This is another critical review of the principal beliefs known as British-Israel, and likewise with this paper we will address statements by W.H. Poole in his book entitled Anglo-Israel Or, The British Nation: The Lost Tribes Of Israel (hereinafter A-I/BN). The purpose of this exposé is to praise such a belief system where it is correct and give constructive criticism where it is in error. So far, our criticism has been mostly negative, but with the following quotation taken from pages 6 & 7, our criticism will be highly favorable and praiseworthy. If we are going to convey our Israel Identity message to other people, I would suggest that one should take note of all the Scripture passages used here by Poole on this occasion and memorize them, for they are outstanding!:
“The Word of God clearly intimates that Israel would lose their identity, their land, their language, their religion and their name, that they would be lost to themselves, and to other nations lost. Deut. xxxii. 26, ‘I will scatter them into corners, I will make the remembrance of them to cease from among men.’ Isa. viii. 17, ‘The Lord hideth his face from the house of Jacob.’ Isa. xxviii. 11, He was not any more to speak to them in the Hebrew tongue; but ‘by another tongue will I speak unto this people.’ They shall no more be called Israel, He will call them by another name. Isa. lxii. 2, ‘And thou shalt be called by a new name which the mouth of the Lord shall name.’ Isa. lxv. 15, ‘The Lord shall call his servants by another name.’ Psalm lxxxiii. 4, ‘The name Israel shall be no more in remembrance.’ ‘And ye shall lose, or leave, your name, and the Lord shall call his servants by another name.’ Isa. xl. 27, ‘Why sayest thou O Jacob! and speakest O Israel! my way is hid from the Lord, and my judgment is passed over from my God?’
“Isa. liv. 7-8, ‘For a small moment have I forsaken thee, but with great mercies will I gather thee – In a little wrath I hid my face from thee for a moment; but with everlasting kindness will I have mercy upon thee.’
“In Hos. i. 4, 6-7, the Lord says, ‘I will cause to cease the kingdom of the house of Israel,’ ... and, ‘I will no more have mercy upon the house of Israel but I will utterly take them away,’ ... ‘But I will have mercy upon the house of Judah.’ Hos. i. 9, ‘Israel is to be called Lo-ammi, for ye are not my people and I will not be your God.’ The house of Israel is here compared to a wife that had proved unfaithful to her husband, and had sought many lovers, and the Lord had given her a bill of divorcement. Jer. iii. 6-7, She went away from me, saith the Lord, and she returned not, ‘and her treacherous sister Judah saw it.’ Ezek. xxxiv. 2, 6, 8, ‘Woe be to the shepherds of Israel! My sheep wandered through all the mountains, yea, my flock was scattered upon all the face of the earth, my flock became a prey.’ Amos viii. 12, ‘They shall wander from sea to sea.’ Amos ix. 9, ‘For lo ! I will command and I will sift the house of Israel among all nations like as corn is sifted in a sieve; yet shall not the least grain fall upon the earth.’ Hos. ii. 6, ‘Therefore, behold, I will hedge up thy way with thorns, and make a wall, that she shall not find her paths.’ Hosea viii. 8, 9, ‘Israel is swallowed up; now shall they be among the gentiles as a vessel wherein is no pleasure,’ i.e. they shall be hidden from view, or put out of sight. ‘For they are gone up to Assyria, a wild ass alone by himself.’ Hosea ix. 1, ‘Rejoice not, O Israel, for joy, as other people, for thou hast gone a whoring from thy God. 17, My God shall cast them away, and they shall be wanderers among the nations.’ Hos. xiii. 3, ‘Therefore they shall be as the morning cloud, and as the early dew that passeth away; as the chaff that is driven with the whirlwind out of the floor, and as the smoke out of the chimney.’ All this surely means to be lost, lost to themselves, and to other nations.”
Now I don’t agree with his use of the term “Lord”, as it means “Baal”, but many in British-Israel haven’t as yet received light on that either. Otherwise, Poole has done a very commendable job of presenting the story of the house of Israel in the Old Testament! Especially commendable is where he pointed out Hosea 2:6 which reads: “Therefore, behold, I will hedge up thy way with thorns, and make a wall, that she shall not find her paths.” This is proof positive that the house of Israel never returned to Palestine, as some in judeo-churchianity insist. What’s more, they will never return as Palestine couldn’t hold them, and it is prophesied that old Jerusalem shall never rise again! See my article The Broken Bottle Nation.
While Poole did quite well in this last quoted portion on pages 7 & 8, at the bottom of page 8 he begins a topic under the subheading “In The Valley”, where he again goes somewhat astray, stating:
“IN THE VALLEY
“In Deut. xxviii. 36, ‘The Lord shall bring thee (Israel) and thy king which thou shalt set over thee into a nation which neither thou nor thy fathers have known; and there shalt thou serve other Gods [sic gods], wood and stone.’ This was all realized by Israel in Zedekiah’s day. It never did happen to the Jews. 48, ‘Therefore shalt thou serve thine enemies which the Lord shall send against thee, in hunger, and in thirst, and in nakedness, and in want of all things: and he shall put a yoke of iron upon thy neck, until he have destroyed thee.’ Here is a true photograph of Israel under the Assyrian yoke.”
To show you Poole’s error here, I will repeat an excerpt of what he just stated: “... ‘The Lord shall bring thee (Israel) and thy king which thou shalt set over thee into a nation which neither thou nor thy fathers have known; and there shalt thou serve other gods, wood and stone.’ This was all realized by Israel in Zedekiah’s day. It never did happen to the Jews ...” It appears what Poole is saying here is that about 150 years before the time of Zedekiah, the ten tribes of the northern kingdom of Israel were taken captive into Assyria and were in bondage to them. But it is the statement, “... It never did happen to the Jews ...” that doesn’t make any sense. Evidently, here, Poole is intending the term “Jew” to mean the two tribes of the southern kingdom. But he is wrong, it did happen under Sennacherib king of Assyria (705-681 B.C.). Thus, by the time of Zedekiah, all twelve tribes of both Israel and Judah were under the yoke of the Assyrian. It was only a remnant of Judah, at the time of Zedekiah, that wasn’t taken to Assyria.
Also, I believe that Poole has taken Deut. 28:36 out-of-context inasmuch as Deuteronomy chapter 28 is a warning to all twelve tribes, not just the ten tribes of the house of Israel alone. After all, the division between the northern kingdom of Israel and the southern kingdom of Judah hadn’t happened as yet at the time of Moses. Moses’ Yahweh-inspired warning was to all of the tribes as it was also at Deut. 4:26-28 which states:
“26 I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that ye shall soon utterly perish from off the land whereunto ye go over Jordan to possess it; ye shall not prolong your days upon it, but shall utterly be destroyed. 27 And Yahweh shall scatter you among the nations, and ye shall be left few in number among the heathen, whither Yahweh shall lead you. 28 And there ye shall serve gods, the work of men’s hands, wood and stone, which neither see, nor hear, nor eat, nor smell.”
Then it is stated a couple verses later, at 30-31: “When thou art in tribulation, and all these things are come upon thee, even in the latter days, if thou turn to Yahweh thy God, and shalt be obedient unto his voice ... he will not forsake thee, neither destroy thee, nor forget the covenant of thy fathers which he sware unto them.” This is where we are today; all twelve tribes of us!
Continuing again to quote Poole on page 9, we will also scrutinize each of his remarks to determine whether they are meritorious or flawed:
“Jer. vii. 15. ‘And I will cast you out of my sight, as I have cast out all my [sic your] brethren, even the whole seed of Ephraim.’
“In Ezekiel xxxvii, Israel is presented to us as a valley full of bones, and they were said to be very dry, their hope was lost, they were cut off from their parts; from the two tribes. I am aware that some of our expositors say, the dry bones are the Gentile people, and sinners in general, that the duty of the Church is to preach and pray for the breath from heaven, and the result will be a revival of religion among the dry bones. This may be thought very ingenious but it is a miserable perversion of the truth of God. If the expounder would read the context, he would be saved from such deceitful handling of the Word. See the 11th vs. ‘Son of Man, these bones are the whole house of Israel,’ and that house is represented as dead, lost, cut off, buried, and the Lord promises to open their graves, and to cause them to come up out of their graves, and to bring them into their own land.’
“What can all this mean? Who can read those passages and study their obvious meaning, and not see in them that the ten tribes were to be lost, out of sight, out of remembrance, scattered, hidden, their relation, circumstances, language and name changed? As to their religion Hosea is very minute, where he says, iii. 4, 5, ‘For the children of Israel shall abide many days without a king, and without a prince, and without a sacrifice, and without an image, and without an ephod, and without teraphim. Afterward shall the children of Israel return, and seek the Lord their God, and David their king; and shall fear the Lord and his goodness in the latter days.’
“It is only when you have cleared away the rubbish of preconceived notions gleaned from book-makers and professed historians and have noted, specially, what God has said to those people and of them, that you will be able to see the distinction made in the Scripture between the two houses of Judah and Israel. This distinction is very remarkable, and if we fail to observe it, we confuse the various prophecies relating to them, and the difficulties and apparent contradictions make the whole subject distasteful ...”
When Poole quoted Jeremiah 7:15, “And I will cast you out of my sight, as I have cast out all my brethren, even the whole seed of Ephraim”, he was correct that this verse is speaking strictly of the northern ten tribed house of Israel. The term “Ephraim” is often used in the context of meaning the ten tribed house of Israel, as distinct from the house of Judah. It should be noted, though, that the KJV has “your brethren”, rather than “my brethren”, as Poole has it here. Surely this was but a slip of the pen on Poole’s part.
Also, I cannot agree with Poole as to the “valley of dry bones” at Ezekiel chapter 37. I believe that America represents Ezekiel’s valley of dry bones, and when the revived dry bones “stood up upon their feet” (v. 10), it represented America forming a government, and a powerful nation. When it says “these bones are the whole house of Israel” (v. 11), in this particular passage the context is all the twelve tribes of Israel of both the houses of Israel and Judah! Verse 16 should be a key for understanding Ezek. ch. 37, for indeed the two sticks of Israel (Joseph Ephraim) and Judah have been joined in one hand in America. I can see, though, why a British citizen might not fully understand Ezek. ch. 37. Although I believe Poole to be in error on Ezek. ch. 37, some of his other remarks on that chapter are very interesting, and in some cases very fitting.
On pages 10-11, Poole attempts to draw a contrast between the house of Israel and the house of Judah, and because he is unable to differentiate between the good and bad figs of Jeremiah ch. 24, he really botches things up as we shall soon see:
“Israel was to be unknown in name, Isa. lxv. 15. The Jews to be known as a by-word and reproach, Jer. xxiv. 9.”
My Objection!: If one will examine 1 Kings 9:7-8, one will observe that both houses then under Solomon could become a “byword”, “proverb” or a “hiss”!
“Israel was to be a multitudinous people, Hos, i., 10. The Jews were to be bereft of children, Jer. xv. 7.”
My Objection!: I would say that the key verse of Jer. 15 is indeed verse 7 where it says: “I will fan them with a fan ...” This process was used to separate the wheat from the chaff, or in this case the good figs of Judah from the evil half-breed bad-fig-Canaanite-jews.
“Israel was to be a powerful nation, Isa. xli. 12, Mic. iv. 6, 7. The Jews were to be without might, Jer. xix. 7.”
My Objection!: If one will examine Jer. ch. 19 closely, it is a prediction that Jerusalem, once broken, will never be put back together again. Verse 9 states in part: “And I will cause them to eat the flesh of their sons ... and daughters ...” This happened when Rome besieged Jerusalem in 70 A.D. by-and-large with the death of half-breed Canaanite-jews!
“Israel was to wander for many years, and then, to find an island home in the western seas, Isa. xlix. 1, 8. The Jews were to be strangers in all lands, Jer. xv. 4.”
My Objection!: Again, if one will examine Jer. ch. 24, one will find that Jeremiah is addressing the half-breed evil-figs of Judah!
“Israel was to have the kingdom, and a national existence, and a perpetual monarchy, and that monarchy of David’s line, Jer. xxxiii. 21, 22. The Jews were never to be a nation, or to have a king, until their union with Israel, and their acceptance of Jesus as their Messiah, Zech. ix. 13, and x. 6.”
My Objection!: There are problems with the 9th, 10th & 11th chapters of Zechariah. Most agree that these chapters were added to Zechariah at a later date. The passages cited by Poole have to do with the conflict of the Maccabees (169-135 B.C.) with Antiochus IV Epiphanes, Antiochus V Euphator, Antiochus VI, and Antiochus VII, Greek rulers of Syria. The Septuagint at Zech. 10:7 reads: “And they shall be like the warriors of Ephraim; and their heart shall be gladdened as with wine; and their children shall see and be made glad; and their heart shall rejoice in the Lord.” In other words, the author was comparing the small Judaean, Maccabean army with the fighting spirit of Ephraim that had long since been taken into Assyrian captivity. Otherwise it had nothing to do physically with Ephraim! It was just wishful thinking to be like unto Ephraim.
“Israel was divorced from the law. The Jews were to remain under the law, until the fulness of the Gentiles.”
My Objection!: It is true that Yahweh divorced Israel, but Paul wrote that the woman is bound by the law to her husband as long as her husband is alive, (Rom, 7:2). But Yahweh divorced Israel rather than Israel divorcing Yahweh! I fail to comprehend Poole’s position here.
“Israel was to be a Christian people, ‘all taught of God,’ Isa. liv. 13. The Jews were to remain under the old covenant.”
My Objection!: We know that Paul took the Gospel to the Romans. By-and-large the Romans were of Zerah-Judah. If what Poole is saying is true, the Romans “remain under the old covenant”. And the Canaanite-jews have no covenant!
“Israel was to be driven out from their own land, sown among the nations, lost to view, to be sought out, and found, and to become the sons of God, and then, to be used for the conversion of the world. The Jews were to remain separated from all nations, destined to persecution and reproach.”
My Objection!: Nowhere was Israel given a commission to convert “the world”; rather, the commission was to their racial Israelite brethren! And the “Jews” destined to persecution were, and still are, the Canaanite-jews!
“Israel was to lose their old name, and to be called by another name. The Jews were to retain their old name and their identity.
My Objection!: Like the ten tribes of Israel lost their old name, the good-fig Judahites did likewise. And the Canaanite-jews pretending to be Israelites confiscated an identity for which they have not part, and amounts to a lie!
“Israel was taken by Shalmaneser and Tiglath-pileser to the cities of the Medes. The Jews were taken by Nebuchadnezzar to Babylon.”
My Objection!: Poole’s comment here is an oversimplification. Rather, the ten Israel tribes were taken by Tiglathpileser, Shalmaneser V, and Sargon II to Assyria; the greater part of Judah was also taken by Sennacherib to Assyria; and the remaining remnant of Judah was taken to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar! Let’s state the entire story!
“Israel were all taken, not one of them were left, 2 Kings, xvii. 18, The poorer class among the Jews were left, Jer. xl. 7.”
My Objection!: 2 Kings 17:20 says in part: “And Yahweh rejected all the seed of [Jacob-]Israel, and afflicted them, and delivered them into the hand of spoilers ...” That means Judah as well as Israel, as v. 19 indicates!
“Israel was to be lost, unknown and unrecognised, Hos. ch. i. Judah was to be scattered, and dispersed but known, Ezek. xii. 15.”
My Objection!: My answer to this one is that Judah is just as “unrecognised” as the ten tribes of the house of Israel, especially the German Teutonic tribes plus the Irish and Scots. And inasmuch as the Romans were by-and-large of Zerah-Judah, they were and are also “unrecognised” as such.
“Of Israel was to come the multitudinous seed, the fulness of the Gentiles. Of Judah, or the Jews, was to come the one seed, Christ.”
My Super Objection!: At this point, W.H. Poole’s comment, “Of Judah, or the Jews, was to come the one seed, Christ”, demonstrates just how dangerous some of the positions of British-Israel can be. Christ was pure Judah; not a Canaanite-jew! The Canaanite-jews have the blood of Cain in them (the seed of the serpent)!
“Israel was to be scattered; but the Lord was to be a little sanctuary to them in all countries where they came, Ezek. xi. 16. Judah was to be removed to all kingdoms for their hurt, Jer. xxiv. 9.”
My Objection!: Nearly all of Ezekiel chapter 11 concerns itself with Judah, not the ten tribes who were already in Assyrian captivity for about 125 years. The “little sanctuary” was promised to “all the house of Israel wholly” (v.15), which would include all twelve tribes of both Judah and Israel!
“Israel was to be in honor, and no weapon found [sic formed] against them was to prosper, Isa. Ixiv. [sic liv.] 17. Judah was to be a reproach, a proverb, a taunt, and a curse, Jer. xxiv. 9.”
My Objection!: Jeremiah ch. 24 concerns itself with the good and bad figs of Judah, and W.H. Poole was unable to distinguish the difference between the two. It was those bad-fig-jews who would become “... a reproach, a proverb, a taunt, and a curse ...” here!
“Israel was to be punished for a short time, a little moment, Isa. liv. 7. And cast out of their land; but to be sought out in exile, and taught the Gospel, and made a great people and called Jezreel, the seed of God, Hos. chs. i and ii; 1 Peter ii. 10 ; Rom. ix. 26; also Isa. ch. xli. Judah was to be carried captive for seventy years, then restored to their land and given another opportunity and trial. But after their rejection of the Messiah, the Gospel was sent to the lost house of Israel, and Judah was cast out of their land, because they knew not the time of their visitation, 2 Chron. xxxvi. 21.
My Objection!: Here the Judah to whom W.H. Poole refers was only a small remnant left in Judaea after the greater part of Judah was carried off to Assyria by Sennacherib, never to return. Again an oversimplification on the part of Poole. I will continue Poole’s contrast of Israel and Judah in the next paper of this series.