|
Chapter
2-- |
America & Britain in Prophecy:
A Great
Mystery of History
|
F |
or their terrible sins,
"the LORD rejected all the descendants of Israel, afflicted them, and
delivered them into the hand of plunderers, until He had cast them from His
sight.... For the children of Israel walked in all the sins of Jeroboam
which he did; they did not depart from them, until the LORD removed Israel
out of His sight, as He had said by all His servants the prophets. So
Israel was carried away from their own land to Assyria" (2 Kings 17:20,
22-23)!
They had been amply warned--over centuries
of time! In fact, shortly before his death, Moses had given the Israelites a
stern warning regarding what would happen to them if they departed from
their God and His covenant: "And it shall be, that just as the LORD
rejoiced over you to do you good and multiply you, so the LORD will rejoice
over you to destroy you and bring you to nothing; and you shall be plucked from
off the land which you go to possess. Then the LORD will scatter you
among all peoples, from one end of the earth to the other" (Deut.
28:63-64)! "I will scatter you among the nations and draw
out a sword after you" (Lev. 26:33).
Throughout the entire history of the Northern
Kingdom of Israel, God sent many of His prophets to warn the people to reform
their ways or else lose their God-given heritage. For example, after the
North's very first king, Jeroboam, instituted idolatrous worship in the
kingdom, God sent the Prophet Ahijah with a chilling message: "For the
LORD will strike Israel, as a reed is shaken in the water. He will uproot
Israel from this good land which He gave to their fathers, and will scatter
them beyond the [Euphrates] River" (1 Kings 14:15).
In this and the next few chapters, we
examine one of the greatest mysteries of the Bible: What happened to the
northern Ten Tribes of Israel after they were taken into captivity beyond the
Euphrates?
Which Tribes Returned to
the Promised Land?
Some historians have held the view that the
northern Ten Tribes returned to the Promised Land from the areas of their Assyrian
captivity at the same time the Jews returned from their later Babylonian
captivity--and that the northern Israelites subsequently intermingled with the Jews,
losing their separate national identity. But this just isn't so! The Bible
makes it very clear that the overwhelming majority of those who returned to the
Holy Land from Babylonian captivity were from the tribes of JUDAH and BENJAMIN,
plus part of LEVI.
Many today harbor a common misconception
that ALL Twelve Tribes returned to the Promised Land ("Judah" or
"Judea") in the late 500s and early 400s B.C. But this can be disproven
by two valuable sources: Scripture (especially, the books of Ezra and Nehemiah)
and the brilliant Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus (c. 37-100 A.D.).
|
Were Millions Just
Assimilated? |
|
|
Most historians assert that the Ten Tribes in captivity
intermarried with other peoples with whom they came into contact, thereby
being "swallowed up" by those peoples. To support this opinion,
many argue that the population of the Northern Kingdom of Israel was not
large enough to maintain its separate identity in captivity-that its population
was rather small and subject to easy assimilation. But what was the actual
number of people deported to Assyria? How many people are we really talking
about? At the time
of the Exodus (c. 1446 B.C.), there were about three million Israelites. Clarke's
Commentary and numerous others both offer this estimate based upon the
biblical figure of "about six hundred thousand men on foot [who
could fight], besides children" (Ex. 12:37). So it is possible, from
able-bodied "men of war" figures, to accurately estimate total
population-including women, children and elderly men. About 456
years later (c. 990 B.C.), King David took a military census. Halley's
Bible Handbook says, "The census showed a population of about a
million and a half of fighting men, exclusive of Levi and Benjamin (1 Chr.
21:5); or a total population of, probably, about SIX TO EIGHT
MILLION" (23rd ed., p. 188). In fact, Israel and Judah may have had
a combined population of about eight to fifteen million at the time of
David's census--the early part of the tenth century B.C. The Ten Tribes
alone must have contained at least five to ten million people! Israel's
final captivity occurred approximately 270 years afterward, in 721 B.C. Is it
logical to suggest that they had decreased to less than 100,000 by
that time? No, that's ludicrous! There must still have been millions
of Israelites at the time of their deportation, probably close to the same
figures given for David's time. All
historical accounts are unanimous in showing that the Northern Kingdom of
Israel was far more populous than the Southern Kingdom of Judah. Yet, there
are some who would foolishly conclude that the Assyrians took far more
captives from Judah than from Israel. Assyrian Emperor Sennacherib invaded
Judah in 701 B.C., 20 years after the northern Ten Tribes of Israel
were taken into captivity. Despite his failed attempt to destroy the Kingdom
of Judah and deport all the Jews, he nevertheless reports taking 200,150
Jewish captives. "Though
the figure of 200,150 captives and the razing of 46 walled cities [in
Judah] has been contested... later scholarship has increasingly
accepted the possible authenticity of the numbers.... Sennacherib
successfully captured the fortified towns of Judah (2 Kgs 18:13; 2 Chr 32:1),
exacted spectacular tribute (2 Kgs 18:14-16), and failed to capture Jerusalem
though he walled up Hezekiah 'like a caged bird'" ("Hezekiah,"
Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 3, p. 192). "Hezekiah's revolt in
705 BC, crushed by Sennacherib 4 years later, reduced Judah to a shadow of
its former self, at least two-thirds of the population perishing or being
carried away captive, and a large portion of its territory being
lost" ("Judah," Illustrated Bible Dictionary, pt. 2, p.
825). If about 200,000 men constituted two-thirds of Judah, Judah must have
had over 300,000 men-meaning there were a few million Jews. And Israel would
have been even bigger! Professor
Salo Baron, acclaimed by the London Daily Express as the world's
greatest authority on Jewish history, says that, prior to Israel's Assyrian
captivity, "there were not less than FOUR HUNDRED SETTLEMENTS
classified as towns" (Social and Religious History of the Jews,
vol. 1, p. 72). Interestingly, "Tiglath-pileser boasts that he destroyed
at this time five hundred and ninety-one cities [!], whose inhabitants
were carried away with all their possessions to Assyria"
("Tiglath-pileser," Unger's Bible Dictionary, p. 1,094). We
must remember that those nearly 600 cities were all located in the northern
part of the Northern Kingdom and in the region across the Jordan-away
from the main concentration of the northern tribes! Thus, Israel, in the
eighth century B.C., was an extremely populous nation! When we put
all the facts together, it is clear that the population of the Northern
Kingdom of Israel, at the time of its captivity, was probably at least five
to ten million! What happened to those teeming millions after they went
into captivity? Were they assimilated by other peoples? Flavius Josephus said
the Ten Tribes of the first century A.D. were "an IMMENSE MULTITUDE,
and not to be estimated by numbers." It is unlikely in the extreme
that such a multitude just disappeared as an identifiable
people from the face of the earth. |
|
Testimony of Ezra: God "stirred up the spirit" of King Cyrus
the Great so he would permit the Jews to "build Him [God] a house at
Jerusalem which is in JUDAH" (Ezra 1:1-2). But which tribes of Israel
returned at that time to help build the Temple at Jerusalem? "Then the
heads of the fathers' houses of JUDAH and BENJAMIN, and the priests and the
LEVITES... arose to go up and build the house of the LORD which is in
Jerusalem" (v. 5).
A careful study of the rest of this book
clearly reveals that those Israelites who were mentioned were only from
the tribes of JUDAH, BENJAMIN and LEVI.
Testimony of Nehemiah: "So I called a great assembly.... And I said to
them [the Jews], 'According to our ability we have redeemed our JEWISH
BRETHREN'.... Moreover there were at my table one hundred and fifty JEWS and
rulers" (Neh. 5:7-8, 17). He also says, "And I found a register of
the genealogy of those who had come up in the first return [from Babylonian
captivity], and found written in it: 'These are the people who came back from the
captivity, of those who had been carried away, whom Nebuchadnezzar the
king of Babylon had carried away captive [to Babylon--NOT whom Shalmaneser or
Sargon had carried to Assyria!], and who returned to Jerusalem and Judah
[NOT Samaria and northern Israel], everyone to his own city"
(7:5-6). Thus the Bible makes it very plain that those who returned were NOT
descendants of the northern Ten Tribes who went into Assyrian captivity
in the late 700s B.C. Rather, they were descendants of those Jews taken
captive eastward to Babylonia in 586 B.C.
Why, then, does verse 73 say, "So the
priests, the Levites... and ALL ISRAEL dwelt in their cities"? Some
biblical scholars assume that "all Israel" here refers to all
Twelve Tribes. But all of the Jews had not even returned--much less all
of the ISRAELITES! So is there a different way to look at this? Yes--EVERY
descendant of Israel (Jacob) is an ISRAELITE in the broad sense of the word!
The JEWS who returned to the land of JUDAH traced their lineage back to the
tribes of JUDAH, BENJAMIN and LEVI; therefore they all would have been
"ISRAELITES." Clearly, when Nehemiah spoke of "all Israel,"
he meant all the descendants of Israel that were there at the time--living
in the land. And which "Israelites" would they have been? Almost exclusively
those of the tribes of Judah, Benjamin and Levi!
Testimony of Flavius Josephus: Writing his history near the end of the first
century A.D., Josephus explains, "The entire body of the people [the
Ten Tribes] of ISRAEL remained in that country, wherefore there are but Two
Tribes [Judah and Benjamin] in Asia and Europe subject to the Romans, while
the TEN TRIBES are beyond Euphrates till now [c. 100 A.D.], and are an immense
multitude, and not to be estimated by numbers" (Antiquities of the
Jews, bk. 11, chap. 5, sec. 2). That should settle the matter! More than
600 years after the return of the Jews to the Promised Land from Babylonian
exile, the Ten Tribes had STILL not returned from the lands beyond the
Euphrates River to which the Assyrians had deported them!
|
"The Ten Tribes are beyond Euphrates
till now, and are an immense multitude." Flavius Josephus |
|
No, they hadn't returned by then and they
still haven't returned to this very day! Notice this from the Jewish
Quarterly Review: "The captives of [the Ten Tribes of] Israel
exiled beyond the Euphrates did not return as a whole to Palestine along with
their brethren the captives of Judah; at least there is no mention made of
this event in [any of] the documents at our disposal" (vol. 1, p. 15). The
exiled northern Ten Tribes did NOT return to their former homeland, nor were
they later assimilated, as a group, by their relatives, the Jews. Neither were
they assimilated by other peoples (see box: "Were
Millions Just Assimilated?"). What, then, became of them?
Israel's Identity Lost
A Jewish historian, Alfred Edersheim, says,
"No notice has been taken of those wanderers of the Ten Tribes, whose trackless
footsteps seem as mysterious as their after-fate.... Josephus [cited above]
describes them as an innumerable multitude, and vaguely locates them
beyond the Euphrates.... Still the great mass of the Ten Tribes was in the
days of Christ, as in our own, lost to the Hebrew nation" (Life and
Times of Jesus the Messiah, pp. 14-16).
Another prominent Jewish historian says,
"The kingdom of the Ten Tribes of Israel, had in one day disappeared,
leaving no trace behind. The country vomited out the Ten Tribes, as it
had vomited out the Canaanitish tribes. What has become of them? They have been
looked for and believed to have been discovered in the distant East as well as
in the far West.... But there can be no doubt that the Ten Tribes have been
irretrievably lost among the nations" (Graetz, History of the Jews,
vol. 1, p. 265).
Graetz, though, was only partially correct. Unlike
the Jews, the Israelites had lost the laws of God that identified them as His
people (such as the Sabbath--Ex. 31:13-17). So when they were put away
(Jer. 3:8), cast from God's sight and scattered, the Ten Tribes of Israel, over
the course of time, forgot their identity and became the LOST Ten Tribes. As we
will later see, Jesus Christ referred to them as the "LOST sheep of the
House of Israel" (Matt. 15:24). So they were indeed "lost." But,
it is a serious mistake to assume, as did Graetz, that the Ten Tribes have
become "irretrievably lost."
Why? Because God's Word tells us otherwise!
Before Israel's captivity, the Prophet Amos quoted God as saying, "Behold,
the eyes of the Lord GOD are on the sinful kingdom [Israel], and I will destroy
it from the face of the earth" (Amos 9:8). The political entity of the
Kingdom of Israel was indeed destroyed. But the prophecy did not end here. The
same verse continues, "...yet I will not utterly destroy the house of
Jacob." Though God would completely destroy their kingdom, He
would not wipe out the people of Israel.
Notice what God says He would do next: "For
surely I will command, and will SIFT the house of Israel among all nations, as
grain is sifted in a sieve" (v. 9). We have already seen this in other
prophecies. The people of the Ten Tribes would be scattered and dispersed
abroad. So would this be the end of Israel? Would the Israelites be assimilated
into other nations and disappear as a people? The rest of the verse answers, "...yet
not the smallest grain shall fall to the ground." God would SIFT the
Israelites through other nations. But, in doing so, He would preserve them
intact as a people. They would NOT be amalgamated with other people. Not one
of them would be "irretrievably lost."
This is further borne out by the fact that
Bible prophecy identifies Israel as a key player in end-time events. Israel must
exist today as "many nations." If we accept the Bible, then we
must also accept all of its promises and prophecies regarding the national
greatness of Israel, in addition to what it says about Israel's return from a
yet future captivity. If, however, the Israelites have become so lost
that they can never be found, then the Bible must be completely rejected as
untrustworthy!
|
|
"For surely I will command, and will
sift the house of Israel among all nations, as grain is sifted in a sieve;
yet not the smallest grain shall fall to the ground." --Amos 9:9 |
The Jewish Quarterly Review cited
above says that "the return of the Ten Tribes was one of the great
promises of the Prophets, and the advent of the Messiah is therefore
necessarily identified with the epic of their redemption.... The hope of the
return of the Ten Tribes has never ceased among the Jews in Exile.... This hope
has been connected with every Messianic rising" (pp. 17, 21).
The Jewish Encyclopaedia says,
"As a large number of prophecies relate to the return of
'Israel' to the Holy Land, believers in the literal inspiration of the
Scriptures have always labored under a difficulty in regard to the continued
existence of the tribes of Israel, with the exception of those of Judah
and Levi (or Benjamin), which returned with Ezra and Nehemiah. If the Ten
Tribes have disappeared, the literal fulfillment of the prophecies would be
impossible: if they have not disappeared, obviously they must exist under a different
name" ("Tribes, Lost Ten," vol. 12, p. 249).
The Jewish Chronicle of May 2, 1897,
says, "The Scriptures speak of a future restoration of Israel, which is
clearly to include both Judah and Ephraim (or Israel). [See Ezekiel 37:16-22.]
The problem, then, is reduced to its simplest form. The Ten Tribes are
certainly in existence. All that has to be done is to discover which people
represent them"!
To do this, we must understand WHEN,
according to the Bible, the prophecies we have seen of "a nation and a
company of nations" with awesome national wealth would be fulfilled and
WHERE God said they would be!
Where Does God's Word
Locate Modern Israel?
The when is the late 1700s (see box: "Birthright
Blessings Delayed 2,520 Years!"). But where does God's Word
locate the birthright holders of Israel in end-time prophecy? In the book of
Jeremiah, God gives instructions to those bearing His message in the end time:
"Backsliding Israel hath justified herself more than treacherous Judah. Go
and proclaim these words toward the north, and say, Return, thou
backsliding Israel, saith the LORD" (3:11-12 KJV).
Israel is clearly differentiated from Judah
(the Jews) here and was to be found to the NORTH. As such directions in the
Bible are always given from the vantage point of Jerusalem, that was certainly
true during the time of the ancient Northern Kingdom. But this prophecy was
recorded more than 130 years after Israel's Assyrian deportation.
Notice a few verses later, obviously
referring to a yet future time: "In those days the house of Judah
shall walk with [KJV margin "to"] the house of Israel, and they
shall come together out of the land of the NORTH to the land that I have
given as an inheritance to your fathers" (v. 18). As we have seen, this
prophesied return has never happened. Israel, then, would be to the north
of the Holy Land in the last days.
But some will argue that the areas of
northern Mesopotamian and Media to which Israel was anciently deported,
although not due north, were, nevertheless, north of the Holy
Land. And so they were. They were northeast of the Holy Land. But notice
that Hosea 12:1 says, "Ephraim... pursues the east wind." An
east wind comes from the east and blows WEST! Hosea also recorded God
asking, "How can I give you up, Ephraim? How can I hand you over,
Israel?" (11:8). He then states, "I will not again destroy
Ephraim.... They shall walk after the LORD.... Then His sons shall come
trembling from the WEST" (vv. 9-10). This cannot, then, refer to the
ancient Assyrian captivity of Israel.
Where, to the north and west, would Israel
be? In a forthcoming publication, we will examine the fascinating promises God
made to King David about perpetuating his throne. Jeremiah was commissioned
"to root out" the Davidic throne from Jerusalem and "plant"
it elsewhere (Jer. 1:10). As our future brochure will reveal, the line of David
would continue to reign over those of the House of Israel--even in their new
land! God said regarding the dynasty of "David my servant.... I will
SET [plant] his hand [authority] also IN THE SEA" (Ps. 89:20, 25 KJV).
So Israel, under the Davidic line, would have authority over maritime trade and
travel.
Where is this leading us? Look at another
prophecy Jeremiah recorded for "the latter days" (Jer. 30:24; 31:1).
God says, "You shall be rebuilt, O virgin of Israel!... You shall yet
plant vines on the mountains of Samaria.... For there shall be a day when the
watchmen will cry on Mount Ephraim, 'Arise, and let us go up to Zion, to the
LORD our God'" (vv. 4-6). So this is clearly referring to end-time Israel.
God refers to Israel as "Jacob... the chief of the nations"
(31:7). Which modern nations have fulfilled such a role?
God then says, "Behold, I will bring
them [the Israelites] from the north country, and gather them from the coasts
of the earth.... for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my
firstborn" (vv. 8-9 KJV). The colonization of the earth's coasts pictured
here gives further support to Israel's dominance at sea. Then, in the next
verse, God makes it even clearer: "Hear the word of the LORD, O nations
[Ephraim and Manasseh], and declare it in the isles afar off" (v.
10). Isles? Our search is becoming even more intriguing.
This fascinating prophecy is corroborated in
the book of Isaiah. God says, "Keep silence before Me, O coastlands
["islands" KJV].... You, Israel, are My servant, Jacob, whom I have
chosen, the descendants of Abraham My friend. You whom I have taken from the ends
of the earth, and called from its farthest regions ["chief men"
KJV]" (Is. 41:1, 8-9). He further confirms this a few chapters later:
"Listen, O coastlands ["isles" KJV], to Me, and take
heed, you peoples from afar!... You are My servant, O Israel" (Is. 49:1,
3). In verse 12, He states, "Surely these shall come from afar; Look!
Those from the north and the west, and these from the land of Sinim."
In the ancient Hebrew language, from which
this verse was translated, there was no specific word for
"northwest," but that is what was actually meant by "the north
and the west." The Latin Vulgate translation gives the word
"Sinim" as Australi ("south"). So, not only are the
modern Israelite nations specifically NORTHWEST of Jerusalem, they are also
spread all over the globe!
|
Birthright Blessings
delayed 2,520 Years! |
|
|
When would the birthright promises be fulfilled? Remember that
God had made them UNCONDITIONAL to Abraham's descendants. Thus, God would
HAVE to bestow the promised blessings-no matter what. But He would
decide the proper time frame. Would God have given the blessings to the newly
formed nation of Israel that was headed toward the Promised Land? Yes--IF
Israel had met the condition of continued obedience to Him as outlined in
Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28. (Remember that the blessings themselves were
UNconditional--but God was free to attach conditions as to WHEN He would give
them.) But for disobedience,
God promised terrible punishments. Sadly, this is what happened repeatedly.
Notice what God said to these people who refused to live by His law: "And
after all this, IF you do NOT obey Me, then I will punish you SEVEN TIMES
MORE for your sins" (Lev. 26:18). The phrase "seven times
more" is translated from the Hebrew words, sheba', simply meaning
"seven," and yacaph, meaning "to add, increase, do
again" (Enhanced Strong's Lexicon, 1992). The sense conveyed is
that of "multiplied times seven" or "sevenfold"-here
meaning seven times greater intensity of punishment. God then lists some of
these increased punishments (which, as we will later see, are dual-applying
to both ancient and end-time Israel). And what if they still wouldn't
obey? "Then, if you walk contrary to Me, and are not willing to obey Me,
I will bring on you SEVEN TIMES MORE PLAGUES, according to your sins"
(v. 21). The plagues upon them would be increased seven times yet again!
Yet, despite
the terrible punishment God brought on the Israelites, they still failed to
heed and obey Him. What did the Eternal say would happen in this case? "And
if by these things you are not reformed by Me, but walk contrary to Me, then
I also will walk contrary to you, and I will punish you yet SEVEN TIMES for
your sins" (vv. 23-24). There is something very important to notice
here! The word "more" does not occur after "seven times"
as it did above. This is not, then, talking about a sevenfold increase in
intensity as before. The word sheba'
("seven") can also refer to duration, continuation or repetition of
an action over some period of time. In Psalm 119:164 and Proverbs 24:16,
"seven times" (Heb. sheba') refers to something being
repeated seven times. The same is true of the "seven times" of
Leviticus 26:24. It is talking about a specific punishment repeated seven
times. As it is a repeated punishment, each episode must be of equal
duration. Thus, we are talking about seven successive time periods making
up one long period of punishment. Has God ever
used "seven times" to correctively punish someone else? In fact, He
has-King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon! God, wanting to humble this
arrogant world ruler, said that the king would be reduced to eating grass
with the cattle for a period of time: "And SEVEN TIMES shall pass
over you, until you know that the Most High rules in the kingdom of
men" (Dan. 4:32). For seven literal years, Nebuchadnezzar was out
of his mind, grazing with the oxen. So a biblical "time" equals a
year. We must be
careful here though. A "time" is not a 365-day solar year. In the
ancient past, a year was considered to be 360 days, based on twelve 30-day
months. To demonstrate, the Great Flood of Noah's era was exactly five
months--equal to 150 days (Gen. 7:11, 24; 8:4). Thus, each month was exactly
30 days-and 12 months would have been 360 days! Do we see
biblical "times" specifically referring to 360-day years in the
Bible? Yes! Revelation 12:14 mentions "a time and times and half a
time." A "time" would be a 360-day year. "Times"
implies the smallest plural, since it is unspecified. Therefore it refers to
TWO years of 360 days each. "Half a time," then, is 180 days.
Adding these figures together, we get 360 + (2 x 360) + 180 = 1,260 days (3.5
years, corresponding to 42 months of 30 days each in Revelation 13:5). A well-known
principle among students of Bible prophecy is that "days" can
sometimes represent years! That is certainly the case when referring to the
Israelites' punishment. This "day-for-a-year principle" was
established with them early on. For their disobedience
and lack of faith in failing to enter the Promised Land when God first told
them to, He punished them by DELAYING or WITHHOLDING their possession of the
land for a definite period of time. Notice: "According to the number of
the days in which you spied out the land, forty days, for each day you
shall bear your guilt one year, namely forty years, and you shall know My
rejection" (Num. 14:34). Centuries
later, the Prophet Ezekiel was told by God to act out an imaginary siege
against Israel by lying on his left side for 390 days-and against Judah, by
lying on his other side for 40 days. God told Ezekiel, "I have laid
on you a day for each year" (Ezek. 4:6). Thus, a day for an
individual here represents an entire year for a nation. With this
principle clearly in mind, we can now return to Leviticus 26 and discover
what the "seven times" in verse 24 refer to. God was speaking here
of seven prophetic "times" or years with 360 days each. Therefore,
7 x 360 days = 2,520 days. Using the day-for-a-year principle, each DAY here
represents a YEAR of national punishment-a DELAY in the promised blessings
(as in Numbers 14:34). This gives us 2,520 YEARS that the birthright
blessings would be WITHHELD! At the END of
2,520 years, the blessings would finally be bestowed upon Ephraim and
Manasseh. How do we know that? The very fact of withholding something for a
specific time means that it will no longer be withheld after that time. Does
that mean that the Israelites would be righteous or somehow deserving of the
birthright at the end of the 2,520 years? No! They would NOT be. In fact,
they would still be without the important laws of God, like the Sabbath,
which would identify them as God's people if obeyed. Still ignorant of these
laws, the Israelites would not know their own identity and, thus, the true
reason WHY they were being so greatly blessed. Why, then,
would these blessings come at that time? Because they HAD to in order to
fulfill God's promises and prophecies regarding Israel. Since He had nowhere
obliged Himself to give the blessings to any particular generation except
"in the last days" (Gen. 49:1), He did not violate His promise by
offering them conditionally to ancient Israel. However, since ancient
Israel did not meet God's conditions, the blessings would have to wait 2,520
years to be given unconditionally. When would
the 2,520 years start? We see that in the next verse of Leviticus 26: "And
I will bring a sword against you that will execute the vengeance of My
covenant... and you shall be delivered into the hand of the enemy"
(v. 25). This terrible consequence came to pass with the Assyrian captivity
of Israel in the late 700s B.C. As we will
see in a later chapter, if we count 2,520 years from almost any significant
starting point around the time of Israel's captivity, we arrive at a
corresponding, significant event in the late 1700s A.D. That should certainly
help us to identify modern Israel! |
|
Remember that God had told Jacob this long
before: "You shall spread abroad to the west and the east, to the north
and the south" (Gen. 28:14). And of Joseph's descendants, Jacob had
prophesied, "His branches run over the wall" (49:22)--i.e. they would
colonize beyond their national boundaries. This colonial spirit is explained later
in Isaiah 49. God, speaking of the future reign of Jesus Christ over all
nations, says to Israel, "The children you will have, AFTER you have
lost the others [in global catastrophes soon to strike at the end of this
age], will say AGAIN in your ears, 'The place is TOO SMALL for me; give me a
place where I may dwell'" (v. 20).
Notice this! Some time after being
regathered to the Promised Land, Israel's burgeoning populace in the World
Ahead will express a need for new territories in which to expand. Yet this
event is described as happening AGAIN--i.e. it is the repeat of a prior
episode. When did the Israelites say this the first time? Certainly not
while they still lived in the Holy Land. It must have been later--when their
settlement in the "Isles" became too cramped.
We now have all the information we need to
identify modern "Israel." Which "nation and a company of
nations" began their rise to prominence in the late 1700s, later sitting
as "chief of the nations" and possessing greater national wealth than
any other political entities in human history? Which peoples have come from the
"islands" which are "in the sea" far to the northwest
of Jerusalem--who, finding these islands "too small," had to branch
out and colonize all over the world? Who has possessed the vital sea gates
of the world and, for centuries now, has "ruled the waves"? Is the
answer not right here before us? Surely there can be NO mistaking this
description!
Notice the map below. If we extend a line
due northwest of Jerusalem, it crosses the European continent, comes to the sea
and then reaches "the isles afar off." Which isles are these? The
British Isles! As we will see more closely later, the great single nation that
emerged from there--Manasseh--is the United States of America. And the
"company of nations"--Ephraim--is clearly the United Kingdom of Great
Britain along with the other British-descended nations of the Commonwealth,
e.g. Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
Amazing! The Puritan founders of America
were more right than they knew! There can be no question, now, that when God's
holy Word refers to Ephraim and Manasseh in prophecy, it means the
English-speaking peoples. There are, however, some questions remaining. Has God
simply transferred the names and blessings of His covenant people to different
peoples--our peoples? Or, as incredible as it sounds, are our
Anglo-Saxon-Celtic peoples the true physical descendants of the actual tribes
of Ephraim and Manasseh that were lost with the other northern tribes of
Israel? For that to be so, the footsteps of the Lost Ten Tribes must lead to
northwestern Europe. But do they? And if so, can we trace them?
Early Israelite Migrations
Before we try to find where the lost
Israelites went after their captivity, we should examine where some of
the early Israelites were going long before the Assyrian Empire was even
in existence--much less a threat.
The historian C.W. Muller noted that,
"Hecataeus [of Abdera, Greek historian, 4th century B.C.]... tells us that
the Egyptians, formerly being troubled by calamities [the Ten Plagues at the
time of the Exodus] in order that the divine wrath might be averted, expelled
all the [Israelite] aliens gathered together in Egypt. Of these, some, under
their leaders Danuss and Cadmus, migrated into Greece; others into other
regions, the greater part into Syria [Canaan]. Their leader is said to have
been Moses, a man renowned for wisdom and courage, founder and legislator of
the state" (Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum, vol. 2, p. 385).
Diodorus of Sicily (Greek historian, 1st
century B.C.) writes, "They say also that those who set forth with Danaus,
likewise from Egypt, settled what is practically the oldest city of Greece,
Argos, and that the nations of the Colchi in Pontus and that of the Jews,
which lies between Arabia and Syria, were founded as COLONIES by certain
emigrants from their country; and this is the reason why it is a
long-established institution among these two peoples to circumcise their male
children... the custom having been brought over from Egypt" (bk. 1,
sec. 23, 1-5). Circumcision was the sign of the Abrahamic covenant that God
made in Genesis 17.
In recent times, the well-known historical
linguist, Dr. Cyrus H. Gordon, has also shown connections between the early
Greeks and the Hebrews (Common Background of Greek and Hebrew Civilizations,
New York, Norton, 1966). So, too, has Professor Allen H. Jones (Bronze Age
Civilization--The Philistines and the Danites). He traces the Danaans,
a name that the famed Greek poet Homer often used for all Greeks, back to the
Israelite tribe of Dan ("Danaans and Danites--Were the Hebrews
Greek?," Biblical Archaeology Review, June 1976).
Other historians have drawn the same
conclusion--that the Danites of Israel and the Danaans or Danoi,
an ancient people of southern Greece, were one and the same. A well-known 19th
century ethnologist, Dr. Robert G. Latham, definitely believed the Greek
Danaans were descendants of the tribe of Dan: "Neither do I think that the
eponymous [ancestral name] of the [Greek] Danai was other than that of the
Israelite tribe of Dan; only we are so used to confining ourselves to the
soil of Palestine in our consideration of the history of the Israelites" (Ethnology
of Europe, p. 137). "Yet," Dr. Latham concludes, "with
Danai [of Greece] and the tribe of Dan this is the case, and no one
connects them." He then mentions that the Danites of Palestine must have
had close connections with the peoples of southern Greece.
A book entitled Hellenosemitica
(1965) goes to great lengths to show that the Greek "Hellenes" and
the Israelite "Semites" were closely related. This book mentions two
branches of the Danites ("Danunians" and "Danaans"), and
shows that these people once occupied the island of Cyprus. It also mentions
the Cyprian "tradition of the Danaan migration from the eastern
Mediterranean" (pp. 14, 79). That was the very same area which was
assigned to the tribe of Dan when Joshua led the 12 tribes of Israel into the
Promised Land!
"And already Hecataeus of Abdera
represented both the Jewish Exodus and the Greek migration of Danaos and Cadmus
as episodes of one and the same event.... Thence the assertion... that the
Spartans (whose kings... claimed descent from Danaos) are brothers of
the Jews and descend from Abraham's kindred" (p. 98).
This may be surprising. Nevertheless, it is
borne out in one historical source after another. According to Josephus, the Lacedemonians
(Spartans of southern Greece) were Danites and, therefore, closely related to
the Jews. He relates the incredible contents of a letter from Sparta to Judah:
"Areus king of the Lacedemonians, to Onias [Jewish High Priest], sendeth
greeting; we have met with a certain writing, whereby we have discovered that
both the Jews and the Lacedemonians are of one stock, and are derived from
the kindred of Abraham.
"It is but just, therefore, that you,
who are our brethren, should send to us about any of your concerns as
you please. We will also do the same thing, and esteem your concerns as our own:
and will look upon our concerns as in common with yours. Demoteles, who brings
you this letter, will bring your answer back to us. This letter is foursquare:
and the seal is an eagle, with a dragon [snake or serpent] in its
claws" (bk. 12, chap. 4, sec. 10, pp. 296-297).
This seal is revealing because the tribal
emblem or ensign of the people of Dan included the image of a "snake"
("Flag," The Jewish Encyclopaedia, p. 405). This symbolism was
derived from what Jacob had foretold: "Dan shall be a serpent by
the way, a viper by the path, that bites the horse's heels so that its
rider shall fall backward" (Gen. 49:17). Thus the emblem traditionally
associated with Dan is an "adder biting horse heels" (Thomas Fuller, Pisgah
Sight of Palestine). However, Aben Ezra, a learned Jewish scholar of the
1600s, said that the emblem of Dan was an "eagle with a dragon in its
claws."
Another Jewish High Priest,
Jonathan--somewhat later than Onias--wrote the Spartans "concerning the
kindred that was between US and YOU... because we were well satisfied about
it from the sacred writings.... It is a long time since this relation of ours
to you hath been renewed, and when we, upon holy and festival days, offer
sacrifices to God, we pray to Him for your preservation and victory"
(Josephus, bk. 13, chap. 5, sec. 1, p. 318).
This kinship seems pretty well established.
Stephanus Byzantium also wrote that historians Alexander Polyhistor and
Claudius Jolaus both affirmed a direct kinship between the ancient Spartans and
the Jews (Bryant, Ancient Mythology, vol. 5, pp. 51-52, 60).
And, for biblical support to all of this,
the Prophet Ezekiel mentions "Dan also and Javan going to and fro [as
mariners] occupied in thy fairs" (Ezek. 27:19 KJV). So we see a close
relationship between Dan and Javan (or Yavan)--mentioned in the Table of
Nations (Gen. 10) as a son of Japheth. It is common knowledge among biblical
historians that "Javan was regarded as the representative of the Greek
race" (Smith's Bible Dictionary). NOTE: Though they were in
close proximity, we must be careful not to confuse the Danites with the true
Greeks descended from Javan. So we see that both the Bible and secular
history show that some of the Danites settled among the Greeks.
In a future publication, we will show that
some of Judah's descendants, through his grandson "Darda" (1 Chron.
2:6; 1 Kings 4:31), established themselves in Dardania, the region of ancient
Troy (northwestern Asia Minor). In fact, the Dardanelles were named after them!
Ancient Mariners
The Danaans of Greece, along with many more
from the Promised Land, were not content to settle down for long. Many would
emigrate overland while many others would travel in ships. According to the
Bible, some of the people of Dan early took to the sea. They were the first
tribe mentioned as becoming mariners. How did this come about?
When the Twelve Tribes of Israel actually
took possession of the Promised Land (c. 1406 B.C.), the tribe of Dan was
allotted its tribal inheritance in the southwestern area of that land. Dan was
situated west-northwest of the tribe of Judah; its territory extended westward
to the Mediterranean Sea, and included the busy port city of Joppa, next to
modern Tel Aviv (Josh. 19:40-48).
The Bible here notes an important
characteristic of the Danites when they occupied a place: "The children of
Dan went up to fight against Leshem and took it; and they struck it with the
edge of the sword, took possession of it, and dwelt in it. They called
Leshem, DAN, after the name of Dan their father" (v. 47).
But the geographic location of the Danites'
inheritance made it vulnerable to pressure from invading armies whose chariots
were effective, lethal weapons against the Israelite infantry on the flat,
coastal plain (cf. Judges 1:34). So the Danites decided to look north for new
territory: "Then they went up and encamped in Kirjath Jearim in Judah.
Therefore they call that place Mahaneh DAN to this day" (Judges
18:12). This is the second instance where we learn that the people of the tribe
of Dan had a regular habit of naming places after their ancestral father, Dan.
"So they [the Danites]... went to
Laish, to a people quiet and secure; and they struck them with the edge of the
sword and burned the city with fire.... So they rebuilt the city and dwelt
there. And they called the name of the city DAN, after the name of Dan their
father, who was born to Israel" (vv. 27-29).
This northern city of Dan (formerly Laish)
was less than 30 miles inland from the ancient Canaanite port city of Tyre.
Thus, the Danites must have had frequent contact with its inhabitants--the Phoenicians,
a people famed for trade and navigation (Ezek. 27). They built the great cities
of Tyre and Sidon (on the modern Lebanese coast) and, as they spread abroad,
far-flung outposts like Carthage (in what is now Tunisia in North Africa).
In the early 1200s B.C., in a song
commemorating a great Israelite military victory, the Judge Deborah lamented
that, during the battle, the men of "Gilead stayed beyond the Jordan
[River], and [asked] why did Dan remain on ships?" (Judges 5:17).
The Danites were so preoccupied with sea trade that they chose to remain
in their ships rather than fight alongside their brethren. So, even before that
time, some of the Danites were already engaged in seafaring activities.
"The Ships of
Tarshish"
Later, King David and Hiram, the king of
Tyre, established a national friendship between Israel and Phoenicia. Then,
under Solomon, the relationship grew even more. Notice what happened in those
days: "King Solomon also built a fleet of ships at Ezion Geber,
which is near Elath on the shore of the Red Sea, in the land of Edom. Then Hiram
sent ["him ships by the hand of his servants"--2 Chron. 8:18--and]
his servants with the fleet, seamen who knew the sea, to work with the servants
of Solomon. And they went to Ophir [possibly India, South Africa or
America], and acquired four hundred and twenty talents of gold from there, and
brought it to King Solomon" (1 Kings 9:26-28).
During the reign of Solomon and subsequent
kings, it is more than likely that a number of Israelite colonists left Israel
for other coastlands--just as Phoenician colonists emigrated from their
homeland. Where did the Phoenicians colonize? We have already mentioned
Carthage in North Africa. They also settled a number of Mediterranean islands,
the Ionian coast of southern Italy and also southern Spain. These were places
the descendants of Javan--the Greeks--were already settling. So why did the
Phoenicians go to these places? Principally for trade, of course.
The name of Javan's son, Tarshish (Gen.
10:4), can be found in the famous ancient port of southern Spain,
Tartessus--the "Tarshish" of Solomon's day. Yet the great "ships
of Tarshish," mentioned numerous times in the Old Testament, primarily
referred to huge, oceangoing Phoenician and Israelite vessels
that would come to Palestine from that far western port. According to 1 Kings
10:22, Solomon "had a fleet of ships of Tarshish at sea with the fleet
of Hiram. Once every three years the fleet of ships of Tarshish used to come
bringing gold, silver, ivory, apes, and peacocks" (NRSV, cf. 2 Chron.
9:21).
Undoubtedly, the Danites were foremost among
the Israelites sailing these vessels. Not only had the coastal Danites
been sailing for some time, but even the inland Danites in the north--by
virtue of their close contact with Tyre--had probably been sailing with the
Phoenicians and their coastal Danite kinsmen who docked there.
Moses had prophesied, "Dan is a
lion's whelp; he shall leap from Bashan" (Deut. 33:22). Bashan was the
location of the inland Danites! Therefore, a great many of them must
have "leapt" from inland Palestine--as probably the majority
would later, at the time of the Assyrian invasions of Israel--following their
southern Danite brothers to the far-off Mediterranean colonies of the Greeks
and Phoenicians.
But was that the extent of their journeys?
By no means! The Phoenicians traveled through the Pillars of Hercules (Strait
of Gibraltar) and into the Atlantic Ocean. Herodotus, the Greek "father of
history," also attributes the circumnavigation of Africa to them.
Furthermore, peacocks, which were brought back by the ships of Tarshish, are native
only to Southeast Asia and the East Indies. And it is a widely accepted fact
that Phoenician traders sailed north from Spain, establishing commerce links
with Ireland and Britain. It should be no surprise, then, to realize that the
Danites and other Israelites probably did the same thing--even settling in
those beautiful islands.
"Lost Tribes... in
Ireland"?
All early histories of Ireland mention a
people coming there from Greece called the Tuatha de Danaan. From
The Annals of Ireland, we read, "The Dan'ans were a highly
civilized people, well skilled in architecture and other arts from their long
residence in Greece, and their intercourse with the Phoenicians. Their first
appearance in Ireland was 1200 B.C., or 85 years after the great victory of
Deborah." It seems pretty clear who we're talking about here.
Irish historian Thomas Moore says that one
of the earliest resident peoples of Ireland--the Firbolgs--were
dispossessed by the Tuatha de Danaan, "who after sojourning for some
time in Greece... proceeded from thence to Denmark and Norway"
(History of Ireland, vol. 1, p. 59).
Who were the Tuatha de Danaan who
migrated up from Greece into Denmark and Norway and then over to Ireland? The
word tuath simply means "tribe"--"Tuath... Irish
history... A 'TRIBE' or 'people' in Ireland" (New English
Dictionary on Historical Principles, vol. 10, pt. 1, p. 441). So they were
the tribe of Danaan from Greece. When we consider that the Danaans or Danoi of
Greece were Danites of Israel, it is simple logic to conclude that the Tuatha
de Danaan was none other than the Israelite tribe of Dan!
Another Irish historian, Geoffrey Keating,
mentions that "the Danaans were a people of great learning and
wealth; they left Greece after a battle with the Assyrians and went to
Ireland; and also to Danmark, and called it 'DAN-mares,' Dan's country"
(History of Ireland, vol. 1, pp. 195-199). Evidently, when the Assyrians
began to invade Israel in the eighth century B.C., the Danites--not only of the
Promised Land, but from Greece as well--must have struck out in their ships to
find and dwell with the vanguard of those Israelites who had already been
settling Ireland for some time.
Do we have further evidence of the tribe of
Dan settling in Northwest Europe and the British Isles? We certainly do!
Remember that the Danites had a regular habit of naming places after their
ancient ancestor, Dan. Notice this interesting fact: "According to late
Danish tradition... Jutland [the mainland of Denmark] was acquired by DAN,
the... ancestor of the DANES" from whom their name derives
("Denmark," Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th ed., vol. 8). As
the Danites migrated in hopes of finding a secure homeland, they continued
their habit of naming places after their ancestral father, Dan!
J.P. Green's Literal Translation of the
Bible, which accompanies his Interlinear Bible, renders Genesis 49:17 as, "Let
Dan be a serpent on the way." The word "way" can also be
"road," "path," "journey" or
"direction" (Logos Software, Enhanced Strong's Lexicon). As a
snake leaves a visible trail or path behind it, so would the tribe of Dan leave
a trail across those lands they journeyed through--by simply following their
old habit of naming places after their ancestor. Since Hebrew was written with
only consonants and no vowels, Dan would be spelled "Dn"--and any
or no vowel could occur between the two consonants (e.g. Dn, Dan, Deen, Din,
Don, Dun, etc.).
By Dan's "serpent trail," we can
follow the Danites' ancient travels. In addition to their Mediterranean and
Atlantic voyages, Danite mariners almost certainly sailed into the Black Sea
and up the major rivers of Europe. Moving east to west along the north shore of
the Black Sea, we pass by the mouths of the following rivers: Don, Donets,
Dnieper, Dniester and Danube. If we follow the Danube
River upstream, it takes us into the very heart of Europe, where we find the
Rhine and Rhone Rivers--known in Roman times respectively as the Eridanus
and Rhodanus Rivers.
Across northern Europe we find: Danzig
in Poland; Sweden (Svea-Dan); Odense in Denmark (Dan's
Land); Dunkirk and Dinan in France. If you then cross the English
Channel to the British Isles, you will find many dozens of cities, towns or
rivers containing the name "Dan"--for example in Scotland we notice Dundee,
Dunraven, Aberdeen, Duncansby Head and the Don
River. But it is in Ireland where such place names are most prominent: Dun
Laoghaire, the Dunkellin River, Dundalk, Dans-Laugh, Dan-Sower,
Dungarvan, Dundrum, Dunglow, Dingle Bay, Donegal
Bay and Dunmore Head. (It is certainly no coincidence that the Irish
Gaelic word Dun or Dunn means "Judge," just as Dan
does in Hebrew!)
Dan's migrations, then, can be traced. But
that doesn't help us in locating the other Israelite tribes does it? After all,
hadn't most of the Danites escaped the Assyrian conquest and
deportations (migrating into Europe) while the rest of the northern tribes of
Israel were dragged away captive to northern Mesopotamia and the
Medo-Persian area? Yes, but Jacob prophesied of the last days, "Dan
[Heb. "Judge"] shall judge his people as one of the tribes of
Israel" (v. 16). Dan's descendants could not do this very well if they
were not located among the other tribes.
So, though the Danites may have parted
company with the rest of Israel at the time of the Assyrian captivity, they
would all rejoin each other later. Therefore, the proclivity of the Danites to
name places by the Hebrew word for "Judge," after their father, was a
remarkable CLUE which God planted within their very tribal nature to help us
today in searching out ALL of the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel which would later
follow the Danite migrations. What incredibly detailed planning the Almighty
God has done!
Once we understand the racial connection
between the Tuatha de Danaan
|
|
New York City Mayor Ed
Koch |
|
|
|
"The Ten Lost
Tribes of israel we [Jews] believe ended up in Ireland." |
|
of Ireland and the ancient tribe of Dan, it
is easy to see why the song, "O, Danny Boy" is so popular in southern
Ireland! With this biblical and historical background, we can also understand
why former New York City Mayor Ed Koch made a particular comment. "It was
St. Patrick's Day in America," reported a 1987 U.S. News & World
Report about the March 17 holiday commonly celebrated by Irish-Americans.
"For one day everyone was Irish. Cardinal John O'Connor [of Irish descent]
had a warm embrace for [Jewish] Mayor Ed Koch, who explained his presence at
the head of the grand parade, 'It's part of my roots. The Ten Lost Tribes of
Israel we [Jews] believe ended up in Ireland'" (Mar. 30, p. 7)!
As we've seen, history reveals that at least
some early Israelites did end up in the Emerald Isle! But what about the rest
of the tribes? Just where did they go after their Assyrian captivity
ended? Can we find out anything from Christ and the commission He gave to His
apostles?
"The Lost Sheep of the
House of Israel"
Christ mentioned "OTHER sheep I have
which are not of this fold [of Jews living in Judea]; them also I must bring,
and they will hear My voice; and there will be ONE flock and one Shepherd"
(John 10:16). The "house of Israel" is repeatedly referred to in the
Old Testament as God's SHEEP, the sheep of His pasture (Jer. 23:1-8; Ezek.
34:1-31).
So Christ was clearly referring to the other
tribes of Israel. He commissioned His twelve apostles to preach the Gospel to
them: "Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter a city
of the Samaritans [who sometimes claimed, falsely, to be Israelites]. But go
rather to the LOST SHEEP of the HOUSE OF ISRAEL" (Matt. 10:5-6; cf.
15:24)!
Obviously, Christ knew the
whereabouts of the Ten Lost Tribes and would have made certain His apostles
also knew. Why do we hear absolutely nothing about Peter and the other apostles
still being in Jerusalem and Judea during the years immediately
preceding the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.?
The twelve apostles knew the Jews had not
been totally "lost." So after taking the Gospel to the Jews in Judea,
and after preaching to the Jewish communities in the big cities of the Near
East, Greece and North Africa, Peter and the apostles then took Christ's Gospel
to the dispersed "lost sheep of the house of Israel." Some of these
dispersed Israelites were then living around the Black Sea (see box: "The
'Diaspora'"). But by the first century A.D., many of the Ten
Lost Tribes had already left Western Asia and had migrated elsewhere. But to
where?
Scotland's most treasured document, the
Declaration of Arbroath (also called the Scottish Declaration of
Independence), was drawn up in 1320 A.D. In it, King Robert the Bruce
(1306-1329)--recently popularized in the 1995 box-office hit movie, Braveheart--and
his Scottish nobles solemnly appealed to Pope John XXII to persuade the King of
England (Edward II) to allow the Scots to live in peace, unmolested by their
English tormentors.
The declaration states that the Scots
"journeyed from Greater Scythia [present-day southern Russia] by way of
the Pillars of Hercules [Gibraltar], and dwelt for a long course of time in
Spain.... Thence they came [c. 250 B.C.], twelve hundred years after the
people of Israel crossed the Red Sea, to their home in the west where they
still live today" (para. 2). Why did the Scots solemnly preserve, as an
important milestone in their nation's history, this reference to the crossing
of the Red Sea?
The declaration reminds the pope how the
Scots received Christianity: "Nor would He [Christ] have them confirmed
in that faith by merely anyone but by the most gentle Saint ANDREW, the
Blessed Peter's brother" (para. 4). So the Apostle Andrew obeyed Christ's
command to go "to the lost sheep of the house of Israel"--some of
whom then lived in Scotland!
The Story of Joseph of
Arimathea
Many Britons believe that Joseph of
Arimathea--the important rich man in Judea who buried Christ and had secretly
been His disciple (Matt. 27:57; Mark 15:43; John 19:38)--once lived in what is
now Glastonbury, England, using that village as his home base from which to preach
the Gospel to many of the British people. "Joseph, Saint, Of Arimathea
(fl. c. A.D. 30), a Jew who undertook the burial of Jesus and whom later
legend connected with the Holy Grail of Glastonbury.... A mid-thirteenth
century interpolation... by William of Malmesbury relates that Joseph went
to Glastonbury in England as head of 12 missionaries sent thither by the
Apostle Philip" ("Joseph, Saint," Encyclopaedia
Britannica, 1970).
|
|
|
|
Notice how James, the Lord's half-brother, addressed his epistle
around A.D. 60: "James, a servant of God and of... Jesus Christ, to
the TWELVE TRIBES [not just the two tribes of Judah and Benjamin]
which are scattered abroad [Gk. diaspora, "dispersed"]"
(1:1). James did not address his epistle to just the Jews. Rather,
he addressed his inspired letter to ALL the Israelites-"to the
TWELVE TRIBES in the Dispersion" (same verse, NRSV and Moffatt). The
English translation of the original Aramaic text is as follows: "James...
to the twelve tribes which are scattered among the
Gentiles." The Goodspeed Bible renders this verse in a similar way:
"James... to the twelve tribes that are scattered over the
world." The dispersed
Jews are only part of the diaspora-only a small portion
of the Israelite peoples whom God said He would disperse throughout all
nations. Of course the diaspora would not be of the same nature for the Jews
as for the other Israelites. The Jews were widely dispersed but never
"lost," whereas the Ten Tribes of Israel were both dispersed and
later "lost" to the world in general! Where were
these Israelites of all Twelve Tribes--including the Ten Lost
Tribes--living in New Testament times? The Apostle Peter gives us part of the
answer to that question: "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the
pilgrims ["strangers" KJV] of the Dispersion [which were
then] in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, elect according to
the foreknowledge of God the Father" (1 Pet. 1:1-2). These areas of
dispersed Jews and Israelites were in what is today northern
Turkey-showing a westward migration. As we will see in the next chapter,
there is abundant historical evidence to prove that many of the Ten
Lost Tribes migrated even beyond this point in the centuries preceding
Christ; but some of them still lingered here on the southern shores of the
Black Sea in the days of Christ and His apostles. This area was immediately
west of the Caucasus Mountains and the Caspian Sea--along the land route from
western Asia into Europe. |
|
Tradition maintains that Joseph's oldest
brother was the father of Mary, Jesus' mother. If true, that would make him
Christ's great uncle. And a common saying in the English countryside is that
"Joseph was a tin man." Tin mining was big in early Britain. In fact,
the British Isles were known in ancient times as the Cassiterides
("tin islands").
And, through Phoenician-established commerce
links, the tin trade between Britain and the Eastern Mediterranean world was
quite substantial. Thus, Joseph was probably involved in tin trade between the
British Isles and the Near East. In going to Glastonbury in Somerset, he may
have been returning to a familiar place, where he could effectively preach the
Gospel.
Collier's Encyclopedia says, "Glastonbury Abbey, a ruined abbey in
Somersetshire, about 6 miles south of Wells, England. Tradition has it that
it was here that Joseph of Arimathea established the first Christian
Church in England" (vol. 9, 1959, p. 120). "According to the
legends... the first church of Glastonbury was a little wattled building
erected by Joseph of Arimathea as the leader of the twelve apostles [i.e. the
12 "missionaries" mentioned above] sent over to Britain from Gaul
by St. Philip" ("Glastonbury," Encyclopaedia Britannica,
11th ed., vol. 12).
Notice that Philip preached the Gospel to
the lost Israelites then living in Gaul (modern France and Belgium)! Some
Britons also believe that Peter himself took the Gospel to England.
Can these "legends" be believed?
Nearly every English-language encyclopedia contains at least one article
attesting to these strong British traditions. There are often kernels of truth
in many legends; of course, not every detail of a persistent legend is
necessarily true.
But consider this: Britain was an integrated
part of the Roman Empire in the first century A.D. To move from Judea, an
eastern province of the Empire, to a western location would be just as feasible
as moving from New York to California in the 1800s! "Mediterranean traders
had been visiting the country from at least as early as the fourth century
B.C.... There was a good deal of cross-channel trade and migration in the
centuries before the Roman conquest" (T.W. Potter, Roman Britain,
British Museum Publications Ltd., 1983, p. 5).
So it seems clear that at least some of the
Ten Lost Tribes of Israel in the days of Christ and His apostles were in
Europe--some having gone even as far as the British Isles. How did they get
there? The most widespread people in Europe at this time were the Celts. In
fact, the areas of Britain, Ireland, Gaul and even the southern Black Sea
region--the areas in which we just located some people from the Ten
Tribes--were ALL Celtic at the time.
But surely there couldn't have been very
many Israelites among the Celts, could there? After all, the Celts were a European,
not Middle Eastern, people, right? Besides that, most of the Celts were later
overrun by Germans. Hasn't history pretty well established that Britain and the
other Northwest European countries are Germanic nations? English is even
a Germanic language! Surely someone couldn't seriously think that some
scattered Israelites lost amid the great mass of Celtic and Germanic peoples
could possibly constitute the greater part of the Ten Lost Tribes.
America seems
an even more unlikely candidate. After all, isn't it just one big "melting
pot" of many peoples? In the next chapter, we will examine the roots of
the major ethnic groups which make up America and Britain showing where they
came from. And you may be very surprised at what you learn!