# British Israelism



## John Knox (Nov 9, 2010)

Anyone got any thought on this?

For those who don't know what it is, it is the idea that British people (or a certain part of them) are in some way a sort of 'New Covenant chosen nation'. 

I believe this is a bit of a fringe view, it seems to crop up a bit in Northern Ireland, where some mainstream politicians hold the view, and I've heard some of my relatives disucss it before though they don't go for it themselves. 

The more hardline version proposes they are ethnically descended from the ten lost tribes of Israel, which seems to me a bit silly. But the other version, in which God chooses the British people, may be more mainstream than some people realise.

Indeed, many people on this board embrace the history of the Scottish Covenanters. Now, Samuel Rutherford had the belief that Scotland and England were Britiain's "Israel and Judah", destined to be reunited and achieve greatness, and play a major role in the end of the world and the destruction of the Romanist Antichrist.

In the context of his time, Britain was undergoing its Wars of Religion, and the Covenanting armies were seen as taking up the Protestant cause. Shortly after the fall of mighty Gustavus of Sweden as the protector of Protestantism, Rutherford took the notion that God had chosen Scotland, a small people at the end of the world, to be the sword by which the Beast would be struck down. Scotland was Judah, and England was Israel/Ephraim, one people bound to be reunited as God's chosen nation.

The millennium never came as soon as Rutherford hoped for. But his vision for Britian did. Who knows what could happen, 400 years on? 

Anyone share Rutherford's views on this?


----------



## ericfromcowtown (Nov 9, 2010)

I'm somewhat familiar with British Israelism / Identity Christianity. It's without basis biblically, or historically/genetically.


----------



## FenderPriest (Nov 9, 2010)

I know it played a part in some of the Evangelical and Pentecostal theology in London in the early 20th century. My wife's Granny dealt with some if it in the people she was around back then.


----------



## Rich Koster (Nov 10, 2010)

A form of it was presented by the late Dr. Gene Scott. in my opinion the short version of what Scott claimed goes like this: Europe was settled by the lost 10 tribes of the northern kingdom of divided and dispersed Israel. He said that England and America therefore should be blessed by God through covenant. Methinks Dr. Scott was inhaling his cigars a bit too much on this one  .


----------



## ericfromcowtown (Nov 10, 2010)

Rich Koster said:


> A form of it was presented by the late Dr. Gene Scott. in my opinion the short version of what Scott claimed goes like this: Europe was settled by the lost 10 tribes of the northern kingdom of divided and dispersed Israel. He said that England and America therefore should be blessed by God through covenant. Methinks Dr. Scott was inhaling his cigars a bit too much on this one  .


 
I didn't know that Gene Scott held to some version of British Israelism. It might have been the cigars, but maybe his hats were on too tight as well. 

There was a British Israel bookstore / outreach in Vancouver, B.C. as recently as 15 years ago.


----------



## John Knox (Nov 10, 2010)

Remember though there is a difference between the ethnic version and the non-ethnic version.

The latter is actually very mainstream in Covenanting beliefs, thought that might be relevant to people on this board.


----------



## ericfromcowtown (Nov 10, 2010)

John Knox said:


> Remember though there is a difference between the ethnic version and the non-ethnic version.
> 
> The latter is actually very mainstream in Covenanting beliefs, thought that might be relevant to people on this board.



I don't understand how there could be a non-ethnic version of British Israelism. Can you elaborate?


----------



## TimV (Nov 10, 2010)

My best friends growing up were Armstrongites and the town I lived in in South Africa was probably 20 percent or so "Israelite Vision". One of the problems with a description is that every church or family group has it's own version. There are several common threads, though. One is that it attracts conspiracy types, and conspiracy types don't feel bound by the normal rules of historiography and logic that the rest of us mere mortals feel constrained by.

So, they can claim the Irish are from the tribe of Dan sense an old Irish name for themselves is Tuatha Dé Danann, as the phoneme Dan is in the word. And if you point out that there are about a thousand tribes/ethnic groups with that particular phoneme, they look at you blankly.


----------



## John Knox (Nov 10, 2010)

ericfromcowtown said:


> I don't understand how there could be a non-ethnic version of British Israelism. Can you elaborate?



Well, during the events surrounding the Covenanting movement, their vision of a union between Scotland and England, combined with their belief that the coming of the millenial kingdom was iminent, resulted in the view that Britain was chosen as a nation by God in order to defeat the Antichrist in the face of the Counter-Reformation.

Rutherford spoke of _"Britaines Israel and Judah, England and Scotland comming together, weeping and asking the way to Zion."* _Scotland was the only people to have a covenanted relationship with God as a nation, they were the Israel of the New Covenant (though he did not believe they simpy succeeded Israel, he still believed in the conversion of the Jews before the millenial kingdom). In one article on Rutherford, John Coffee put it quite poetically:

_"This was an awesome thought: the Scottish National Coveannt might just be the trigger to set off a series of evenst culminating in the fall of the Antichrist and the establishment of Christ's rule over all the nations. And how beautifully appropriate this would be, for God - who refused to share His glory iwth another and chose the weak and despised things of this world to shame te powerful - would have allowed the great Gustavus to fall, but then take up Scotland, a 'worm' of a nation at the ends of the earth, to accomplish His purpose!"*_

* J. Morril, 'Historical Introduction and Overview: The Un-English Civil War' in J.R. Young Celtic Dimensions of the British Civil Wars (John Donald Publishers Ltd, 1997), p.10
* J. Coffee, 'Samuel Rutherford and the Political Thought of the Scottish Covenanters' in J.R. Young Celtic Dimensions of the British Civil Wars (John Donald Publishers Ltd, 1997), p.16-7


----------



## TimV (Nov 10, 2010)

John, none of that is anything more than symbolism. To get to the modern ethnic version we have today, you (I don't think) can go back for than about 200 years. Check out this link:

A Little "Identity" Crisis~ British Israelism


----------



## ericfromcowtown (Nov 10, 2010)

The movement that you speak of is a very different beast than the British-Israelism that I am somewhat familiar with. 

The foundational belief of the British-Israelites I have spoken with is that the British are the literal descendents of the tribes of Israel. The Identity Christians expand this to include not only the British but some other western/northern Europeans. While there are many variations of the above, this identifying ethnically and historically with the Israelites is the wacky foundation upon which they build their "theology."

What you are describing almost seems to have more in common with the attitude of some American evangelicals who look to America as God's chosen nation and confuse the destinies of the Church and the state.

I wonder if the difference between what you are describing and what I am describing occurred over time, or if this difference has more to do with the importation of British Israelism to North America?


----------



## seajayrice (Nov 10, 2010)

From Schaff:

V IV CH II The first introduction of Christianity into Britain is involved in obscurity. The legendary history ascribes it at least to ten different agencies, namely, 1) Bran, a British prince, and his son Caradog, who is said to have become acquainted with St. Paul in Rome, a.d. 51 to 58, and to have introduced the gospel into his native country on his return. 2) St. Paul. 3) St. Peter. 4) St. Simon Zelotes. 5) St. Philip. 6) St. James the Great. 7) St. John. 8) Aristobulus (Rom_16:10). 9) Joseph of Arimathaea, who figures largely in the post-Norman legends of Glastonbury Abbey, and is said to have brought the holy Graal — the vessel or platter of the Lord’s Supper — containing the blood of Christ, to England. 10) Missionaries of Pope Eleutherus from Rome to King Lucius of Britain.
But these legends cannot be traced beyond the sixth century, and are therefore destitute of all historic value. A visit of St. Paul to Britain between a.d. 63 and 67 is indeed in itself not impossible (on the assumption of a second Roman captivity), and has been advocated even by such scholars as Ussher and Stillingfleet, but is intrinsically improbable, and destitute of all evidence.


----------



## John Knox (Nov 10, 2010)

Yes the idea has changed over time. There were some pre-Protestant British Israelite ideas floating around, but ultimately the ethnic British Isrealism that was common amongst the British diaspora in the Empire took it's roots from the idea of the Scots/British as being a uniquely covenanted nation. 

That is why Rutherford's ideas were more than symbolism. They were scriptural by his understanding, the union of Scotland and England in a covenant under God was for him a fulfilment of Biblical prophecy (surrounding Revelation and the Psalms that mention distant isles at the end of the sea etc).

Scotland's covenant with God was more than something that simply happened to resemble that of Israel. As was often the case with circumcision and Baptism etc, the Old Testament covenant of Israel foreshadowed that of the New with Scotland/Britain.* In Rutherford's mind, Scotland was uniquely chosen by God as the Israel of the New Covenant. It's people did not just happen to be elect, but it was chosen _as a nation_. I guess it makes sense with federal theology etc.

* I say Scotland/Britain because the idea was Scotland was first to be brought into the covenant with the 1638 National Covenant, and the idea was the 1643 Solemn League and Covenant would join England into the fold, though things never worked out.


----------



## TimV (Nov 10, 2010)

John Knox said:


> That is why Rutherford's ideas were more than symbolism.



I would be very interested to see where Rutherford or any of his contemporaries believed in any sort of migration to Britain/NWEurope by any of the Ten Tribes. That's one thing held by 99% of British Israelites/Israelite Vision types. That's why I used the word symbolic.


----------



## JennyG (Nov 10, 2010)

I don't know anything much about British Israelism but I have come across the idea that "Covenanters" meant something more than just a nice _nom de guerre_. It's a matter of historical fact that God did do great things in and through the British people. But then, just like Israel and Judah, they turned away from him ....and the results you see all around


----------



## John Knox (Nov 10, 2010)

TimV said:


> John Knox said:
> 
> 
> > That is why Rutherford's ideas were more than symbolism.
> ...


 
As I said Rutherford did not believe in the later more ethnic-based version. I'm just saying his ideas are the roots of the later British Israelism ideas.

I think it's an interesting idea, in the context of his time I can see why he believed it.



JennyG said:


> I don't know anything much about British Israelism but I have come across the idea that "Covenanters" meant something more than just a nice _nom de guerre_. It's a matter of historical fact that God did do great things in and through the British people. But then, just like Israel and Judah, they turned away from him ....and the results you see all around


 
Very true, and sad to see. Rutherford himself became a bit like a Jeremiah figure after the collapse of the Covenanting movement, lamenting the sins of the nation.


----------



## lynnie (Nov 10, 2010)

This is a very minor difference but I ones I knew said that the British isles were settled by Ephraim and Manasseh, not all 10 tribes. The blessing of the firstborn that should have gone to Reuben went to Joseph's sons instead, because Reuben defiled his father's bed with Jacob's concubine.

So the promise to make Ephraim and Manasseh a great nation and multitude went to the British ( maybe also parts of Europe?) and hence to the USA. 

The ones I knew were arrogant and superior with great revulsion towards blacks, and of course Jews- who they think are not really DNA Jews but descendents of the Khazar tribes centuries ago. 
_
In Rutherford's mind, Scotland was uniquely chosen by God as the Israel of the New Covenant. It's people did not just happen to be elect, but it was chosen as a nation. I guess it makes sense with federal theology etc._

Am I correct that he believed this entirely because of their faith, and not their bloodline? It is true that God did use the Scots mightily in His kingdom. 

I suppose if you take Romans 11 and Gods choice of DNA offspring of the Patriarchs to be Europeans or Brits, you could say the Reformation fulfilled Romans 11? Whew, learn about a new idea every week here


----------



## Philip (Nov 10, 2010)

I can't say I believe in British Israelism any more than I believe in American manifest destiny. What happened to the grand union of England and Scotland that Rutherford thought was coming? Cromwell invaded Scotland and was resisted by the very Covenanters whom Rutherford held in high esteem. Even the union of 1707 was one of political expedience: the churches remained divided.

Frankly, this kind of thinking represents a stunted ecclesiology-eschatology. The people of God, since Christ came, are now to be called out of every tribe, tongue, and nation. We are a people who were not a people, a new nation. We are citizens of the City of God who are, for a time, living in the city of man. Has God used Britain and America mightily? Yes, but they will fall like all other kingdoms of this world. Confusing the City of God with the City of Man has been a temptation for Christians since Constantine---let's not continue the mistake.


----------



## John Knox (Nov 10, 2010)

P. F. Pugh said:


> I can't say I believe in British Israelism any more than I believe in American manifest destiny. What happened to the grand union of England and Scotland that Rutherford thought was coming? Cromwell invaded Scotland and was resisted by the very Covenanters whom Rutherford held in high esteem. Even the union of 1707 was one of political expedience: the churches remained divided.



Actually, the Covenanting movement was divided by the point of Cromwell's invasion. Samuel Rutherford himself supported the more radical Kirk Party (as opposed to the Engagers), and it was Cromwell's forces that installed a Kirk Party regime in Edinburgh. The alliance between the Kirk Party and Cromwell's New Model Army only broke down after the Kirk Party began to readmit former Engagers into the government.

In turn, that sparked an uprising in Rutherford's home area, the south-west, where the Western Association came to challenge the now less radical Kirk Party regime. A number of figures in the Western Association were open in their support for Cromwell (the very name 'Western Association' was inspired by Cromwell's own 'Eastern Association' from the earlier days of the civil war), and one of it's leaders, Strachan, served with Cromwell's New Model Army against the rival Covenanting factions.

Also, Cromwell did bring about a complete Union of Scotland and England in 1652, and this measure was mostly supported in the radical south-west, the heartland of the Covenanting movement. This shouldn't be surprising, Rutherford's vision of Scotland and England as Israel and Judah was rooted in the belief they were one people, and so I cringe when I hear people talking of the Covenanting movement as one of Scottish nationalism. Would a Scottish nationalist state what Argyll (as leader of the Kirk Party before it readmitted Engagers) did of the Scottish and English:

_“lett us hould fast that Union which is soe happily established betwixt us; and lett nothing make us again Two, who are soe many Wayes One; all of one Language, in One Island, all under One King, One in Religion, yea, One in Covenant; so that in Effect we difffer in nothign but in Name...”_

Reminds me of Ezekiel 37:22 "_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."_


----------



## ericfromcowtown (Nov 10, 2010)

lynnie said:


> The ones I knew were arrogant and superior with great revulsion towards blacks, and of course Jews- who they think are not really DNA Jews but descendents of the Khazar tribes centuries ago.


 
Yes, I've heard the Khazar theory, but some "Identity Christians" also hold to the seedline theory, in which the present-day Jews are the literal descendents of Satan and Eve. Kooky stuff.


----------



## Phil D. (Nov 10, 2010)

[/QUOTE] some "Identity Christians" also hold to the seedline theory, in which the present-day Jews are the literal descendents of Satan and Eve. Kooky stuff.[/QUOTE]

I'll go one better - that is truly "wicked" (in the original sense of the word) stuff.


----------



## Philip (Nov 10, 2010)

John Knox said:


> Reminds me of Ezekiel 37:22 "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."



And what makes you think that it's good hermeneutics to apply this to Britain? It's talking about Israel, and by extension the church, but I simply don't see a good reason why this should apply to Britain any more than it could to Ireland, or the Eastern/Western Roman Empire, even the United States after the War Between the States.


----------



## jambo (Nov 10, 2010)

It was around Northern Ireland a number of years ago, specially around the Free Presbyterian church. Rev Robert Bradford adhered to this belief. There are variations of this theme throughout the world including a Japanese version. I would not give it much credence and would actually find the view is more akin to Mormonism


----------



## Mushroom (Nov 10, 2010)

ericfromcowtown said:


> lynnie said:
> 
> 
> > The ones I knew were arrogant and superior with great revulsion towards blacks, and of course Jews- who they think are not really DNA Jews but descendents of the Khazar tribes centuries ago.
> ...


Or descendants of Adam and some woman named Lilith. Nutbags.


----------



## TimV (Nov 10, 2010)

Nutbags is generous. In SA the idea was that the descendants of Adam are "crowned" which means that a swirl is in the back of their head where the hair comes out. With most White people you can see this swirl, but with Blacks you can't see it. So, God made the Whites in the first creation account and the Blacks in the second, which show that we really aren't related.

As I said before, the movement doesn't exactly attract people who can think for themselves, or count up to 20 without using their toes.


----------

