What is British Israelism and is it biblical?

The British-Israel theory asserts that the British nation is the “lost” ten tribes of Israel, with however one modification. It is stated that the tribe of Benjamin, originally belonging to Judah, just before the siege of Jerusalem broke off from Judah, and attached itself to the ten tribes; and that the tribe of Manasseh, identified by the advocates of this theory as the United States of America, broke off at the same time from the ten tribes, thus leaving the number of tribes at the figure ten. This will be referred to later on. The British nation is often spoken of by British-Israelites as Ephraim, seeing that tribe took the lead among the ten, and its name, as a matter of fact, often stands in Scripture for the ten tribes.

"I also am an Israelite," says Paul. In passing let us place against those words that other declaration of Paul made to an unfriendly and critical audience of his own nation, "I am verily a man which am a Jew." (Acts 22:3) The two statements are worthy of note in view of the widespread propaganda of British-Israelism which rests so largely upon the assumption that "Jew" always means the two tribes, who are utterly rejected; whereas "Israel" means the ten, to whom all the blessings belong, and who are identified by them with the English-speaking peoples. If that assumption be wrong the main part of their theory collapses like a bubble. Paul punctures British-Israelism.

Question: I suppose it is folly to think the British nation is the lost tribes? Utter folly. Romans 11 tells us that blindness in part is happened to Israel; that the natural branches have been broken off the olive tree, and that the Gentiles have been grafted in and partake of the root and fatness of the olive tree. No one can deny that, as a nation, England is in the enjoyment of all the privileges of Christianity; and that, "God has given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear," applies to Israel. England on the contrary has been a centre of light, and from thence the gospel has been carried into all parts of the world. A desolate house is characteristic of Israel, until there comes out of Zion the Deliverer, to turn away ungodliness from Jacob.

Concerning Israel and Judah, you must not forget that the kingdom, in the days of Rehoboam, the son of Solomon, had been divided. The ten tribes that went off with Jeroboam are usually spoken of, by the prophets of the Old Testament, as "Israel" or "Ephraim," and you will have pointed out, later in this course of lectures, that Scripture speaks most distinctly as to the different dealing of God with the ten tribes and the two tribes. Here we have merely the fact brought out, "I will bring again the captivity of my people Israel and Judah." The ten tribes were taken into captivity long before Judah. Where they are, at this day, I do not know, and no one knows. There has been a great effort to make out that the English-speaking race, and specially the Christians thereof, are the ten tribes, but I demur to this, because I do not think there is a shadow of ground, in Scripture, for this theory. I am quite willing to admit this, that if a man wants to prove any absurdity he can always get some wrested scripture, dislocated from its connection, to support him. But what destroys the whole force of the theory to me, is this, that the acme of the beauty and blessedness of Christianity is, that we are going to heavenly glory with Christ. We are not going to live on the earth. Thank God, no. When the time comes to go hence, the Lord has given us something far better than earth. Let the Jew have his portion, and we will give it to him freely, and therefore if anybody comes and says, You are the house of Israel, do not you believe it; because even if an Israelite were converted now, he ceases, as a believer in Jesus, to be a Jew, and becomes a member of the body of Christ.

This is one of the chief objections to the British-Israel theory, that, even if it were true, it seeks to occupy the believer with earthly hopes, and thus diverts him from the hope of his heavenly calling. This would be so if the British-Israel theory were true; how much more is it to be reprobated when it stands condemned as a theory with neither support from Scripture nor history—a theory founded on myths, legends, speculations, and the perversion of Scripture.

That Rock was not the coronation stone in Westminster Abbey, but was symbolical of Christ. The rock following is a poetical way of stating that the water from the smitten rock miraculously continued to flow, following the children of Israel in their journey in the wilderness, supplying their need of water. It was symbolic of Christ supplying the spiritual needs of His people in the wilderness of this world. When we find this theory resting on wild guesses, and fanciful misinterpretations of Scripture, we know that the British-Israel theory has no solid proof whatever, for its adherents would not have been slow to give real proofs from Scripture and history if such existed.

Professor Canon Rawlinson writes of this theory: “Such effect as it may have can only be on the ignorant and unlearned—or those who are unaware of the absolute and entire diversity in language, physical type, religious opinions, and manners and customs, between the Israelites and the various races from whom the British nation can be shown historically to be descended.”

There is no such thing as a Christian nation [Greek, ethnos], in God’s ways, but out of the nations God selects a people [Greek, laos] for Himself. The thought of a Christian nation in this dispensation receives no support from Scripture. The idea of the ten tribes being found a Christian nation, and identified with the British nation, is clearly unsupported by Scripture.

Further, the advocates of this theory land themselves into contradictions. According to them we have the ten tribes Christianized and the Apostle Peter addressing them in his two epistles. If the ten tribes were Christianized in those early days, what became of their Christianity when they became known as the warlike Scythian nation? Were the Saxons, supposed by British-Israelites to be descended from the Scythians, Christian? Was Britain Christianized when the fierce Saxons conquered the ancient Britons? If the stream flowed on in heathen channels centuries after the Apostle Peter wrote his epistles, is it likely that it had a Christian source then? The question answers itself.

Where, we ask, is the word “Saxon” traced to Isaac’s sons? It is at best a very clumsy guess. Further the appeal to Scripture is unfortunate, showing how hard pressed the author it to prove his point. If the reader will turn to Genesis 21 he will find that it was a question between the lad Ishmael, and the infant Isaac. God told Abraham that the promise made to him, that in his seed all nations should be blessed (a prophecy only to be fulfilled in Christ) should come through Isaac, the true child of promise, and not through Ishmael, the son of the bondwoman. Further Mr. Harris’ contention proves too much. Isaac was the progenitor of ALL the twelve tribes, and therefore according to Mr. Harris’ contention the Jews as well as the “lost” ten tribes must be Saxons. This would prove too much for his theory. In the Bible we never read the expression, the sons of Isaac, as meaning more than Esau and Jacob. This is significant in view of the groundless assertions of British-Israelites.

An attempt has been made by British-Israel writers to prove that the British royal family is descended from the kings of Judah. This may be very flattering to the British nation, but it is certainly a very curious and illogical claim on the part of British-Israelites. On reflection it is strange to find among the British-Israel nation, a family, and the royal family at that, who are NOT British-Israelites. We may well ask in astonishment, How comes it that the British royal house, descended, as is claimed, from the Kings of Judah, should be found in British-Israel, descended, as is claimed, from the ten tribes? Why should one family be the exception, and that above all others, the royal family? On the face of it the claim is utterly absurd.

If this is the historical ground of the belief of the adherents of the British-Israel theory we can only marvel at their credulity. Such reasoning might do for children in a fairy story book, but to solemnly present this as historical proof on a religious subject to reasonable people can only raise a smile, unless indeed it excites righteous indignation that Christians can be found trifling with such solemn subjects. A more bare faced assumption it would be hard to find. It is pure juggling.