COMPARE LATER. In Genesis 48:4 Jacob speaks only of a "community of peoples" - extending it to a separate "people" while explaining the blessing in verse 19.

"It cannot be 'spiritualized' away by interpreting it as being inherited only through Christ."

WHY NOT? Note Romans 4:17. "As it is written [of Abraham]: 'I have made you a father of many nations.' He is our father in the sight of God, in whom we believed...." Paul wrote this to a church congregation which apparently was a Jewish-Gentile mix (3:29). Also, it was located at Rome -- and shouldn't Rome be "Babylon" in traditional COG prophetic understanding?

PAGE 31: "But the gift of immortality received by grace does have qualifying conditions!"

YES, BUT.... It's not really law-keeping, as some COG ministers have inferred. Galatians 5:4-6 makes that clear: "You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.... For in Christ Jesus.... The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love."

Of course, some COG ministers quickly would declare "love" is expressed through law-keeping. So consider another passage, which may be more familiar. "For it is by grace you have been saved through faith -- and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God -- not of works, so that no one can boast" (Ephesians 2:8-9).

Gerald Waterhouse gained fame in WCG in part for quoting those two verses in mocking tones during sermons. Yet they indicate even the faith we need for salvation is given by God; Romans 12:3 refers to "the measure of faith God has given you."

PAGE 33: "A rich man might have seven men standing before him... Their stepping forward does not EARN it [a $1,000 "free gift"]. It is merely the condition required to receive the free GIFT."

PARSING AT WORDS?! Isn't one person's "condition" another person's "earning"? Stepping forward is no problem for most healthy humans - but it could be a physical challenge requiring effort for someone with a disability.

It turns out the word "earn" is nowhere in the KJV. But the book of Acts shows the "gift of the Holy Spirit" could be given in different ways - through repentance and baptism (2:38) OR through simply hearing the message of the Gospel (10:30-46).

PAGE 34: "But God chose Isaac, and 'Abraham gave all that he had unto Isaac' (Gen. 25:5)."

KEEP READING. Don't overlook verse 6. Abraham "gave gifts to the sons of his concubines...." What was the "condition" THEY had to meet? Is this evidence some gifts are UNconditional?

PAGE 35: "Two clues are given here [Gen. 16-17].... Ishmael's descendants.... were to dwell to the east of their brethren -- that is, of Isaac's descendants who had the birthright."

COMPARE TRANSLATIONS. HWA declares "to the east" the "correct translation" of Genesis 16:12 -- BUT most of the translations we checked do NOT have this! They make it attitudinal, not directional: "he will live in hostility toward all his brothers," says NIV, which comes close to HWA's view by mentioning "to the east of" in the margin as an alternative for "toward."

NASB supports HWA's rendering: "And he will live to the east of all his brothers" (sim. Amplified) Holman Christian Standard has in the margin, "live away from...." But the KJV translates the key phrase as "presence of" - and Strong's Exhaustive Concordance indicates that word NEVER is translated in Hebrew as "east!" BUT The Strongest NIV Exhaustive Concordance shows "toward" CAN be translated "east" five times in the Old Testament - such as in the trek "toward Sodom" in Genesis 18:22 and "toward the desert" in II Samuel 15:23.

"The children of Ishmael have become the Arabs of today."

YES, BUT.... This view is accepted by the Jamieson, Fausset and Brown Commentary concerning Genesis 16:12. But the KJV calls such people "Arabians" - and the only time "Arab" appears is in a person's name (Joshua 15:52).

PAGE 36: "'Edom' means literally, 'red soup,' and is so translated in the Fenton version."

NOT EXACTLY. Strong's Concordance and the Blue Letter Bible website have only "red." The red pottage referenced here (from Genesis 25:29, 34) has a different Hebrew word for pottage - transliterated as naziyd.

We also discovered something interesting in the phrase "Jacob sod pottage" (25:29, KJV). Every other place where the Hebrew word translated "sod" appears in the Old Testament, it means something else -- to be "proud" or "presumptuous!" Gesenius's Lexicon adds it can refer to "the violence or fierceness of a passionate mind" - or "to boil over." Could it be that as Jacob boiled the stew (as NIV describes it), he was boiling in his mind about older brother Esau - and the birthright demand was premeditated, not simply spur-of-the-moment opportunism?

"Many prophecies pertaining to the present and future employ the name Edom.... they refer to the descendants of Esau, primarily the Turkish nation today."

PROOF?!?! None is offered here. The claim is left dangling until page 38.

PAGE 38: "In [Genesis 27:39].... the Hebrew preposition min should be translated 'from' or 'away from,' not 'of'.... Actually, the Hebrew words convey the dual meaning...."

WHAT PREPOSITION?! The Hebrew text for this verse displayed at BlueLetterBible.org doesn't have min at all! And BibleSuite.com also indicates it's not there! Strong's Concordance has no number for "of" in its hardbound appendix (although BibleSuite.com shows it as #4480). BUT the NIV Concordance DOES translate verse 39 as "away from," and connects it with the Hebrew min.

The New Bible Commentary: Revised is based on the Revised Standard Version, and verifies what HWA wrote about the RSV and min. It states: "The preposition.... means either 'of' (as in Jacob's blessing, v. 28) or 'away from'...." (1970 ed., pg. 102) But it adds the latter meaning is "required her by the context and by Edomite history...."

We're seeing a pattern which should make "King James only" advocates in COG's stop and think. Herbert Armstrong apparently shifted from one Hebrew text to another in building his case - sometimes using the text favored by KJV, sometimes using another one favored by RSV and other translations.

In fact, chapter IV (where this page is located) refers to the "Fenton translation" three times -- a 1908 "Bible in Modern English"⁽⁶⁾ which actually rearranges the Old Testament based on what Ferrar Fenton called "the Editorial Committee appointed by the Great Sanhedrin.... in the Third Century before Christ...." Wikipedia reveals a possible bias in Fenton's work, which may reflect on HWA's book and ministry -- that he was a British Israelite, who believed "the British were descendants from Shem."

"The sparse records of history, with other proofs, show that many of the descendants of Esau became known as Turks.... In Isaac's dying prophecy, he foretold that Esau's descendants would come to a time when they should have the dominion...."

WHAT DOMINION? A possible explanation is given later in the paragraph, and we'll get to that. But we note "the dominion" in Genesis 27:40 is based on the KJV; NIV says only of Esau, "when you grow restless...." (CEV "when you decide to be free") with nothing about dominion. Strong's indicates "dominion" in verse 40 means "to tramp about" or ramble; a different Hebrew word is used when dominion refers to control, rule or sovereignty.

PAGE 39: "The children of Israel, through sin, were driven out of the promised land that belonged with the birthright. The Turks came to power and dominion and for many centuries possessed that land.... the Turkish people, occupied Palestine 400 years before Britain took it in 1917."

OTHER EXPLANATIONS EXIST. Smith's Bible Dictionary says the Edomites "joined Nebuchadnezzar when that king besieged Jerusalem.... After this they settled in southern Palestine, and for more than four centuries continued to prosper" -- not subdued until the era of the Maccabees (1986 reprint, pg. 156).

Another explanation is based on God's declaration in Malachi 1:3, "Esau I have hated." The NBC comments on that verse: "By the 5th century [B.C.] Arab tribes had overrun Edom completely, and even begun to mingle with the Edomites in south Palestine.... Edom remained without settled population through the Persian period.... when Edom was resettled it was by a new [Arab] people, the Nabateans" (pg. 806). This would suggest the descendants of Ishmael took over the land of Esau, making the Edomites little more than wandering nomads.

"The Turks have truly lived by the sword!"

AND WHO HASN'T? Did not Germany in the 20th century? And has not the U.S. to some extent since the 1890s -- with "interventions" in Cuba, Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Kuwait, Somalia, Afghanistan and Iraq? (HWA refers to one such case on page 160.)

"Before Jacob was born, God had spoken to his mother and revealed to her that Jacob should receive the birthright.... she schemed with Jacob to take it by lying and deception."

ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE. Genesis 25:23 says only, "the older will serve the younger." That could refer to all sorts of things, not necessarily a birthright. But where in chapter 25 do we see Rebekah was part of the birthright-selling plot?

PAGE 42: "The birthright, remember, belongs legally to the firstborn, unless altered by divine intervention."

WHAT ABOUT REUBEN? Page 40 notes he was "the next legal inheritor of the birthright;" in fact, Jacob calls Reuben his firstborn in 49:3. But HWA writes Reuben "lost it" for sleeping with his father's concubine (35:22, 49:4). Is there any Biblical evidence to show God intervened to order Reuben's disqualification? We can find NONE!

So we could easily conclude the change was Jacob's decision, not necessarily God-ordered. But clearly God backed up that decision, as He says in Jeremiah 31:9, "Ephraim is my firstborn son."

PAGE 43: "Let whose descendants become that numerous seed, which shall number into billions? Not Judah.... but EPHRAIM AND MANASSEH!"

WHERE ARE THE BILLIONS? A United Nations report released in 2001 showed two countries have more than one billion people -- China and India! The U.S. was third at about 286 million. But six of the nine largest countries in population are in Asia (not counting Russia at #7). The U.K. wasn't ranked in the top 25.

British Israelism backers probably would argue the British Empire included India. But almanacs show that country's dominate ethnic community is "Indo-Aryan," as opposed to European/Caucasian. And by the way, Turkey had more residents in 2001 than every European Union country except Germany.

"'Let my name be named on them' was part of this blessing [Gen. 48:16]. His name was ISRAEL."

AND JACOB - as he's called again in Genesis 49:1, 33. He uses BOTH names in 49:2. And don't overlook the rest of 48:16: "May they be called by my name AND the names of my fathers Abraham and Isaac...." So perhaps we should be careful not to "lock in" on the one commonly associated with Jerusalem.

PAGE 45: "While still in the spirit of prophecy, Jacob called his twelve sons together to tell them what their posterity should become 'in the last days.'"

COMPARE TRANSLATIONS. HWA quotes KJV for Genesis 49:1; NIV uses "in days to come" for that key section. Yet Moffatt has "after days"; RSV "in the latter days". "This testamentary vision looked beyond the Mosiac Exodus and restoration to the Messianic...." (N.B.C., p. 113)

PAGE 46: "Israel prophesied, 'Joseph is a fruitful bough [here is pictured the birthright promise of multitudes in fulfillment].... whose branches [margin, daughters] run over the wall'...."

COMPARE MARGINS. Most translations agree with the main text of Genesis 49:22. But the NIV margin instead says "Joseph is a wild colt.... a wild donkey...." - sounding much less complimentary.

"We shall see that these descendants of Joseph, possessing these birthright promises.... were never again mixed with Jews from that time!"

HISTORICALLY DISPUTED -- especially recently. The JewishGen.org article we cited at page 12 notes: "....by 1900 (the end of the first massive exodus from Europe), about 1,000,000 Jews were in the U.S., and by 1939, 4.8 million." As of 1998, the U.S. had 5.8 million Jews -- 1.2 million more than "Palestine."

PAGE 47: "Their government was theocratic, with the civil, as well as the spiritual and religious laws, given directly from God."

WHAT ABOUT ANGELS? This section about the history of ancient Israel leads to Acts 7:38. But look at verse 53: "....the law that was put into effect through angels...." It's easy to see how the "angel" of verse 38 can refer to Christ the Son, but it's plural later in the chapter (and also in Galatians 3:19). One commentary explains verse 53 by saying it literally means "by angelic ordinance."

PAGE 49: "When the elders of Israel came to Samuel demanding a man be made their king, it naturally displeased Samuel, their prophet."

GOD PROPHESIED IT! One of the first mention of "kings" (plural) in scripture is in Genesis 17:6 - where God had told Abram, "kings will come from you." In fact, HWA mentions that verse on page 19.

"David sat on the Eternal's throne.... 'Then Solomon sat on the throne of the Eternal as king instead of David his father....'"

YES, BUT.... While this wording about an earthly throne is Biblically accurate from I Chronicles 29:23, we must be clear and not forget there was still a heavenly throne. I Kings 22:19 mentions it, in an apparent prophetic vision.

PAGE 50: "In II Sam. 23:1, 5, we find: '.... God.... has made with me an everlasting covenant, ordered in all things, and sure.' In other words, a covenant that shall endure forever and cannot fail!"

ABOUT WHAT? The book turns back to II Samuel 7 for the answer. But a reference in my Bible moves ahead to Isaiah 55:3: "I will make an everlasting covenant with you, my faithful love promised to David" - a love indeed stated in II Samuel 7:15. Isaiah 55 says nothing about a governmental line. But this verse will matter; read on to see why.

PAGES 50-51: "The throne -- David's throne (verse 16) -- was established FOREVER in Solomon (verse 13)."

WHAT ABOUT THE HOUSE? II Samuel 7:16 says, "your house and your kingdom will endure forever before me...." The context from verse 6 seems to indicate the "house" is a temple for God. Yet that temple was left in ruins, due to a fire by a conquering army in II Chronicles 36:18-19. And how could King Solomon have been "over my house" after his death?

A clarification of "houses" is in order here. Page 55 of the book cites Jeremiah 33:14, which mentions a "house of Israel and.... house of Judah". But verse 4 refers to "houses in this city." The Hebrew word for "house" in both usages is the same -- and the same is true in II Samuel 7!

"David's noble wish to build a 'house' for his God was set aside, and instead God promised him a 'house' (i.e. a dynasty).... the basis for the Messianic hope, fulfilled in the NT." (N.B.C., pg. 305) The NIV Study Bible calls it "a beautiful play on words...." (1995 ed., pg. 429)

PAGE 51: "Observe that this nowhere says that when Christ comes, God will establish it in Him forever. It says it was to be established forever in Solomon."

CHECK ELSEWHERE. The apostle Paul quotes Isaiah 55:3 as a prophecy concerning Jesus: "The fact that God raised him from the dead, never to decay, is stated in these words: 'I will give you the holy and sure blessings promised to David'" (Acts 13:34). So Paul apparently connected Jesus to the II Samuel promise -- saying our Lord was resurrected to receive David's blessings!

"The throne will go on forever just the same!.... Solomon's dynasty would not end."

DISPUTABLE DEFINITION. "Forever" was a big word for the old WCG, when doctrines were changed in the "covenants" review of 1995. We have a Bible study showing "forever" in Scripture does NOT always mean "until the end of time," It can be as short as three days! So we must be careful in jumping to easy-looking conclusions about that word.

"But in the year 585 B.C. this last recorded king ever to sit on this throne was captured by the armies of King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon...."

DATES VARY. My NIV Study Bible puts the date of II Kings 25:8 as August 14, 586 B.C. It also notes: "Some scholars follow a different dating system and place the fall of Jerusalem in the summer of 587" (pg. 568).

PAGE 53: "God gave, did give, this kingdom to David and his sons -- not His Son, Christ, but His sons, plural -- continuously forever."

MAYBE NOT. The paragraph after this mentions Psalm 89:3-4 -- and a reference in my Bible connects that passage to a warning in Psalm 132:11-12. "The Lord swore an oath to David, a sure oath that he will not revoke.... 'if your sons keep my covenant and the statutes I teach them, then their sons will sit on your throne for ever and ever.'" That's a big if, which isn't mentioned in II Samuel 7! Yet King David mentioned that if in I Kings 2:4, during his final instructions to successor Solomon. Doesn't that make the promise conditional after all?

PAGE 54: "Some today are excusing their inability to locate this throne by saying the covenant was conditional - that because the children of Israel disobeyed God, the covenant was broken."

KEEP READING. The author cites Psalm 89:30-37 -- but don't overlook verses 39 and 44, which apparently is a statement directed by author Ethan toward God: "You have renounced [KJV "made void"] the covenant with your servant and have defiled his crown in the dust.... You have put an end to his splendor and cast his throne to the ground." We can explain this away as a complaint by man -- or could it be God enforcing the conditions mentioned in I Kings 2 and Psalm 132?

"If the throne of David ceased with Zedekiah, then it does not exist today. And if it does not exist, how shall Christ sit upon a nonexistent throne?"

CONSIDER ROME, for an answer to this puzzle. Many COG's turn to Revelation and claim the Roman empire has "disappeared" over the centuries, only to re-emerge. If so, how could a seventh and eighth king prophesied in Revelation 17:10-11 take thrones which currently are vacant - if not nonexistent?

(A 20th-century example along these lines occurred in Spain. That monarchy was suspended in 1931, for a messy republican government which led to Francisco Franco ruling the country with an iron fist. After he died in 1975, the monarchy was restored.)

PAGE 56: "Notice verse 18 of Jeremiah 33.... This does not say they shall have, all these years prior to Christ's coming, continually offered sacrifices.... they were not offered by Jews after the destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70. But other prophecies already quoted show just as plainly that David's descendants should be ruling on David's throne through all generations...."

HAVING IT BOTH WAYS?! Is that really plausible? Using the author's logic, there should also be a line of priests/Levites through our time similar to the line of David -- and it will "never fail" (to use verse 17 wording in NIV) to stand and present offerings and sacrifices. If the throne line is argued as still being in existence, where is the other?

"....It is entirely possible that many if not most, of the called true ministry of Jesus Christ through the centuries have been of the tribe of Levi."

SPECULATION - and obviously so, based on the wording. The Restored Church of God has tried to take the lead in identifying all 12 tribes on the modern world map.⁽⁷⁾ It claims both Levi and Simeon are "scattered among the other Israelite nations."

"Notice, now, how binding is God's covenant with David. 'Thus saith the Eternal; If ye can break my covenant of the day, and my covenant of the night, and that there should not be day and night in their season....'"

WE CAN'T; GOD CAN. HWA is quoting Jeremiah 33:20-21. But didn't God provide a "long day" for Joshua to help him win a battle? (Joshua 10:12-14) The Bible also reveals a unique day "without daytime or nighttime" will occur when the day of the Lord comes (Zechariah 14:6-7) -- and the future New Jerusalem will have no night at all (Revelation 21:25; 22:5).

PAGE 57: "He [God] would not necessarily rule over all the house of Israel, or the Jews -- but at least some of them, and enough to form a nation."

WHICH "SOME"? Several COG's have determined other tribes besides Ephraim and Manasseh are in Europe - and several of those countries have monarchs today, such as Belgium and the Netherlands.

PAGE 60: "In I Kings 11:26 you read of Jeroboam.... He was made ruler over the 'house of Joseph' -- or Ephraim and Manasseh."

NOT NECESSARILY. Joshua 17:17 indeed defines the "house of Joseph" as those two tribes. One commentary notes the tribe of Ephraim dominated Israel at the time of Amos 5:6, when the house of Joseph is mentioned again. BUT in II Samuel 19:20, Shimei called himself "the first of the whole house of Joseph to come down and meet my lord the king" -- and verse 16 shows Shimei was a Benjamite!

Besides that, what did it mean to be "ruler over all the charge of the house of Joseph," as I Kings 11:28 in KJV puts it? NIV and other versions translate that phrase as "the whole labor force" or something similar -- perhaps something akin to a modern-day Secretary of Labor. That's not complete rulership over the tribe, but a step or two below it.

PAGE 61: "Israel rejected its king and set a new king, Jeroboam, on Israel's throne. The tribe of Judah seceded from the nation Israel in order to retain Rehoboam as their king."

HUH?! I Kings 12 tells the story of this ancient "church split." Ten tribes selected a different king. Two (Judah and Benjamin) stuck by the son of Solomon. Yet it was Judah which "seceded" from the union?!

Did the Confederate States secede from the U.S. in 1861, or the other way around? And here's what makes HWA's explanation seem illogical and bizarre -- when Garner Ted Armstrong left his father and WCG to form Church of God International, was it WCG which seceded?

Your answer to these questions may be colored by which church group you attend, and how you understand its formation. But we think the Bible offers the best viewpoint on what happened between the tribes: "So Israel has been in rebellion against the house of David to this day" (I Kings 12:19). The rebels are against the Kingdom,

Side point: it's tempting to call this the "original church split" -- but the revolt of Sheba preceded it. For a time, "all the men of Israel deserted David.... But the men of Judah stayed by their king...." (II Samuel 20:2)

PAGES 62-63: "The Ten Tribes were not broken off from Israel... Instead, Judah was broken off from Israel."

WRONG - it was exactly the opposite, based on verses such as I Kings 11:11, 13: "I will most certainly tear the kingdom away from you [Solomon and his son]...." And II Kings 17:21, God "tore Israel away from the house of David" -- not the other way around (see also I Kings 14:8)!

Think carefully about this, in considering Scripture quoted on page 62. "This is my doing," God told a minister when Rehoboam desired to reunify the kingdom (I Kings 12:22-24). Could it be that today's COG splits also are God's doing? Could they be compared to the scattering of the church in the book of Acts?

(And after reviewing Ezekiel 20:23-24, which is referenced on page 67, could Sabbath desecration and idol worship be part of the reason for it?)

PAGE 64: "From any exhaustive concordance you can learn that the first time in all the Bible that the word "Jew" occurs is in II Kings 16:6."

TRUE IN KJV - but in other translations, the word doesn't appear until the book of Ezra. NIV translates that verse as "the men of Judah."

"It is wrong to call the Jews of today 'Israel.' They are not the nation Israel - they are Judah!"

INCONSISTENT. The very next paragraph admits: "When the sense is not national but individual, the term 'Israel' alone.... may, and sometimes does refer to and include the Jews." And page 65 coins a common phrase in COG circles: "All Jews are Israelites, but NOT all Israelites are Jews."

PAGE 65: "From here on, the tribe of Judah, with Benjamin and the tribe of Levi, is called 'JUDAH' -- not ISRAEL."

WRONG. The history appears in II Chronicles, as well as II Kings - and there we read of one king: "The other events of Manasseh's reign.... are written in the annals of the kings of Israel" (II Chronicles 33:18). The NIV margin admits this refers to "Judah, as frequently in II Chronicles."

Isaiah 5:7 also raises questions about this: "The vineyard of the Lord Almighty is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah are the garden of his delight." Verses 1 and 3 indicate this "song of the vineyard" was directed specifically toward "men of Judah," dwelling in Jerusalem.

The website BibleCommenter.com suggests this was written shortly after the fighting of II Kings 16 (the "here on" being referenced by HWA) - with that fight occurring in 742 B.C., and Isaiah writing in 739 B.C.

PAGE 67: "The people which this passage [I Kings 14:15-16] says shall be rooted up and scattered beyond the river never were called Jews. They were the people headed by Ephraim and Manasseh...."

NOT FOREVER. Yes, King Jeroboam was from the tribe of Ephraim (as noted re: page 60) - but after Jeroboam's son Nadab reigned for two years (I Kings 15:25), the throne of Israel was claimed by "Baasha son of Ahijah of the house of Issachar...." (15:27-28) And Baasha went on a rampage after becoming king: "he killed Jeroboam's whole family. he did not leave Jeroboam anyone that breathed...." (verse 29)

Baasha was succeeded as King of Israel by his son Elah (16:6) - so for 26 years, Issachar (the tribe RCG traces to modern-day Finland) actually "headed" the people! Yet our search for "house of Issachar" on the RCG and PCG websites brought no matches at all.

Baasha's family was destroyed by scheming seven-day successor King Zimri (16:11-12). His tribal background is unclear; Smith's Bible Dictionary indicates he was a different Zimri from the one mentioned in I Chronicles 2:6 as descending from Judah.

Several assassination plots from outside family lines affected the throne of Israel after that. The "house of Joseph" reference in Amos 5:6 (which we noted above from one commentary meant Ephraim was dominant) occurred when Jeroboam II ruled Israel (Amos 1:1) - yet that king's son was killed "in front of the people" by a successor named Shallum, whose tribal background is unclear (II Kings 15:10). So it seems fair to say the exact "tribe in charge" was in dispute!

PAGE 68: "Now notice II Kings 17:22-23.... [written about 620 B.C.]."

DATES VARY. My main NIV Bible estimates at the beginning of I Kings both books were "probably written subsequent to Jehoiachin's release from prison (562 B.C.) and prior to the end of the Babylonian exile in 538."

PAGE 69: "This was the religion of Simon the sorcerer (Acts 8) who.... started a new counterfeit 'Christianity'.... He took the name of Christ, rejected God's law, and added licentious false 'grace' to the Babylonian mystery religion, calling it 'Christianity.'"

ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE. No proof is offered for this often-quoted COG explanation about the start of the Roman Catholic Church. The NIV Study Bible confirms early Christian literature called Simon Magus "the arch-heretic of the church of the 'father' of Gnostic teaching" (pg. 1661). And the N.B.C. notes, "Simon Magus is said in later times to have visited Rome and other parts.... the Simonians are known to have survived to the 3rd century at least" (pg. 982).

PAGE 70: "In Deuteronomy 32:26, God had warned them through Moses: '....I would MAKE THE REMEMBRANCE OF THEM TO CEASE FROM AMONG MEN.' That warning cannot be applied to the Jew!"

WHY NOT? This verse is part of a closing song of Moses to "the whole assembly of Israel" (31:30) - and it's about "Jeshurun" (32:15), which referred then to all 12 tribes (note 33:5, 26 in NIV margin). We must remember Judah eventually went into captivity, too.

"The Eternal would cease speaking to them in their own Hebrew tongue, but with 'another tongue will he speak to this people' (Isa. 28:11). This cannot apply to the Jews, who still read their Bibles in the Hebrew tongue."

YES, BUT.... The mention of Ephraim in verses 1, 3 of Isaiah 28 indicates the chapter refers to Israel. BUT:

1) One of the prayers in traditional "siddur" prayer books is in Aramaic, not Hebrew.⁽⁸⁾

2) Some modern Jewish "prayer books" have both Hebrew and English texts⁽⁹⁾ (I've seen them in a Messianic congregation).

3) Not all rabbis in the world's synagogues today preach in Hebrew; Reform Jews conduct most of their services in English.

4) Paul cites this verse in I Corinthians 14:21-22, the "tongues chapter," as a sign "for unbelievers." Does that mean the other tongue isn't really for God's people?

"Isaiah 62:2.... has also been fulfilled, typically, foreshadowing that time, by the fact that Israel is known by a different name today."

ISN'T THIS JUDAH? Verse 1 offers this context: "For Zion's sake I will not keep silent, for Jerusalem's sake I will not remain quiet...." Those are locations in Judah, not the "house of Israel."

2019 UPDATE: We discovered years after posting this original review that this section of the book was inserted for the 1980 edition. It replaced a section on pages 96-97 of the 1972 edition. We made that discovery after a mainstream radio preacher in Ohio mentioned a couple of verses we'd never considered before about this subject - verses Herbert Armstrong might not have considered, either. We now quote from the 1972 version:

1972, PAGE 96: "Some have quoted II Chronicles 15:9 and 34:9 in an attempt to show that the bulk of the tribes of Israel took up residence in Judah."

MORE THAN THOSE. Pastor Jim Custer of Right Start caught our ear by quoting II Chronicles 11:16. "Those from every tribe of Israel who set their hearts on seeking the Lord, the God of Israel, followed the Levites to Jerusalem to offer sacrifices to the Lord" - as opposed to the animal idols offered in the north in verse 15 (see also 12:1).

The Pastor concluded this settles any question about the "lost ten tribes," because they all became part of Judah. He even claimed the 144,000 mentioned in Revelation 7 are all Jews! But that seems too simplistic, given verse 17: "They strengthened the kingdom of Judah and supported Rehoboam son of Solomon three years...." King Rehoboam ruled far longer than that, for 17 years (12:13) - so what happened after the three years ended? Back to Herbert Armstrong for a possible explanation....

1972, PAGE 96: "It is true that some few people did. We could say in the same way that many have fled East Germany. Does that mean that only a very few people are left in East Germany now? Of course not!... Only a small fraction from time to time took up residence in Judah."

PERHAPS NOT. The NIV says in II Chronicles 15:9 that "large numbers" From Ephraim, Manasseh and Simeon were settled in the south when King Asa ruled Judah. We're left to guess how large that was; the Bible is not specific. But the Hebrew word for "abundance" is the same used to estimate sand on the shore in Joshua 11:4 and I Samuel 13:5, among other places.

As we end this update, we're also left to guess why this section of the study guide was removed and replaced during the 1970s. Could it be that Herbert Armstrong decided his reasoning was too weak?

1980 ED., PAGE 71: Those who refuse this truth.... "Because the word 'Israel' is used, they will claim these are all twelve tribes. But it is specifically speaking of priests and Levites -- and they are of the house of Judah, but not of the ten-tribed house of Israel."

POSSIBLY NOT. Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7 have lists of "the men of the people" who repopulated Jerusalem. Ezra 2:59-63 notes more than 600 people "could not show that their families were descended from Israel.... These searched for their family records, but they could not find them...." So we can't definitively say they were Jews -- and to be fair, we can't definitely say they were from other tribes, either. But there's an open door of doubt there.

PAGE 72: "Names and genealogies are given in Ezra and Nehemiah of those who went back to Palestine from Babylon -- and there was none from any of the Ten Tribes!"

WRONG. Ezra 2:61 mentions descendants of a priest named Barzillai - "a man who had married a daughter of Barzillai the Gileadite and was called by that name...." My NIV Bible's map section indicates Gilead was located east of the Jordan River, in an area assigned to the tribe of Gad (or more likely Manasseh, based on Numbers 26:29 and Joshua 17:6) -- and it's included among "Israelites" in Judges 20:1!

PAGE 75: "Jeremiah.... was set over these kingdoms to do two things...."

OPEN TO INTERPRETATION. HWA seems to combine four points into one in Jeremiah 1:10 - "uproot and tear down, to destroy and overthrow" - then put the last two points of the verse together: "to build and to plant." Could not these be six separate things? Or two groups of three, as NIV places the commas?

But this verse brings another question to mind. If Jeremiah was appointed by God to "tear down, to destroy and overthrow" nations, is the Church of God movement doing the same thing today -- tearing down the United States and Britain, with warnings of pending disaster? (Read more about this at page 80.)

"Jeremiah was set over not just the one nation, Judah -- but over NATIONS. Over the KINGDOMS -- the Kingdom of Israel as well as Judah!"

AND OTHERS?! The latter chapters of Jerusalem include prophecies about Egypt, the Philistines, Ammon, Moab, Edom and more. But the author goes on to make a very presumptive (and theoretically important) claim that Jeremiah helped "to build and to plant" the throne of Israel.

PAGES 78-79: "One of Jeconiah's sons was Salathiel, who was the father of Zorobabel, the son of royal seed through whom Jesus Christ Himself traced His royal ancestry back to David! (Matt. 1:12)"

GENEALOGICAL SHIFT!? The cited verse indeed declares "Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel" (as NIV spells the names) -- and so does Ezra 3:2. BUT the lineage mentioned in I Chronicles 3:17-19 actually declares Zerubbabel one of the "sons of Pedaiah" - Shealtiel's apparent brother!

One commentary explains it this way: "Zerubbabel was the son, which may mean grandson, of Shealtiel. The natural inference of vv. 17-19 is that he was his nephew. An old Jewish explanation interprets v. 18 as listing the sons of Shealtiel. Another explanation would be that he was grandson of both Shealtiel and Pedaiah." (N.B.C., pg. 372)

PAGE 80: "The crown had now been removed from the Pharez line, uprooted from Judah.... and Jeconiah incarcerated in a Babylonian prison.... Jeremiah had now accomplished the first part of his great commission. The throne had been rooted out, the kingdom completely torn down."

WHO DID IT? This statement is based on the latter part of Jeremiah 22. God indeed told the prophet to "proclaim this message" in the king of Judah's palace (22:1). King Jehoiachin (called Coniah in the KJV) surrendered to King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon after only about 100 days in power (II Kings 24:8-12; II Chronicles 36:9-10).

Jeremiah 26:1, 7-8 shows the prophet "finished telling all the people everything the Lord had commanded him to say..." early in King Jehoiakim's reign. This 11-year reign (II Kings 23:36) occurred when son Jehoiachin/Coniah was between ages 7-18. Yet Jeremiah 37:1-2 indicates the Babylonian-appointed successor in Judah (Jehoiachin's uncle, renamed Zedekiah) didn't pay any attention to the prophet -- nor did "the people of the land."

So is it fair to conclude Jeremiah brought down the kingdom of Judah - or was it God, working through the Babylonian leader, after Jeremiah uttered God's message for the nation? II Kings 24:20 should give us the right answer: "It was because of the Lord's anger that all this happened to Jerusalem and Judah...."

I don't claim to be a Hebrew expert. But after reviewing the Hebrew breakdown of Jeremiah 1:10 at BlueLetterBible.org, perhaps a more proper rendering might be as the CEV puts it: "I am sending you with authority to speak to the nations for me. You will tell them of doom and destruction, and of rising and rebuilding again." In other words, Jeremiah doesn't do the destroying -- he tells nations God will do it!

PAGES 81-82: "All possible heirs of Zedekiah to David's throne had been killed -- except the king's daughters! Now we see why Jeremiah went to Mizpah!"

PRESUMPTIVE. Page 80 quotes Jeremiah 40:5-6, which shows a Babylonian leader gave the prophet the option of going wherever he wished. Jeremiah chose to stay with Judah-governing Gedaliah. But to indicate at this point there was a plot involving the royal line assumes facts not in evidence.

PAGE 83: "Notice, it is to be well with the royal material given to Jeremiah with which to build and to plant -- and Jeremiah is to be protected and taken to a land that he knows not!"

NOT NECESSARILY. HWA quotes only the last part of Jeremiah 45:5 in this section, leaving out this part: "For I will bring disaster on all people, declares the Lord...." How do we know for sure the king's daughters would be exempt from this?

PAGES 83-84: "This same prophecy is found also in II Kings 19:30-31... It was a prophecy to happen later -- not during Hezekiah's reign."

THEN WHY GIVE IT? Verse 29 says it's "the sign for you, O Hezekiah...." My NIV Bible indents verses 29-31, implying all three verses are included in the sign. But if Hezekiah died without seeing the second part of the sign, should we assume the "sign" part only applies to verse 29?

PAGE 84: "This remnant with Jeremiah -- at least one of the king's daughters -- shall take root downward! That is, BE REPLANTED! And then bear fruit upward! Be BUILT!"

WHAT ABOUT JESUS?! Jeremiah also prophesies about a "righteous Branch.... from David's line...." (Jeremiah 33:15; see also 23:5)

Isaiah 4:2-3 adds the day of "the Branch of the Lord" will have a "fruit.... the pride and glory of the survivors in Israel. Those who are left in Zion, who remain in Jerusalem, will be called holy..." In 53:2 we further read of One who "grew up.... like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground."

This admittedly doesn't fit the HWA line of reasoning -- and to be fair, some commentaries agree with his view: "The point is that Israel must be reborn...." (N.B.C. pg. 594) "...Some believe that here 'branch' refers to Judah" (NIV Study Bible, pg. 1017 re: Isaiah 4:2). But can we see a possible alternative view, which is Messianic?

PAGES 85-86: "The midwife exclaimed: 'How hast thou broken forth? this breach be upon thee....' (Gen. 38:27-30). Why should this strange occurrence be recorded in Bible history unless this breach was to be healed between the sons or their descendants at some future time?"

PRESUMPTUOUS. The key phrase for HWA here is "this breach be upon thee" (38:29) -- a phrase NIV does not have! All the midwife says in that translation is, "So this is how you have broken out!" The original Hebrew shown at BlueLetterBible.org actually has a similar word twice: parats for the verb "to break," followed by perets as the noun form.

But our key question is: what "breach" is meant here? HWA assumes it's between twin sons Perez (a.k.a. Pharez) and Zerah, and builds his theory from there. But could it simply refer to Perez breaking out of Tamar's womb, as the firstborn of the twins?

PAGE 86: "Now consider: 1) the fact of the breach means the transfer of the sceptre from the Pharez line to the Zarah line.... it could only occur at an OVERTURN of the throne by a marriage between a Pharez heir to the throne and one of the Zarah line, thus healing the breach."

SAYS WHO?! The author leaps to a conclusion based on the word "breach," which could well have nothing to do with Tamar's sons -- and does it with no supporting Scriptures!

"History shows the descendants of Zarah became wanderers, journeying to the north.... their descendants later migrating to Ireland in the days of King David."

POSSIBLY TRUE. A Bing search for "Zarah Ireland" led us to a website run by a backer of the late TV Bible teacher Dr. Gene Scott, which seems to agree with HWA's view.⁽¹⁰⁾ Another site indicates such thinking is based on "various Irish traditions" -- but adds "historical records tell" of descendants through Zerah's son Calcol moving to Ireland via modern-day Spain.

"The Zarah line, feeling it rightfully should possess the sceptre, and some day would, was low, abased --so far as royal power was concerned."

SAYS WHO?! No Bible verses are given to back this "feeling" at all.

PAGE 87: "'This shall not be the same.' [Ezekiel 21:26] The diadem is not to cease, but a change is to take place -- the throne is to be overturned -- another is to wear the crown. God's promise to David is not to go by default!"

PERHAPS NOT. The book's analysis of Ezekiel 21 overlooks verse 10 and 13. Note the NIV wording: "Shall we rejoice in the scepter of my son Judah? The sword despises every such stick.... And what if the scepter of Judah, which the sword despises, does not continue? declares the Sovereign Lord."

KJV refers to "the rod," instead of a scepter -- but the Hebrew root is the SAME word translated as "scepter" in Genesis 49:10! The NIV Study Bible notes, "The question anticipates the final interruption of Davidic kingship, which came in 586 B.C...." (pg. 1247) God clearly opens the possibility that the supposed "unceasing" scepter line COULD cease. And we've seen from Psalm 132 how that could happen.

"'Exalt him that is low, and abase him that is high.' Who is 'high'? King Zedekiah of Judah.... Judah has been 'high,' while Israel has been 'low'...."

WHAT ABOUT BABYLON? The Bible indeed talks about Judah being brought low (II Chronicles 28:19 and Ezekiel 17:14). But isn't the point of Ezekiel 21:18-32 about Babylon conquering Judah and the Ammonites? Wouldn't the king of Babylon count as "low" in God's sight, as not being one of His chosen people?

"The Pharez line has been 'high'; the Zarah line 'low'."

POTENTIALLY CONFUSING. This sentence follows the one about Judah being high and Israel being low. But we must remember both Perez and Zerah had their origins with Judah, not the other tribes.

"What was to be overturned? The diadem, and the throne. Not once -- it is to be overturned three times."

OPEN TO INTERPRETATION. HWA assumes the triple mention of "overturn" in Ezekiel 21:27 refers to physical kingdoms. But could it simply be a "threefold repetition for emphasis" (NIV Study Bible, pg. 1248) -- similar to the double mention of "a sword" in the very next verse?

I've heard COG Pastors say the same thing three times in a row during Bible studies or sermons to drive home a point - in one memorable case, that "Satan cannot heal." One UCG Pastor even mocked PCG's approach to Scripture by saying "prophecy" nine times in a row!

But consider another case in Scripture where triple mention occurs: "Holy, holy, holy is the Lord Almighty...." (Isaiah 6:3) Some mainstream Christian ministers might call that a sign of a triune God. Yet most Sabbath-keeping COG's never would accept that, because they don't consider the Holy Spirit to be God. They'd take the "triple emphasis" approach there - so why not in Ezekiel?

We uncovered another possible explanation of this passage while reviewing the Jameson Fausset and Brown Commentary on Ezekiel 21 - an explanation the commentator openly rejects: "The threefold repetition denotes the awful certainty of the event; not as [Ern Frid Car] ROSENMULLER explains, the overthrow of the three, Jehoiakim, Jeconiah, and Zedekiah; for Zedekiah alone is referred to." Rosenmuller was a Biblical scholar in the period between 1830-50.

"'And it shall be no more.' Does this mean the throne -- the crown -- is to cease to exist? Not at all!"

COMPARE TRANSLATIONS. "More" in the King James actually is in italics, indicating it was added by translators 500 years ago. And note the NIV for the last part of Ezekiel 21:27: "It will not be restored until he comes to whom it rightfully belongs; to him I will give it." HWA correctly declares that "whom" on this page to be "Christ -- whose right it is, at His second coming...."

PAGE 89: "God, through his prophet Jeremiah, is now going to take OF this highest branch and 'SET IT' [Ezekiel 17:22].... 'A tender young twig'! The twigs of this highest branch represent the children of King Zedekiah! Certainly a tender young twig, then, represents a DAUGHTER!"

PERHAPS NOT. When I reviewed the last part of Ezekiel 17, my first thought again was of Jesus -- and several commentaries agree. "The tender one taken from the topmost of its young twigs is the Messiah of the house of David...." (N.B.C., pg. 673) "A beautiful Messianic promise...." (NIV Study Bible, pg. 1241; compare with our notes on page 84) The "branches" which "bear fruit" from Him (verse 23 in NIV; "boughs" in KJV) are disciples (John 15:5) with fruit of the Holy Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23).

"(Ezek. 17:23). 'Lost' Israel, now having acquired the throne and become again a self-ruling nation, shall, in time, spread around the earth gaining dominance and power."

ABOUT GOD'S KINGDOM?! Verse 23 speaks of "birds of every kind" nesting and finding shelter in a "splendid cedar." Compare that with Jesus's parable about the mustard seed -- in which the "kingdom of heaven" grows and "becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and perch in its branches" (Matthew 13:31-32)".

PAGE 90: "Compare that language with Ezekiel 21:26: 'Remove the diadem and take off the crown...' It is speaking of transferring the throne from Judah to Israel."

SUPPORTABLE - at least the first part. Jeremiah 13:18 has a prophecy to both "the king and the queen mother [simply "queen" in KJV] .... your glorious crowns will fall from your heads." Verse 19 then mentions Judah being "carried into exile, carried completely away."

"Israel had already been independent in Ireland for four centuries.... The Irish Israelites were an ancient colony and had not gone into Assyrian captivity."

ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE. Nothing more is given to support this claim. The Wikipedia entry for Ireland claims farming occurred there at least 4,000 years before Christ. But during the Iron Age, "The Celts were commonly thought to have colonised Ireland in a series of invasions between the 8th and 1st centuries BC."

This people group had moved into both the Iberian peninsula and the British Isles by about 450 B.C. (See the Wikipedia entry for "Celts".) But some historians put the dates for the migration far earlier, at least 2,000 years before Christ⁽¹¹⁾. This ultimately turns into a historical debate between believers and skeptics of British Israelism.

But consider where the Bible says Israel went: "....the king of Assyria captured Samaria and deported the Israelites to Assyria. He settled them in Halah, in Gozan on the Habor River and in the towns of the Medes" (II Kings 17:6)." My Bible's maps show this to be the area of modern-day Iraq and Iran -- the opposite direction from Ireland.

PAGE 91: "The prophet Amos wrote.... 'Behold, the eyes of the Lord God are upon the sinful kingdom [house of Israel -- Judah had not yet sinned], and I will destroy it [the kingdom, or government, not the people], from off the face of the earth....' (Amos 9:8-9)."

WRONG. How can HWA declare Judah "had not yet sinned" when I Kings 14:22 says Judah "did evil.... by the sins they committed...." under its very first king, Rehoboam - and Rehoboam sinned as well (15:3)?

HWA is correct in writing the passage in Amos 9 is about Israel, not Judah. But he puts an ellipse inside verses 8-9, leaving out this key section: "'....yet I will not totally destroy the house of Jacob,' declares the Lord." The book established earlier that "house" refers to a royal line. So doesn't this mean some royalty survived the conquest?

PAGE 92: "The Eternal says, in II Samuel 7:10 and I Chronicles 17:9.... The context of this whole passage shows this refers, not to Palestine, but to a different land where these scattered Israelites were to gather.... And, note it, after reaching this place they are to move no more! That is, of course, during this present world."

CONTEXTUAL ERROR. The "whole passage" is a visionary message by night from God to the prophet Nathan -- and there's nothing in that message about scattered Israelites fleeing anywhere. In fact, the following verses normally are understood to refer to King Solomon building "a house for my Name" (II Samuel 7:13, NIV; see our notes on pgs. 50-51).

"Mark this clearly! Once this 'place of their own' was reached, and the throne of David planted there, THEY WERE TO MOVE NO MORE. Therefore, the location of this people today is the place where Jeremiah planted David's throne more than 2,500 years ago!"

COMPARE TRANSLATIONS. HWA quotes the King James for "move no more," while NIV translates that part of II Samuel 7/I Chronicles 17 "no longer be disturbed." Gesenius's Lexicon indicates the Hebrew word for "move" (ragaz) has a Biblical meaning that's more emotional than physical -- along the lines of trembling, shaking or rage.

A matter of selective Bible quoting also must be mentioned here. HWA stops quoting II Samuel 7:10/I Chronicles 17:9 without including the last section: "Wicked people will not oppress them anymore, as they did at the beginning...." If we assume this section refers to Britain, can we really say that area has been free of "wicked oppression" all these centuries? How do we explain the Norman conquest of 1066 -- or the "battle of Britain" during World War II?

PAGE 93: "According to Hosea 12:1: 'Ephraim... followeth after the east wind.' An 'east wind' travels west. Ephraim must have gone west from Assyria."

KEEP READING. HWA again doesn't quote one part of the verse, which may allow the Bible to interpret itself. Ephraim "makes a treaty with Assyria and sends olive oil to Egypt." The "east wind" indeed can be likened to Assyria (see 13:15) -- but apparently it was pursued (the NIV verb) for trade purposes!

"To improve their economy they [Israelites] make trade pacts with godless nations," one commentary explains (N.B.C. pg. 714). Another says, "Pursuing the wind symbolized Israel's futile foreign policy...." (NIV Study Bible, pg. 1326) An apparently similar use of "following after" related to trade also appears in Hosea 2:5-9.

The "east wind" analogy also appears in Jeremiah 18:11, 17 to describe Judah's conquest. Bible maps show the Babylonian empire was larger than Assyria, but covered a similar area north and east of Jerusalem. (And here again, Judah is called "Israel" in verse 13.)

"When the Eternal swore to David that He would perpetuate his throne, He said: 'I will set his hand [sceptre] also in the sea' (Ps. 89:25). The throne is to be 'set,' planted, 'in the sea.'"

WHICH ONE? Page 95 of the book contends the only logical conclusion is the British Isles. But other Old Testament references to "the sea" mean the Mediterranean, such as I Kings 5:9 and Ezra 3:7.

Bible maps indicate the Kingdom of Israel in the time of David and Solomon included coastline from Tyre (the border with Phoenicia) to Joppa (the border with Philistia), then southwest of Philistia to the Wadi of Egypt. "The king had a fleet of trading ships [KJV "a navy"] at sea," says I Kings 10:22.

"....when these words were written by Jeremiah [3:11-12], Israel had been removed from Palestine more than 130 years and had long since migrated, with the Assyrians, north (and west) of Assyria's original location."

LACKING PROOF. No evidence is given to support Assyrian migration. In fact, the largest number of modern-day Assyrians live in Iraq and Syria. There admittedly is a large number of Assyrians in the U.S. (tennis champion Andre Agassi is considered one of them), but the number in the British Isles is tiny.⁽¹²⁾

PAGE 94: "At the future exodus, at Christ's return, they are to return to Palestine out of the land of the NORTH!"

YES, BUT.... While this statement is based on Jeremiah 3:18, 16:15 says in prophetic future terms the Lord "brought the Israelites up out of the land of the north and out of all the countries where he had banished them" (see also 31:8).

"....the Eternal, speaking through Hosea, says: 'Then the children shall tremble from the west' (Hosea 11:8, 10)."

KEEP READING. Verse 11 adds: "They will come trembling like birds from Egypt, like doves from Assyria." While we certainly could consider the reference to birds and doves analogies, wouldn't most COG members find significance in the location - with Egypt southwest of Samaria?

"Here is added another hint -- 'the coasts of the earth' [Jeremiah 31:8] -- evidencing they are dominant at sea and indicating they have spread abroad widely by colonization."

YES, BUT.... HWA says that coastal phrase points to the identity of modern-day Israel. But the phrase also appears in Jeremiah 50:41, while warning "an army.... coming from the north" will attack and defeat Babylon. For some reason, COG groups don't seem to explain that one.

"Referring to the house of ISRAEL.... God says: 'Behold, these shall come from far: and, lo, these from the NORTH and from the WEST; and these from the land of Sinim' (Isa. 49:12).... The Vulgate renders 'Sinim' as 'Australi,' or 'Australia.'"

OPEN TO INTERPRETATION. The Latin Vulgate phrase terra australi literally means "unknown land of the South." But my NIV Bible renders that place as "the region of Aswan" (as in the Aswan Dam) - in southern Egypt! A footnote says that reading is based on the Dead Sea Scrolls, as opposed to the Masoretic Text. The New Living Translation goes so far as to say, "from as far south as Egypt."

Strong's Concordance refers to Sinim as "a distant Oriental region." The New Bible Commentary: Revised notes this place "could be China (the Chinese are Sinai in Greek), if the Hebrews knew the name as early as this" (pg. 616). HWA apparently leapt to a conclusion which fit his theory, based on a familiar-looking Latin word.

"The same 49th chapter of Isaiah begins with this: 'Listen, O isles, unto me'.... This term 'isles' or 'islands' is sometimes translated 'coastlands.'"

TRUE. The word "isles" in King James is translated "coastlands" in the NIV rendering of Jeremiah 25:22 and 31:10. But the Hebrew iy appears 36 times in the Old Testament -- and in every case but one in KJV, it appears as a form of "isle" or "island." The exception is Jeremiah 47:4, where it appears as "country."

PAGE 95: "Lay a line due NORTHWEST of Jerusalem across the continent of Europe, until you come to the sea, and then to the islands in the sea! This line takes you directly to the British Isles!"

AND OTHERS. As mentioned earlier, the interpretation here depends on which "sea" the Bible is describing. The Mediterranean Sea is directly northwest of Jerusalem. But before you reach the continent of Europe, there's the Aegean Sea, with several small islands between Turkey and Greece which nowadays are claimed mostly by the Greeks.

"The coastlands and islands of the Mediterranean are probably intended," says The NIV Study Bible (pg. 1027, comment on Isaiah 11:11). "....the Isles beyond, or beside, the sea, are supposed to be those parts of Phoenicia and Syria that lay upon the coast of the Mediterranean Sea," wrote Matthew Henry in a commentary about Jeremiah 25:22. Keep in mind the path of exile for Israel at the hands of the Assyrians led to modern-day Iraq and Iran. Heading west from there easily could lead to Greece.

(By the way: isn't Iceland located farther northwest of the British Isles?)

"In Judges 8:33 and 9:4, the word 'covenant' is used as a proper name coupled with the name 'Baal'... 'Baalberith,' meaning (margin) 'idol of the covenant.'"

KEEP READING. Judges 9:46 in KJV mentions "the house of the god Berith" (NIV "the temple of El-Berith"). People in Shechem had a god named "covenant" - and verses 47-49 show Abimelech's followers set it on fire, killing about 1,000 people! Is there a lesson for us -- that there's no protection in making a covenant your god?

"The Hebrew for 'man' is iysh, or ish.'"

NOT ALWAYS. Search for "man" in Strong's Concordance, and you'll find iysh dominates in the Old Testament (used more than 1,200 times). But when God "created man in his own image" (Genesis 1:27), that Hebrew word was adam - as in the name first shown in Genesis 2:19-20 (depending on your translation). BlueLetterBible.org shows that name appears as "man" appears more than 500 times.

"The Hebrews, however, never pronounce their 'h's.' Many a Jew, even today, in pronouncing the name 'Shem,' will call it 'Sem.'"

NOT EXACTLY. Some Biblical basis for this claim comes from Judges 12:5-6. Followers of Jephthah challenged suspected Ephraimites during battle: "All right, say 'Shibboleth.' If he said, 'Sibboleth,' because he could not pronounce the word correctly, they seized him and killed him...."

Yet Jephthah was one of several Gileadites who led Israel (10:3, 11:1, 12:7) -- and Gilead was a descendant of Manasseh (Numbers 26:29)! While some might thus see Judges 12 as a harbinger of the U.S. Revolutionary War (the fight in Judges ended with at least 42,000 deaths), our point is that some Hebrews could pronounce the "h" while others could not -- at least anciently.

And as HWA notes on page 103, would not Manassites and Ephraimites have been combined to be "British" before U.S. colonization?

PAGES 95-96: "And the word for 'covenant man' or 'covenant people,' would therefore be simply 'BRIT-ISH.' And so, is it mere coincidence that the true covenant people today are called the 'BRITISH'? And they reside in the 'BRITISH ISLES'!"

PERHAPS SO. Along with the evidence we've already presented that the Bible could refer to a different set of islands, my American Heritage Dictionary (1975 ed.) traces the word "Britain" to a Latin/"Common Celtic" root word Britto. Yet the Latin word for "covenant" is very different: pactum -- as in a pact signed between two parties.⁽¹³⁾

PAGE 96: "The house of Israel.... was to be called by a new name, since they no longer were to know their identity as Israel, as God said plainly in Isaiah 62:2, referring to these latter days, and to the millennium."

KEEP READING. Isaiah 62 indeed has millennial overtones, such as a wedding reference in verse 5 and a coming Savior in verse 11. But doesn't verse 4 interpret verse 2? "No longer will they call you Deserted, or name your land Desolate. But you will be called Hephzibah, and your land Beulah...."

I happen to live in a part of the U.S. which has towns named Hephzibah, Georgia and Beulah, Alabama. But doesn't verse 4 indicate "Israel" was to be called something other than Britain - in KJV, first Forsaken and Desolate? In Hebrew, Azab and Shemamah (KJV margin Azubah)?

Our online searching found a modern-day town named Azab - but it's in western Iran, near the northern end of the Persian Gulf!⁽¹⁴⁾

As for Shemamah, we found no such city name. The word is rooted in a "desolation caused by some great disaster, usually as result of divine judgment...."⁽¹⁵⁾ When has the British Isles had this? Would the "Irish potato famine" of the 19th century really qualify,⁽¹⁶⁾ since Ireland was mostly Catholic at that time?

One website notes Hephzibah has a related name "Eppie" in English.⁽¹⁷⁾ But would any COG dare to find significance in Epworth, England - the hometown of famous Methodists John and Charles Wesley?

"In Amos 7:16 the Israelites are called 'the house of ISAAC'. They were descended from Isaac, and thus are Isaac's sons. Drop the 'I' from Isaac (vowels are not used in Hebrew spelling), and we have the modern name 'SAAC'S SONS,' or, as we spell it in shorter manner, 'SAXONS!'

NOT SO FAST. Since Hebrew was brought up here, the name Isaac can be Yitzhak in Hebrew. (Two recent Israeli Prime Ministers had that name.) The "Y" certainly is not silent, since one of the Hebrew names for God is "Yah" or "Yahweh."

This is all based on God's words in Genesis 21:12, KJV: "In Isaac shall thy seed be called." So why are the latter-day British (presumed Ephraimites) among the only ones who play such a "name game"? Only one grandson of Isaac (or sons of Israel) had a name close to his - and that's Issachar, not Joseph. A few similar names in that tribal line can be found in I Chronicles 7:3 -- along with admittedly a rather close "Shechem" descended from Manasseh in 7:19.

Beyond that, what do we mean by "called"? The NIV translates Genesis 21:12, "....it is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned." Not necessarily called by name, but "to be reckoned by his race" (Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon on Strong's #7121).

"Many confuse the Anglo-Saxons with the Germans or Old Saxons who still live in Germany.... These sword-carrying Germans are an entirely different people from the Anglo-Saxons who migrated to Britain."

NOT PROVEN. HWA cites no historical evidence for his claim -- while encyclopedias show three groups of people invaded England after Roman domination ended in the 400s A.D.: Angles, Saxons and Jutes.

One eighth-century Catholic writer indicates "England" takes its name from the Angles completely abandoning the European continent for the British Isles -- while "Saxons" moved from Germany and northern Europe.⁽¹⁸⁾

But there's historical evidence that Canterbury, England had a "Christian church" (Catholic?!) during Roman rule.⁽¹⁹⁾

"Speaking to Ephraim (verse 20), the Eternal says in Jeremiah 31:21: 'Set thee up waymarks...' In Scripture we find the 'waymarks,' or highway signs, which they set up along the road they traveled.... It is a significant fact that the tribe of Dan, one of the Ten Tribes, named every place they went after their father Dan."

PRESUMPTUOUS TRIBAL JUMP. HWA goes on for several pages to mention the "waymarks" set by the tribe of Dan across Europe and the British Isles -- when the instruction to set them was given to Ephraim! Ephraim is mentioned four times in Jeremiah 31, while Dan does not appear at all. And Mr. Armstrong writes "they" (Ephraimites) set up the waymarks.

By the way: did the Danites really name "every place they went" after the tribal ancestor? NOT according to Judges 18:2, which says five Danite warriors went out "from Zorah and Eshtaol" - cities with names unchanged from the inheritance drawing of Joshua 19:40-46! None of the towns in the territory have a hint of "Dan" in their names -- not even comparing Hebrew spellings. And one of them, Gibbethon, appears later in I Kings 15-16 with no name change. So this claim by HWA is nothing short of hyperbole.

PAGE 97: "Just before his death, Moses prophesied of Dan: 'Dan is a lion's whelp: he shall leap from Bashan' (Deut. 33:22). Along the shores of the Mediterranean they left their trail in 'Den,' Don' and 'Din'."

POTENTIAL GEOGRAPHIC ERROR. Bashan was not a coastal region. Even Strong's Concordance says it was located east of the Jordan River. One map of the 12 tribes in my NIV Bible shows a town named Dan in land which probably was Bashan - but it was east of the Jordan in northeast Naphtali, and that tribe's territory was landlocked.

We also checked a modern World Atlas, and found only one city along the coast of the Mediterranean Sea with a Dan-like name. Denia, Spain is located near Cape Nao in Alicante province.

"Irish annals and history show that the new settlers of Ireland, at just this time, were the 'Tuatha de Dananns,' which means, translated, 'Tribe of Dan.'"

DISPUTABLE. Search for that Celtic phrase online and you'll find a different meaning: "People of the Goddess Danu" -- a mythical "race of deities," according to one source.⁽²⁰⁾ Danu was a "mother goddess," followed across Europe. "In Wales, she was called Don.... Her children represented the tribal deities of light...."

Wikipedia's entry for this phrase⁽²¹⁾ admits the translation "is necessarily imprecise." It agrees with HWA that the similar "Tuatha De" was used to refer to Israelites in some Irish Christian books.

A Celtic "Book of Invasions" offers hints of an Irish settlement similar to what HWA describes -- but with a group banished from Egypt and wandering toward Spain during the time when Moses was clashing with Pharaoh, long before Israel and Judah became separate kingdoms. This book also claims a son of Japheth named "Fenius Farisaid" was present at the Tower of Babel. This has no Biblical backing from Genesis 10-11.

PAGE 99: "Denmark means 'Dan's mark.'"

DISPUTABLE. At least one COG is open to the idea that the tribe of Dan may have settled there, instead of Ireland. Were these the "Dani" people mentioned in Greek and Roman writings? Or does the "Den" come from a word for "flat land"?⁽²²⁾

"When they came to the British Isles, they set up the 'waymark' names of Dun-dee, Dun-raven...."

WHAT ABOUT THE U.S.? I've puzzled some COG members over the years by pointing out U.S. cities which could fit this line of reasoning. Take Danbury, Connecticut -- given its name by a court in 1687, over the settlers' choice of "Swampfield." Doesn't "Dan" translate as "judge" or "justice"? Well, wait - history shows English settlers colonized Connecticut, not the Irish.

Was Denver, Colorado founded by Irish settlers from the tribe of Dan, who somehow became mixed inside Manasseh? Apparently not -- that was a group of prospectors from Kansas, who took the name of a territorial governor. Similarly, Danville, California is from a community founder named Daniel. And the Atlanta suburb of Dunwoody, Georgia was named after a U.S. Army General.

We admit all these city origins (and, in fact, many of the sources used in this review) were found on Wikipedia - and the use of Wikipedia as authoritative in all these matters of history can be dangerous. But were these cities based on Biblical tribal names? Only indirectly, if at all. We can build "coincidences" to support a historical view, but we must recall there are multiple views of history. If a view is not directly backed by Scripture, should it be considered authoritative? Should we put our faith in it?

"The real ancient history of Ireland.... Long prior to 700 B.C. a strong colony named 'Tuatha de Danann' (tribe of Dan) arrived in ships, drove out other tribes, and settled there."

SELF-CONTRADICTING. Compare this with page 97, where HWA writes the Tuatha de Danann sailed for Ireland "when Assyria captured Israel...." That occurred around 722 B.C.

Wikipedia notes "high kings" from the Tuatha De group ruled Ireland from about 1900-1700 B.C. That would be some 1,000 years before the date of ancient Israel's fall -- and long before HWA's claim that a "colony of the line of Zarah" reached Ireland "in the days of David." Smith's Bible Dictionary indicates King David died around 1015 B.C. -- so under the HWA timeline, shouldn't Zarah's timeline have reached Ireland first?

We must add Jeremiah gave his instruction about setting up "waymarks" after all this - as some study Bibles indicate his ministry began in 626 B.C.! Why would Jeremiah need to give such guidance when the tribe of Dan supposedly had been doing it for hundreds of years?

"Then, in 569 B.C. (date of Jeremiah's transplanting),,,,:

LACKING PROOF. Smith's Bible Dictionary says Jeremiah "probably died in Egypt" (pg. 289), and other Bible scholars speculate he may have been stoned to death. The Bible gives no clear answer on this, as it does not with the deaths of Daniel or Peter. But one Christian author in Australia calls the entire idea of Jeremiah moving to Ireland "rubbish."⁽²³⁾

PAGE 100: "Modern literature of those who recognize our national identity has confused this Tea-Tephi, a daughter of Zedekiah, with an earlier Tea, a daughter of Ith, who lived in the days of David."

UNBIBLICAL. The name "Tea" is not in the Bible - nor is Tephi. HWA uses extra-Biblical sources (which he never names) to argue Jeremiah traveled to Ireland with a "patriarch," a "princess daughter," a harp (which is ironic, since many COG ministers tend to preach against harps), an ark and the "lia-fail.... stone of destiny."

"A peculiar coincidence (?) is that Hebrew reads from right to left, while English reads from left to right. Read this name either way -- and it is still 'lia-fail.'"

ENGLISH YES, HEBREW NO. The word "destiny" is not in the King James, so we turned to The Strongest NIV Exhaustive Concordance for help. None of the words translated "destiny" there can be read as a palindrome (the same backward and forward) when combined with the most common Hebrew word for "stone," which is used for Jacob's "pillow stone" in Genesis 28:18.

By the way: HWA's reasoning about "lia-fail" sadly has been used by scoffers of Christianity - the ones who point out God spelled backwards is "dog."

PAGE 102: "The stone rests today in Westminster Abbey in London, and the coronation chair is built over and around it."

OUTDATED. In 1996 the stone was moved to Scotland.⁽²⁴⁾ This became a cover story in The Philadelphia Trumpet, as Gerald Flurry declared the removal of that stone by Queen Elizabeth "the worst decision of her life" and the "biggest mistake" in British government history (August 1996, pg. 5).

"The royal husband of the Hebrew princess Tea was given the title Herremon.... This Herremon has usually been confused with a much earlier Gede the Herremon in David's day...."

UNBIBLICAL. A "Gederite" is mentioned in I Chronicles 27:28, but that's because there was a kingdom named Geder which Joshua and the Israelites conquered (Joshua 12:13). Psalm 42:6 in the KJV mentions "Hermonites" - as in Mount Hermon, at the far northern edge of the Israelite land, near the border with Aram.

"Another interesting fact is that the crown worn by the kings of the line of Herremon and the other sovereigns of ancient Ireland had twelve points!"

SO DOES THE E.U. The European Union flag (considered by many COG's to be the source of the coming "beast power") has 12 stars. Some Roman Catholics claim that was inspired by the Virgin Mary, because the "crown worn by the woman" in Revelation 12:1 has 12 stars.⁽²⁵⁾ So the discovery of 12 "somethings" does NOT immediately mean it is truly Christian.

"In view of the linking together of biblical history, prophecy, and Irish history, can anyone deny that this Hebrew princess was the daughter of King Zedekiah of Judah and therefore heir to the throne of David?"

BEGGING THE QUESTION. HWA admits on page 85 "history stops short" about the final whereabouts of Jeremiah, his aide Baruch and a royal princess. Yet he's built a historical argument -- one we've shown has potential flaws, going all the way back to the birth of Judah's twins.

We've shown God brought one "overturning" of a kingdom, but that does NOT absolutely mean there would be two others in the British Isles. And the book never offers details of the last two "overturnings," anyway - one in Ireland and one in Scotland.

"And the British Commonwealth of nations is the only COMPANY OF NATIONS in all earth's history."

WRONG. The phrase referring to nations comes from Genesis 35:11, and a Hebrew word meaning "assemblage." Students with a good knowledge of geography and recent history might be able to come up with others.

The former "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics," which existed when this book was written, combined several republics under one government. A couple of them actually had separate seats and votes in the United Nations General Assembly, such as "Byelorussia" (now Belarus). This should have become apparent to all when the Soviet Union collapsed in the 1990s.

Also: the NIV translates Genesis 35:11 as "a community of nations" -- and the European Union's original name was an "economic community." We also could add the United Arab Emirates in the Persian Gulf as a "company" of seven small nations. But critics can properly note the U.A.E. was under British rule until the 1950s.

PAGE 103: "Ephraim and much of Manasseh finally migrated to England together, but many others of Manasseh who had filtered into and through other nations did not leave them until they came, as immigrants, to the United States AFTER the New England colony had become the separate nation. This does not mean that all foreigners who have immigrated into this country are of the stock of Manasseh, but undoubtedly many are."

HISTORICALLY DISPUTABLE. HWA himself admits before the section we quoted, "Our people did filter through many nations." History shows immigrants from countries besides Britain colonized the U.S. prior to 1776. The Dutch (the tribe of Zebulun to some COG's) landed in New York and Pennsylvania. Sweden (perhaps Naphtali) established an outpost in Delaware, and spread into New Jersey.⁽²⁶⁾

Admittedly, British transplants dominated the U.S. population by 1790. But immigration from Germany and other European countries became more dominant in the 19th century.

PAGE 104: "Thus we have become known as the 'melting pot' of the world. Instead of refuting our Manasseh ancestry, this fact actually confirms it.... Manasseh was in fact a thirteenth tribe."

HALF-TRUE. The KJV uses the phrase "tribe of Manasseh" six times, but calls it a "half tribe" (or similar wording) 37 other times. ("Half the tribe" in KJV is translated frequently as "half-tribe" in NIV.)

While Ephraim is mentioned by Old Testament prophets many times, it's noteworthy that Manasseh scarcely appears. The biggest mention is in Isaiah 9:21: "Manasseh will feed on Ephraim, and Ephraim on Manasseh [what some might call the modern "special relationship" between the U.S. and U.K.]; together they will turn against Judah."

Gilead (a spinoff of Manasseh) also has little prophetic mention. Jeremiah 46:11 somewhat sarcastically encourages Egypt to "Go up to Gilead and get balm.... But.... there is no healing for you." Supporters of British-Israelism might speculate this has something to do with the U.S. providing weapons to Egypt -- and in fact, such an arms deal was debated in early 2013 as I prepared this study.⁽²⁷⁾

But notice Obadiah 19: "People from the Negev will occupy the mountains of Esau.... and Benjamin will possess Gilead." ("Shall possess" is italicized in the KJV, but the addition makes sense in the context of the rest of the verse.) The United Church of God Bible Reading Program concludes these names refer to present-day Israel taking over northern Jordan. But if we're going to be consistent, shouldn't there be a tribal ante-type -- with Norway or Iceland taking over the U.S.?

The logic of HWA's book asks you to accept an economic conclusion about the identity of Manasseh, without any direct prophetic evidence about its whereabouts. This requires a large measure of faith on the part of the reader -- perhaps to conclude God miraculously changed the tribal origin (or even DNA) of U.S. residents and arrivals beginning July 4, 1776. (Which leads to the question of why this also wasn't "Dunn" for Danites, once Ephraimites reached the British Isles.)

SUMMARY: The more I meditated in recent years on the "Ephraim and Manasseh" split which supposedly occurred with U.S. independence, the more implausible the British Israelism theory seemed -- and the more I wanted to review Herbert Armstrong's book from beginning to end. Here's what I'm concluding so far:

1. The promise of grace is more important for believers than any historical promise of race. In that, Mr. Armstrong and I agree. But which one seems to get more emphasis in modern-day COG's?

2. Several key points of the book overlook (or downright edit out) key Bible verses which throw them into doubt. They include a Psalm showing God gave Himself an "out" from supposedly unconditional promises to His people.

3. A comparison of Bible translations also can shed a different light on key points related to British-Israelism.

4. Some prophetic verses used to verify British-Israelism could be applied better to Jesus Christ.

5. Some of HWA's logic is based on a shift of verses - as Scriptural advice given to one tribe is applied to another to prove points.

6. Some of the reasoning for British-Israelism is built on disputable historical "tradition," which lacks Biblical support.

7. Jesus Christ will come back to a throne - but a throne which He apparently will reestablish, after it was suspended for centuries.

We're pausing this review at the end of Chapter IX, to take a break for the Spring Holy Day season -- planning to post part two at a future point. But what has our review so far led you to conclude -- based on the full evidence of Scripture?

To reply to this article, e-mail the author directly

< Back to www.cg main page

© 2013-19, Richard Burkard, All Rights Reserved.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Israelism

2. http://www.victorianweb.org/religion/jewschron.html

3. http://www.jewishgen.org/databases/GivenNames/dbdespop.htm

4. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/bigotry.html

5. For examples, see http://erlc.com/article/i-support-israel/ and http://www.christian-perspective.com/media/documents/IsraelBiblicalPropheciesPdf.pdf .

6. http://thetencommandmentsministry.us/ministry/ferrar_fenton/

7. http://rcg.org/questions/p060.a.html

8. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/liturgy.html

9. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Prayer_Book

10. http://creationwiki.org/Zerah

11. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insular_Celts

12. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaldo-Assyrian

13. http://www.latinwordlist.com/latin-word-for/latin-word-for-covenant-56012098.htm

14. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azab,_Iran

15. http://www.abarim-publications.com/Meaning/Shemamah.html#.URZsJzYo61s

16. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Potato_Famine

17. http://www.behindthename.com/name/hephzibah

18. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo_Saxons

19. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertha_of_Kent

20. http://www.timelessmyths.com/celtic/danann.html

21. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuatha_D%c3%a9_Danann

22. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denmark

23. http://www.biblicalresearchinstitute.com/lectures/lec16.htm

24. http://www.aboutscotland.com/stone/destiny.html

25. http://www.cogwriter.com/news/religious-news/vatican-news-eu-flag-is-marian/

26. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_immigration_to_the_United_States

27. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2013/02/01/a-bad-vote-on-weapons-to-egypt/