1500s connecting Ephraim to the royal scepter and the British Isles.[ii]

The theory of connecting biblical prophecies to peoples in the British Isles has been called British-Israelism or Anglo-Israelism. British-Israelism attained additional prominence in the 19th century and into the 20th century. There are also historical references asserting the British-Israel connection in 6th [iii] and 10th [iv] century and later documents.

Yet, many have dismissed such connections.

For example, the late Protestant Walter Martin, claimed that part of the book of Amos disproved Anglo-Israelism as he wrote:

The coup de grace to Anglo-Israelism’s fragmented exegesis is given by the prophet Amos of Judah ... (Amos, dwelling in Bethel, prophesied against Israel’s restoration as a separate kingdom [Amos 9:8-10]). We learn from this prophecy that as a kingdom, the ten-tribes were to suffer destruction, and their restoration would never be realized. How then is it possible for them to be ‘lost’ and reappear three millenniums later as the British Kingdom when that Kingdom was never to be restored?[v]

Dr. Walter Martin’s conclusion is in biblical error.

We can prove that, even using a Protestant translation of the Bible. So, let’s actually look at what Amos 9:8-10 teaches:

8 “Behold, the eyes of the Lord God are on the sinful kingdom, And I will destroy it from the face of the earth; Yet I will not utterly destroy the house of Jacob,”

Says the Lord.

9 “For surely I will command, And will sift the house of Israel among all nations, As grain is sifted in a sieve; Yet not the smallest grain shall fall to the ground. 10 All the sinners of My people shall die by the sword, Who say, ‘The calamity shall not overtake nor confront us.’ (Amos 9:8-10)

Therefore, Amos 9:8-10 teaches that God would make it so the ancient kingdom of Israel would no longer be able to exist (it still does not), that those of the house of Jacob would still remain (their descendants still do), that the Israelite people would be sifted through many nations (which they have been), and that the sinners among them will be correctively punished (which will happen). Since that is true, actual Bible believers would tend to state that Amos 9:8-10 supports, and does not disprove, what has been called Anglo-Israelism or British-American Israelism. That does not mean all ten tribes became the British Empire like some have improperly claimed, but mainly one sifted tribe (Ephraim) became the British, and one other (Manasseh) became the U.S.A.

Furthermore, Hosea 1:6-7 prophesied that God would “utterly take away” the “house of Israel,” while allowing Judah to remain. This happened beginning later in the 8th century B.C.E. when Israel was defeated by the Assyrians (2 Kings 17:3-12).

Perhaps it should also be noted that Jeremiah 51:5-6, especially when compared to Revelation 18:2-6 and Ezekiel 37:15-26, shows that into the present time that God still considers that Israel is separate from Judah. Therefore, despite comments from religious critics, the Bible does teach many aspects of “Anglo-Israelism.”

Some critics have suggested that inter-breeding has eliminated meaningful distinctions of the descendants of Israel--for them perhaps, but not to a God who says He can sift them.

Some Protestant critics have stated that since Jews are also called Israelites in the New Testament, that the Israelites are all Jews. But the reality is that while all ethnic Jews sprang from Israel (and thus are Israelites in that sense) most Israelites (like most of the other tribes) are not Jews.

[i] Brackney WH. Historical Dictionary of Radical Christianity. Scarecrow Press, 2012, p. 61

[ii] Bale J. The Image of both Churches: After the most wonderful and heavenly Revelation of Saint John the Evangelist, containing a very fruitful exposition or paraphrase upon the same. London: Printed by Thomas East, 1570. This instead could have been in an earlier work from John Bales and we expect to update the book with that information.

[iii] Giles JA, editor and translator. The Works of Gildas and Nennius. James Bohn, 1841, p. 22

[iv] Cowan EJ. Myth and Identity in Early Medieval Scotland. The Scottish Historical Review, Vol. 63, No. 176, Part 2, Oct., 1984, pp. 123-124

[v] Martin W. The Kingdom of the Cults. Baker Books, 2003, p. 518

Some have said that Ephraim and Manasseh inherited the promises of Abraham while in the land of Canaan or Israel.

No. Ephraim did not become a company of nations (though a king there was over multiple Israelite tribes). Though Ephraim and Manaseeh consider themselves a great people during the time of Joshua (Joshua 17:14-18), we do not see historical evidence that either was considered a great nation at that time.

One critic wrote:

Those who contend the interpretation of Genesis 49 regarding the blessings attributed to Joseph, as being fulfilled through the United States and Britain, seem to be unaware they are implying that Jacob’s words were almost meaningless to its initial hearer, Joseph himself, and also to his sons he shared them to, and for generations after.

No, it would be very reassuring to Joseph and his brothers to realize that God planned for their descendants to live until the end times and to be subject to various blessings.

An important reason to look into the tribes of Israel is that there were prophecies given to them by their father Jacob in the 48th and 49th chapters of the Book of Genesis. The foundation of the prophesied fate of those tribes and various other peoples is in the word of God.

Those who truly believe the Bible accept the following:

9 Remember the former things of old, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like Me, 10 Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things that are not yet done, Saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, And I will do all My pleasure,’ 11 Calling a bird of prey from the east, The man who executes My counsel, from a far country. Indeed I have spoken it; I will also bring it to pass. I have purposed it; I will also do it. (Isaiah 46:9-11)

4 … Let God be true but every man a liar. (Romans 3:4)

17 ... Your word is truth. (John 17:17)

18 it is impossible for God to lie, (Hebrews 6:18)

God will make what He said come to pass. It does not matter what evidence humans may think they have to the contrary. The history of human ‘science’ is that many supposed facts over the years, including ones that supposedly contradict scripture, have been proven to be false. This was also known in ancient times as the Apostle Paul warned:
20 … keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: 21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. (1 Timothy 6:20-21, KJV)
God’s existence and His Word is backed by true science (for numerous scientific details, see also the booklet, free online at ccog.org, Is God’s Existence Logical?). Do not let claims that real science contradicts the Bible veer you off from the faith.
Remember that prophetic promises that God inspired to be recorded in the word of God have come to pass and the others will come to pass.

One refuter argues "gates of enemies" cannot refer to "sea gates" which he says is entirely different:

“… and your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies” (Genesis 22:17).

When BI advocates list the sea gates under the control of the British and Americans, they often give the strategic histories with them that contributed to their dominance as world powers.

This has to be one of the worst interpretations of the Bible that have come out of the Church of God, or out of anywhere that has used it. Although God said that Abraham’s seed would possess the gate of their enemies, recognize that ‘gate of their enemies’ does not mean ‘sea gate of their enemies’. A sea gate is where access is given to the sea, or a gate that acts as a barrier protection against sea surges. The Suez and Panama Canals for example are not sea gates, but channel ways from one body of water to another. Regardless, Abraham never heard of a sea gate, or channel locks if the reader insists, and therefore the implication by BI expositors is that Abraham did not know what God was talking about, but their readers now should.

Well, God knew what He was promising Abraham and because of his travels and education, Abraham may have considered what we have called sea gates to be in line with what God promised.

Let's also look at the following: Notice something that was told to the wife of Isaac:

60 “Our sister, may you become The mother of thousands of ten thousands; And may your descendants possess The gates of those who hate them” (Genesis 24:60).

In the 19th and/or 20th centuries, many of the major sea gates of the world were possessed/controlled by the United States (Panama Canal and several locations in the Pacific ocean) and the British Empire (Straits of Malacca, Singapore, Suez Canal, Bab el Mandeb, Strait of Hormuz, Hong Kong, Simon’s Town/Cape of Good Hope, etc.). And while that is no longer the case for many of them, they seem to have been prophesied to be taken away for disobedience as well:

58 “If you do not carefully observe all the words of this law that are written in this book, that you may fear this glorious and awesome name, THE LORD YOUR GOD, 59 then the Lord will bring upon you and your descendants extraordinary plagues — great and prolonged plagues — and serious and prolonged sicknesses. ... 63 And it shall be, that just as the Lord rejoiced over you to do you good and multiply you, so the Lord will rejoice over you to destroy you and bring you to nothing; and you shall be plucked from off the land which you go to possess. (Deuteronomy 28:58-59,63).

Certainly, these nations have disobeyed the God of Abraham. It appears that the remaining “sea gates” that the UK has such as Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands will be separated from UK control.

The refuters cannot refute that their were many gates that have been taken away. But they still do not like this, despite the scriptures.

Most published biblical commentators understand the passages from Jacob to his descendants in Genesis 48 & 49 to be prophetic, yet many seem to conclude that they have been fulfilled long ago.

Jacob specified that his statements to his sons were for the “last days” (Genesis 49:1). Despite that fact, notice what the late renowned Protestant theologian John F. Walvoord wrote to “justify” that they were fulfilled in Old Testament times:

Also in his book, Dr. Walvoord improperly claimed that the prophecies about Naphtali, Asher, and others had fulfillment in Old Testament times, which was not the case.

Last days prophecies were not fulfilled 2,500 to 3,000 years ago as Dr. Walvoord and various others have improperly taught.

Carefully notice that Dr. Walvoord falsely asserted that although Zebulun was not at the sea, this prophesy was to be “near enough” to it, apparently to be fulfilled by the 10th century BCE.

The fact is that Zebulun was almost as far from any sea as any tribe could be on that map. It is among the least likely tribes to be a “haven for ships” in its ancient holy land location.

Thus, the prophecy in Genesis 49 had to involve Zebulun relocating away from its Palestine/Israel area location 3,000 or so years ago. The same is true for most of the other tribes as well for the biblical prophecies about them to be fulfilled.

Furthermore, consider that Ephraim and Manasseh were prophesied by Jacob to become a great nation and multitude of nations (Genesis 48:19). But that did not happen prior to Israel’s captivity c. 722/721 BCE. Nor, did they otherwise end up as a great nation and multitude of nations until the 19th century.

The Bible shows it was during the time of the New Testament that the “last days” began (Acts 2:17, Hebrews 1:2), and no commentator has been able to properly demonstrate how else the prophecies of Genesis 49:1-27 were fulfilled in the “last days.”

Those of us who truly believe what the Bible says realize that the last days promises had to be fulfilled after Jesus came to earth and thus, some of us have looked into more recent history to point to their fulfillment.

The Bible shows that Isaac had two sons. And that Isaac ended up giving the following blessing to his son Jacob:

Not long thereafter, Jacob fell in love with Rachel (Genesis 29:18). Their first son she named Joseph, meaning He (God) will add (Genesis 30:24).

When Jacob was older, God renamed him Israel (Genesis 32:28). When he was even older, he passed on his name and gave blessings to

In Genesis 48, Jacob is clearly indicating that biblically one or both of the sons of Joseph could be referred to by the name Israel (though Ephraim looks to be referred to more as Israel than Manasseh through scripture) and seemingly also Jacob.

God had Jacob intentionally give the “right hand” blessing to Ephraim (Genesis 48:13-14) and God later declared:

Hence, God clearly decided that one who was not actually born first in any family would be designated as the firstborn, indicating Ephraim was to receive firstborn blessings. Ephraim was born last, after the 12 sons of Jacob and after his brother Manasseh—this brings to mind the passage from Jesus about the last being first and the first last (e.g. Matthew 19:30).

That said, consider that Jesus is, "the firstborn among many brethren" (Romans 8:29) and He will later take over the throne of David from the adopted firstborn, Ephraim.

So, Ephraim and Manasseh were promised many blessings. Those of us who believe the Bible understand that some peoples had to receive those blessings.

Consistent with Deuteronomy 33:17, Britain had colonies (Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the Falkland Islands) and other large outposts (Rhodesia, India, Hong Kong, and South Africa) to “the ends of the earth,” while the USA has had military bases all over the world. And, together, the Anglo-American nations have militarily pushed people around the world.

Here is something from a Jewish source (Yair Davidiy), followed by that source citing a different source:

We in the Continuing Church of God believe that the United States received the blessings to Manasseh and did become a great nation. The Encyclopedia Britannica once reported:

As far as Ephraim goes, we believe that the promises went to the United Kingdom and its British descended allies. As far as being greater in some ways to the U.S.A., notice the following:

The British Commonwealth was truly a multitude of nations. The sun did not set on the old British empire. Even today, we see a company of nations from Ephraim including the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand.

Tea Tephi and History

Is it possible that there is a connection between the British Royal Family, a daughter of a Judean king, and the prophet Jeremiah?

The above is one idea about how the royal line may have come to the British Isles. Some may point out that some of this is based on legend and conjecture, and hence not proof. However, it is not offered as proof, only as an explanation of perhaps how God transferred the throne of David to the British Isles as well as showing some linguistic connections. King Heremon has also been referred to as Eochaid.[ii]

The tender twig looks like a reference to a female descendant of Zedekiah. The late John Ogwyn said this is what this means and that this princess went to Ireland with Jeremiah, then married into the royal Zerah line, and healed the breach.[iii] Raymond McNair concurred and wrote that the tender twig in Ezekiel 17:22 was Tea Tephi.[iv]

It appears that there are some linguistic and other connections. The impact of Semitic languages in Europe, including the British Isles has been noticed by more modern scholars as well.[vi]

One naysaying critic in at least one somewhat slick “smooth talking” video from 2022 supposedly disproving British-Israelism claimed that there were no Hebrew linguistic connections to the British Isles and that Tea Tephi was someone who was made up by researcher Frederick Glover in the 19th century. That is false.

Teah/Tea Tephi herself is mentioned in an old Irish poem from the 6th century by Amergin (also spelled Amairgen) and is referred to as Queen in a ballad from the 11th century which was translated in the Annals of the Four Masters[vii] by the 1630s. The 6th century poem says that Tea married Heremon.[viii] The 1024 ballad refers to the grave of Tea as also the tomb of Tephi, and also says, “Tephi, ‘the most beautiful.’”[ix]

Her name is not hard to pick up when you look at something like the original Gaelic text that Amergin used in the 6th century as put forth below:

While there are many points of view, in Tea Tephi’s case, the naysayer could have easily found her prior historical existence out (instead it looks like he got his view from Wikipedia, which had it wrong—and I helped correct it, though Wikipedia would not allow a full correction—despite receiving clear proving references). The following passage applies to many of that naysayer’s ilk:

The use of smooth talkers against Christian leaders speaking truth even happened in New Testament times (Acts 24:1-8).

As far as possible biblical connections to the name Tephi, Solomon had a daughter named Taphath (1 Kings 4:11) also spelled Tephath (Brenton Septuagint Translation). Since ancient Hebrew did not have vowels, the fact that a female descent of Solomon had a name similar to Tephi would be consistent with it possibly being a derivative of the royal Hebrew name.

As far as her husband’s name goes, the Hebrew Bible has the term Hermon 13 times, as the name of a mountain (mountains often picture governance scripture, e.g. Ezekiel 20:40)—and the Hebrew term for that one (Deuteronomy 3:9) could possibly be related to the name of the Heremon.

Perhaps it should be added that in the 19th century, John Goodrich claimed to translate songs and other Celtic-related sources into a poetic book he put together called The Book of Tephi.[xi] Because he relied heavily on oral traditions, it has been dismissed as a forgery or otherwise questionable. Yet, since it is not proven to be a forgery, it may not be, and likely contains some statements once based on fact. It does contain many statements that support what is in this section, but it has not been a source for Tea Tephi or other references in this article.

But the biblical fact is that the Jews were separate from the Israelites as there were two kingdoms.

It is not based solely on genealogical data, but looking at the world and its history in the light of biblical prophecies.

The above passages make clear that the throne of David was to last. Since scripture cannot be broken (John 10:35), then someone has to be on that throne now. Let me also state that there have been Levites ever since Jeremiah 33:17-18--the fact that they do not do their original biblical role for offerings does NOT change the fact that they still exist, which is all that scripture requires for them. It should also be noted that Young’s Literal Translation says “one” instead of “a man,” which literally allows for a woman to have the throne (the NET uses “successor” and the NLT uses “descendant”).

Furthermore, since God had Jeremiah write this during the life of the last king on the throne of David in Jerusalem (Zedekiah) this may also be suggesting that Jeremiah would be involved in the continuity of the Davidic throne.

Although some have improperly asserted that Jeremiah 33:17 does not mean that anyone actually has to be on the throne, only available to be on it, remember also the following:

The scepter came to David of Judah when he became king (cf. Numbers 24:17; 2 Samuel 8:2). Now, if “Until Shiloh comes” means Jesus’ first coming as many have wrongly asserted, then where were the kings between Zedekiah (the last King of Judah) and Jesus?

Furthermore, during His first coming, Jesus said His Kingdom was future (John 18:36), so He did not assume the throne then. Critics of BI do not seem to realize that and they wrongly rationalize away many scriptures. Jesus will sit on the throne of David in millennial the Kingdom of God.

That said, additionally, Genesis 49:10 has to be a reference to the second coming of Jesus, as we did not see the obedience of the people given to Him during the first coming. Hence, biblically, there needs to be a royal succession from Judah’s line until Jesus’ return.

Scripture is plainly teaching that someone has had to have been on that throne since the time of the Zedekiah (a contemporary of Jeremiah), who was the last king of Judah in the Holy Land until Jesus coming to set up the millennial kingdom.

Since someone had to fill the regal role, we can see through historical records and legends that the royalty in the British Isles fits this.

The throne was to be established forever—and it has been! This is the throne Jesus will return to. The idea that Jesus would return to the throne of David is NOT a 19th, 20th, or 21st century invention.

The idea that “Christ upon His return, will take over David’s throne” was believed by those who held to many Church of God doctrines in Transylvania during the late Middle Ages.[i]; see also Die Sabbatharier in Siebenburgen.[ii]

Notice that these are still future prophecies. Jesus is not now on the throne of David and He will not be until the coming millennial Kingdom of God.

Therefore, until Jesus returns, someone needs to be on the throne—and the British Royal Family has an occupant to this day.

In the Bible, the expression “king’s daughters” is used twice, both in the Book written by Jeremiah (Jeremiah 41:10, 43:6), with Jeremiah travelling with them to Egypt the second time. Could Jeremiah have travelled elsewhere with them?

If Jeremiah took one or more of the “king’s daughters” with him to Ireland, this would have been a way to fulfill the following prophecies:

The Davidic kingdom ended in Judah nearly six centuries BEFORE Christ came (around 586 B.C.), thus there had to be a way for the descendants of David to rule. And probably prior to the time the last true king of Judah died, his daughters (at least one of whom seems to have been in the British Isles) married and later had descendants to reign. Those who actually believe what the Bible teaches realize that somehow God must have fulfilled His promises. And the British Isles seems to make the most historical sense to fulfill this.

As far as Jeremiah, himself, goes, when my wife and I were in Ireland in 2022, we went to several places that some claim that Jeremiah visited and/or was buried. While many scholars believe there was no ancient proof he was in Ireland, there are ancient records pointing to a prophet from the Hebrews coming to Ireland.[i]

Some claim Jeremiah is referred to in the ancient literature as Iarbanel, Caei,[ii] and/or Ollam Fodhla.[iii]

Though some have eliminated Ollam Fodhla as being Jeremiah because of date issues, there seems to have been more than one Ollam Fodhla in ancient Irish history. A 6th century BCE date is given for one Ollamh Fodhla[iv] which would seem to be the person some claim was Jeremiah.[v]

Now, at least one critic has cited a mistranslation of some scriptures in the 21st chapter of Ezekiel as “proof” that the royal line died out in Judea and could not make it to the British Isles. Yet properly understood, the following supports the idea of the throne going away from Judea:

Notice that literally translated verse 26 says that the crown will be carried away—and it was—eventually to the British Isles.

This Davidic dynasty continued, but was overturned from Judea through Tea Tephia, whose descendants became kings of Ireland. It was overturned and transplanted again in Scotland. It was overturned again and moved to London, England, where this same dynasty continues today in the reign of King Charles III.

Well, the royal location was ruined as it was replaced three times. Whether or not we say overturn or ruin, we get the same result.

Frederick Glover put together a list of the monarchs of Judah through Queen Victoria. As far as dates go, it is well known that there are ancient contradictory reports,[i] so for anything before the 5th century A.D. dates are quite tentative.

The following is basically his list, with additions after Queen Victoria added by this author (a “?” indicates F. Glover did not use the letter K or Q for the specific individual) plus anything within {} were not in his list, but came from the Royal Irish Academy[ii] which he also consulted as well as some other sources:

K. David (B.C. 1085-1015), Bathsheba.
K. Solomon (B.C. 1033-975), Naamah.
K. Rehoboam (B.C. b. 1016, d. 958), Maacah.
K. Abijam (B.C. 958-955).
K. Asa (BC. 955-914), Azubah.
K. Jehoshaphat (B.C. 914-889).
K. Jehoram (B.C. 889-885), Athaliah.
K. Ahaziah (B.C. 906-884), Zibiah.
K. Joash (B.C. 885-839), Jehoaddan.
K. Amaziah (B.C. b. 864, d. 810), Jecholiah.
K. Uzziah (B.C. b. 826, d. 758), Jerushah.
K. Jotham (B.C. b. 783, d. 742).
K. Ahaz (B.C. b. 787, d. 726), Abi.
K. Hezekiah (B.C. b. 751, d. 698), Hephzibah.
K. Manasseh (B.C. b. 710, d. 643), Meshullemeth.
K. Amon (B.C. b. 621, d. 611), Jedidah.
K. Josiah (B.C. b. 649, d. 610), Hamutah.
K. Zedekiah (B.C. 578-599).

K. Heremon (fl. B.C. 580), Tea Tephi.
K. Irial Faidh (reigned 10 years).
K. Eithriall (reigned 20 years).
K.? Follain.
K. Tighernmas (reigned 50 years).
K.? Eanbotha.
K.? Smiorguil.
K. Fiachadh Labhriane (reigned 24 years).
K. Aongus Ollmuchaidh (reigned 21 years).
K.? Maoin.
K. Rotheachta (reigned 25 years).
K.? Dein.
K. Siorna Saoghalach (reigned 21 years).
K.? Oholla Olchaoin.
K. Giallebadh (reigned 9 years).
K. Aodhain Glas (reigned 20 years).
K. Simeon Breac (reigned 6 years).
K. Muireadach Bolgrach (reigned 4 years).
K. Fiachadh Tolgrach (reigned 7 years).
K. Duach Laidhrach (reigned 10 years).
K.? Eochaidh Buaigllcrg.
K. Ugaine More the Great (reigned 30 years).
K. Cobhthach Coalbreag (reigned 30 years).
K.? Meilage.
K. Jaran Gleofathaeb (reigned 7 years)
K. Coula Cruaidh Cealgach (reigned 4 years).
K. Oiliolla Caisfhiachach (reigned 25 years).
K. Eochaidh Foltleathan (reigned 11 years).
K. Aongus Tuirmheach Teamharch (reigned 30 years)
K. Eana Aighneach (reigned 28 years).
K.? Labhra Suire.
K.? Blathuchta.
K.? Easamhuin Eamhua.
K.? Roighnein Ruadh.
K.? Finlogha.
K.? Fian.
K. Eodchaidh Feidhlioch (reigned 12 years).
K.? Fineamhuas.
K. Lughaidh Riadhdearg.
K. Criombthan Niadhnar (reigned 16 years).
K.? Fearaidhach Fion Feachtnuigh.
K. Fiaebadh Fionoluidh (reigned 20 years).
K. Tuathal Teachtmar (reigned 50 years).
K. Coun Ceadchatbach (reigned 20 years).
K. Arb Aonflier (reigned 30 years).
K. Cormae Usada (reigned 40 years).
K. Caibre Liffeachair (reigned 27 years {258-283}).
K. Fiachadh Sreabthuine (reigned 30 years {283-322}).
{K. Colla Uias 322-326.}
K. Muireadhach Tireach (reigned 30 years {327-357}).
{K. Coelbadh 357-358.}
K. Eochaidh Moigmeodhin (reigned 7 years {358-365}).
{K. Crimmthan 366-378.}
K. Niall of the Nine Hostages {379-405}.
K.? Eogan {or K. Diathri 406-427}.
K. Murireadhach {or K. Laoghaire 429-458}.
K.? Erc {Foghan}, {princess? Earea}.

{“The ruler most closely associated with the dynastic transfer from northern Ireland to western Scotland is Fergus Mor, son of Erc.”[iii]}

K. Feargus More (A.D. 487).
K. Dongard (d. 457).
K. Conran (d. 535).
K. Aidan (d. 604).
K. Eugene IV. (d. 622).
K. Donald IV. (d. 650).
K.? Dongard.
K.? K. Eugene V. (d. 692).
K.? Findan.
K. Eugene VII (d. A.D. 721), Spondan.
K. Effinus (d. A.D. 761), Fergina.
K. Achaius (d. A.D. 819), Fergusia.
K. Alpin (d. A.D. 834).

K. Kenneth II. (d. A.D. 854).
K. Constantin II. (d. A.D. 874).
K. Donald VI. (d. A.D. 903).
K. Malcolm I. (d. A.D. 958).
K. Kenneth III. (d. A.D. 994).
K. Malcolm II. (d. A.D. 1033).
K.? Beatrix m. Thane Albanach.
K. Duncan I. (d. A.D. 1040).
K. Malcolm III. Canmore (A.D. 1055-1093), Margaret of England.
K. David I. (d. A.D. 1153), Maud of Northumberland.
Prince Henry (d. A.D. 1152), Adama of Surrey.
Earl David (d. A.D. 1219), Maud of Chester.
Q.? Isobel m. Robert Bruce III.
K.? Robert Bruce IV. m. Isobel of Gloucester.
K.? Robert Bruce V. m. Martha of Carriok.
K. Robert I. Bruce (A.D. 1306-1329), Mary of Burke.
Q.? Margary Bruce m. Walter Stewart III.
K. Robert II (d. A.D. 1390), Euphemia of Ross (d. A.D. 1376).
K. Robert Ill. (d. A.D. 1406), Arabella Drummond (d. A.D. 1401)
K. James I (A.D. 1424-1437), Joan Beaufort.
K. James II. (d. A.D. 1460), Margaret of Gueldres (d. A.D. 1463).
K. James III. (d. A.D. 1488), Margaret of Denmark (d. A.D. 1484).
K. James IV. (d. A.D. 1543), Margaret of England (d. A.D. 1539).
K. James V. (d. A.D. 1542), Mary of Lorraine (d. A.D. 1560).
Q. Mary (d. A.D. 1587), Lord Henry Darnley.
K. James VI {1567-1603, then became King James I of Great Britain and moved to England in 1603}.

K. James VI. and I. (A.D. 1603-1625), Ann of Denmark.
Princess Elizabeth (1596-1613), K. Frederick of Bohemia.
Princess Sophia m. Duke Ernest of Brunswick.
K. George I. (1698-1727), Sophia Dorothea Zelle (1667- 1726).
K. George II. (1727-1760), Princess Caroline of Auspach (1683-1737).
Prince Frederick of Wales (1707-1751), Princess Augusta of Saxe-Gotha.
K. George III. (1760-1820), Princess Sophia of Mecklenburgh Strelitz (1744-1818).
Duke Edward of Kent (1767-1820), Princess Victoria of Leiningen.
Q. Victoria (b. 1819, cr. 1838), Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg.
K. Edward VII (1901-1910) Q. Alexandra of Denmark.
K. George V (1910-1936), Q. Mary of Trek.
K. Edward VIII (1936-1936—note: he was never actually crowned), Duchess Wallis Simpson.
K. George VI (1936-1952), Q. Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon.
Q. Elizabeth II (1952-2022), Prince Philip Mounbatten.
K. Charles III (2022-present), Q. Camilla Rosemary Shand.

There has been a royal succession line. A line we do not see in Africa nor Asia nor Latin America.

King James VI is credited for combining the English and Scottish crown into one. The UK Parliament was posted:

Until the early 17th century England and Scotland were two entirely independent kingdoms. This changed dramatically in 1603 on the death of Elizabeth I of England. Because the Queen had died unmarried and childless, the English crown passed to the next available heir, her cousin James VI, King of Scotland. … In 1606 he gave orders for a British flag to be created which bore the combined crosses of St George and of St Andrew. The result was the Union Jack, Jack being a shortening of Jacobus, the Latin version of James.[iv]

So, there were some blood relations between the Scottish and English monarchs, and then they blended.

In 1957, Dr. Herman Hoeh wrote of the British Commonwealth nations being Ephraim.[v] As it turns out, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand all accept the British sovereign as do a dozen (mainly island) nations who are part of the Commonwealth (there are also other Commonwealth nations, that although they do not accept the British throne, they do to a degree since they accept King Charles III as the head of the Commonwealth).

Since God declared Ephraim as His firstborn (Jeremiah 31:9), it is interesting to note that the predominant Ephraimite nations are still all directly under the “throne of David.”

Are there other biblical connections between the British Royal Family and the line of King David?

In 1860 and 1881, Frederick Glover wrote about the connection between the children of Israel and the British. Later, he shared information with Queen Victoria. This was then reported in a New Zealand newspaper in 1902:

Princess Alice, Countess of Athlone, was the last surviving granddaughter of Queen Victoria. Princess Alice was the main patron of the British-Israel-World Federation organization which formed in 1919. She attended the federation’s first Congress in July 1920, and remained a patron of the BIWF until her death in January 1981.[iii]

Furthermore, notice something that the then Duke of York, who later was King George VI of Great Britain from 11 December 1936 until his death on February 6, 1952, reportedly wrote in 1922:

So, even a recent King of Great Britain believed in British-Israelism (though Ephraimites, per say, are not the chosen race—they are recipients of certain covenant blessings).

In ancient times, God had the prophet Samuel anoint David to be king with oil from Israel (1 Samuel 16:1,13). Notice now a part of the ceremony for the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II back in 1953:

So, we see a tie in with governance, oil, Israel, David’s son Solomon and other biblical aspects. The ancient kings of Israel were anointed (1 Samuel 15:1; 1 Kings 1:34) with oil (1 Samuel 16:13). Scepters were long recognized in the Bible as a symbol for ruling (Genesis 49:10; Ezekiel 19:14) and one was given to the new Queen. Having all of these as part of a coronation ceremony may be more than a coincidence or simple imitation of what some saw in the Bible (some assert the basic ceremony originated with Bishop Dunstan of the 10th century, but it is difficult to know what was done earlier in Scotland or Ireland and if he had access to any related information).

Furthermore, the olive oil mixture to be used to anoint King Charles III was consecrated on the Mount of Olives which is adjacent to Jerusalem, and according to Justin Welby (the Archbishop of Canterbury), “ancient kings through to the present day, monarchs have been anointed with oil from this sacred place.” [vi] While those “ancient kings” referred to may only go back to Crusader times, it is possible that some anointing oil was originally brought to Ireland by Jeremiah and, in time, others decided to replenish it with an olive oil mixture from Jerusalem.

The coronation itself is planned to take place above the the Stone of Destiny, also known as the Stone of Scone (Scoon). Some say that Jeremiah brought it over and it was also used in Israel. It was later brought to Scotland than taken to England. Others claim that it was really from a quarry in Scotland, which would negate the Israel location as well as reports of its transfer. The stone is red sandstone and such stone is found in the Holy Land. Whether or not the stone came from there does not negate British Israelism--but if it really did, that would support it.

Well, as it turns out, a longtime colleague of mine (who asked not to have his name in this book because it could impact his relationship with the Royal Family), told me on April 6, 2022, that decades ago, then Prince Charles privately told him that “he believed that the British royalty was part of the line of David, but would never say this in public or print” and that Charles seemed to know a lot about the British-Israelite matter.

Yet even if no one in the Royal Family believed in this, there are various reasons to tie the royal line to the Bible’s King David.

Are British-Israelite Refuters Ignoring Scripture and History?

Science and DNA

Tea Tephi and History