THE TRUE HISTORY OF THE TEN "LOST" TRIBES.
ARE THE TRIBES LOST?
But now discarding the whole heap of Anglo-Israel fiction, let us glance
at the question of the so-called "lost" Ten Tribes in the light of
Scripture history and prophecy. Anglo-Israelism first of all loses the
Ten Tribes, for whom it claims a different destiny from the "Jews," whom
it supposes to be descendants of the Two Tribes only, and then it
identifies this "lost" Israel with the British race. But there is as
little historical ground for the supposition that the Ten Tribes are
lost, in the sense in which Anglo-Israelism uses the term, as there is
Scriptural basis for a separate destiny for "Israel" apart from "Judah."
The most superficial reader of the Old Testament knows the origin and
cause of the unfortunate schism which took place in the history of the
elect nation after the death of Solomon. But this evil was to last only
for a limited time; for at the very commencement of this new and
parenthetical chapter of the nation's history it was announced by God
that He would in this way afflict the seed of David, but _not for ever_
(1 Kings xi. 39).
A separate kingdom, comprising Ten of the Twelve Tribes, was set up
under Jeroboam in B.C. 975, and its whole history, of about 250 years,
is one long, dark tale of usurpation, anarchy, and apostasy, unrelieved
by the occasional gracious visitations of national revival which light
up the annals of the Judean kingdom under the House of David.
After many warnings and premonitory judgments the kingdom of the Ten
Tribes was finally overthrown in the year B.C. 721, when its capital,
Samaria, was destroyed, and the bulk of the people carried captive by
the Assyrians, and made to settle in "Halah and Habor, and by the river
Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes" (2 Kings xvii. 6; 1 Chron. v.
26).
Now I would beg you to notice two or three facts.
I. The kingdom of "Judah" after the schism consisted not only of Judah
and Benjamin, but also of the Levites who remained faithful to the House
of David and the theocratic centre.[15] Even those who were in the
northern cities forsook all in order to come to Jerusalem, as we read in
2 Chron. xi. 14: "And Rehoboam dwelt in Jerusalem, and built cities for
defence in Judah, ... and the priests and Levites that were in all
Israel resorted to him out of all their coasts. For the Levites left
their suburbs and their possessions, and came to Judah and Jerusalem;
for Jeroboam and his sons had cast them off from executing the priest's
office unto the Lord."
II. Apart from Judah, Benjamin, and Levi, there were in the southern
kingdom of Judah after the schism many out of the other Ten Tribes whose
hearts clung to Jehovah, and the only earthly centre of His worship
which He appointed. Immediately after the rebellion, we read that "after
them" (that is, following the example of the Levites) "out of all the
tribes of Israel, such as set their hearts to seek Jehovah, the God of
Israel, came to Jerusalem to sacrifice to Jehovah, God of their fathers.
So they strengthened the kingdom of Judah" (2 Chron. xi. 16).
In every reign of the kingdom of Israel numbers of the religious and
more spiritual of the Ten Tribes must have seceded and joined "Judah."
This we find to have been more especially the case during the times of
national revival in the southern kingdom, and in the reigns of those
kings who feared and sought the Lord.
Thus, for instance, we read of Asa, that "he gathered all Judah and
Benjamin, with the strangers with them out of Ephraim and Manasseh, and
out of Simeon; _for they fell to him out of all Israel in abundance_,
when they saw that Jehovah his God was with him, so they gathered
themselves together at Jerusalem; ... and they entered into a covenant
to seek Jehovah God of their fathers with all their heart, and with all
their soul" (2 Chron. xv. 9-15).
There are also several other mentions of "the children of Israel that
dwelt in the cities of Judah" and were subjects and members of that
kingdom.
III. The final overthrow of the northern kingdom took place, as we have
seen, in the year B.C. 721; but when we read that the "King of Assyria
took Samaria and carried Israel away into Assyria," we are not to
understand that he cleared the whole land of all the people, but that he
took the strength of the nation with him. There were, no doubt, many of
the people left in the land; even as was the case after the overthrow of
the southern kingdom by the Babylonians later on (2 Kings xxv. 12). The
historical proof for my assertion is found in the fact that about a
century after the fall of Samaria, we find in the reign of Josiah some
of Manasseh and Ephraim, "and a remnant of all Israel," in the land, who
contributed to the collection made by the Levites for the repair of the
house of the Lord in Jerusalem, and joined in the celebration of the
great Passover in the eighteenth year of that zealous and promising
young king.
These were the component elements of which the southern kingdom of
"Judah" was made up, when it, too, reached the stage, when, on account
of its idolatries and apostasy from the living God, "there was no more
remedy" (or "healing"--2 Chron. xxxvi. 16). It consisted, as we have
seen, of Judah, Benjamin, Levi, and many out of all the other Ten Tribes
of Israel, "in abundance."
Jerusalem was finally taken in B.C. 588, by Nebuchadnezzar--just 133
years after the capture of Samaria by the Assyrians. Meanwhile the
Babylonian Empire succeeded the Assyrian. But although dynasties had
changed, and Babylon, which had sometimes, even under the Assyrian
_régime_, been one of the capitals of the Empire, now took the place of
Nineveh, the region over which Nebuchadnezzar now bore rule, was the
very same over which Shalmaneser and Sargon reigned before him, only
somewhat extended.[16]
The exact location of the exiles of the southern kingdom we are not
told, beyond the Scripture statements that all the three parties of
captives carried off by Nebuchadnezzar (that in the first invasion in
the reign of Jehoiakim, B.C. 606; and in the second, in the reign of
Jehoiachin, B.C. 599; and in the final overthrow of Jerusalem, in the
reign of Zedekiah, B.C. 588), were taken "to Babylon" (2 Kings xxiv. and
xxv.; Daniel i.).
Now Babylon stands not only for the city, but also for the whole land,
_in which the territories of the Assyrian Empire, and the colonies of
exiles from the northern kingdom of "Israel" were included_. Thus, for
instance, we find Ezekiel, who was one of the 10,000 exiles carried off
by Nebuchadnezzar with Jehoiachin, by the river Chebar in the district
of Gozan--one of the very parts where the exiles of the Ten Tribes were
settled by the Assyrians more than a century previously.
With the captivity the divisions and rivalry between "Judah" and
"Israel" were ended, and the members of all the tribes who looked
forward to a national future were conscious not only of one common
destiny, but that that destiny was bound up with the promises to the
House of David, and with Zion or Jerusalem as its centre, in accordance
with the prophecies of Joel, Amos, and Hosea, and of the other inspired
messengers who ministered and testified more especially among them until
the fall of Samaria. This conviction of a common and united future, no
doubt facilitated the merging process, which cannot be said to have
begun with the captivity, for it commenced almost immediately after the
rebellion under Jeroboam, but which was certainly strengthened by it.
Glimpses into the feeling of the members of the two kingdoms for one
another, and their hopes and aspirations for unity, we get in the
writings of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel, who prophesied during the
period of exile. The most striking prophecy in relation to this subject
is Ezek. xxxvii. 15-28:
"The word of the Lord came again unto me, saying, Moreover, thou
son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, For Judah, and
for the children of Israel, his companions (that is, those of
Israel who before the captivity fell away from the Ten Tribes and
joined the southern kingdom): then take another stick, and write
upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and all the house of
Israel, his companions: and join them one to another into one
stick; and they shall become one in thine hand." Then follows the
Divine interpretation of this symbol: "Behold, I will take the
stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes
of Israel, his companions, and I will put them with him (or
literally, I will add them upon, or to him), namely, with the stick
of Judah, and make them one stick, and they shall be one in My
hand. And the sticks whereon thou writest shall be in thy hand
before their eyes. And say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God,
Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among the nations,
whither they be gone, and will gather them on every side, and bring
them into their own land; and I will make them one nation in the
land upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king to
them all; and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they
be divided into two kingdoms any more at all: neither shall they
defile themselves any more with their idols, nor with their
detestable things, nor with any of their transgressions: but I will
save them out of all their dwelling-places wherein they have
sinned, and will cleanse them; so shall they be My people, and I
will be their God. And My servant David shall be king over them;
and they all shall have one shepherd; they shall also walk in My
judgments, and observe My statutes, and do them. And they shall
dwell in the land which I have given unto Jacob My servant, wherein
your fathers dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, they, and their
children, and their children's children for ever: and David My
servant shall be their prince for ever" (Ezek. xxxvii. 20-25,
R.V.).
Now let it be remembered that the foreground and commencement of the
restoration and future of this great prophecy, especially to all the
exiles at that time, was the restoration from Babylon, or "Assyria," as
it was sometimes called.
As a matter of fact, these prophecies, and particularly Ezek. xxxvii.
15-28, set forth not one single act or event, but a _process_ which,
commencing with the prophet's own time, extends into the distant future,
and ends in the final goal of the blessed condition of Israel under
Messiah's reign in the millennial period. Thus, while the full visible
_manifestation_ of that unity, symbolised by the two sticks becoming
_one_ in the prophet's hand, will only be realised after the final
regathering of the whole nation in their own land, and when the true
"David," namely, Messiah, "David's greater Son," shall be both King and
Prince over them for ever--the merging and uniting process commenced, as
a matter of fact, before the Babylonian captivity, was accelerated in
the exile, when in their like sorrows and troubles the hearts of the
people were doubtless drawn to one another in mutual sympathy and love.
The point, however, to be noticed in this and other prophecies is the
clear announcement which they contained that the purpose of God in the
schism--as a punishment on the House of David--_was now at an end_, and
that henceforth there was but one common hope and one destiny for the
whole Israel of the Twelve Tribes--whether they previously belonged to
the northern kingdom of the _Ten_ Tribes, or to the southern kingdom of
the _Two_ Tribes--and that this common hope and destiny was centred in
Him Who is the Lion of the Tribe of Judah, and the rightful Heir and
descendant of David.
In like manner Jeremiah, in his great prophecy of the restoration and
future blessing (chaps. xxx. and xxxi.), links the destinies of "Judah"
and "Israel," or Israel and Judah together; and speaks of one common
experience from that time on for the whole people. "For lo, the days
come, saith the Lord, that I will turn again the captivity of My people
Israel and Judah, saith the Lord: and I will cause them to return to the
land that I gave to their fathers, and they shall possess it. And these
are the words that the Lord spake concerning Israel and Judah" (Jer.
xxx. 3, 4, R.V.).
Daniel also, towards the end of the seventy years' captivity, includes
not only the men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem in his
intercessory prayer, but "_all Israel_ that are near, or far off, from
all the countries whither Thou hast driven them," who, he confesses,
were alike involved in sin and judgment, and equally cast on the mercy
of God on the ground of promises made to the fathers.
Now let us go a step farther. Just seventy years had elapsed since the
first band of captives were carried away to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar in
the year B.C. 606. "That the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah
might be fulfilled, the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus, King of
Persia, that he issued a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and
put it also in writing, saying: Thus saith Cyrus, King of Persia, the
Lord God of heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth; and He
hath charged me to build Him a house at Jerusalem that is in Judah. Who
is there among you of all His people? His God be with him, and let him
go up to Jerusalem, which is in Judah."
This proclamation, which was in reference to all the people "of the Lord
God of heaven," was issued in the year B.C. 536, two years after the
conquest of Babylon by Cyrus, and was, we are told, promulgated
"throughout all his kingdom," which was the same as that over which
Nebuchadnezzar and his successors reigned before him, only again
somewhat extended, even as the kingdom of Babylon was identical with
that of Assyria, as already pointed out. Indeed, Cyrus and Darius I. are
called indifferently by the sacred historians by the title of "King of
Persia" (Ezra iv. 5), "King of Babylon" (Ezra v. 13), and "King of
Assyria" (Ezra vi. 22).
The first response to this proclamation was a caravan of "forty-two
thousand three hundred and sixty, beside their servants and their maids,
of whom there were seven thousand three hundred and thirty-seven, and
two hundred singing men and singing women," who, under the leadership of
Zerubbabel, who was a lineal descendant of the royal house of David,
and of Joshua the high priest, made their way from "Babylon to
Jerusalem."
Now the leading spirits of this returned party of exiles were, no doubt,
"the chief of the fathers of Judah and Benjamin, and the priests and
Levites"; at the same time they included "all those" from all the other
tribes without distinction, "whose spirit God had raised to go up to
build the house of the Lord, which is in Jerusalem" (Ezra i. 5).
They are no longer counted after their tribal origin, but in families,
and after the cities to which they originally belonged, which, for the
most part, are not easy to identify; hence it is difficult to say how
many belonged to "Judah," and how many to "Israel"--but that there were
a good many in this company of those who belonged to the northern
kingdom of the Ten Tribes, is incidentally brought out by the mention of
two hundred and twenty-three men of Ai and Bethel alone. Now, Bethel was
the very centre of the ancient rival idolatrous worship instituted by
Jeroboam, and, though on the boundary of Benjamin, belonged to
"Ephraim."
Between the first organised large party of immigrants under Zerubbabel
and Joshua, and the second under Ezra, a period of fifty-eight years
elapsed; but we are not to suppose that in the interval there were no
additions to the community, which now represented the whole united
nation in Jerusalem. We read, for instance, incidentally, in Zech. vi.
9, 15, of a party of four prominent men who arrived in Jerusalem in B.C.
519 as representatives of the "captivity" (that is, of those who still
remained in those parts where they were exiles), bringing with them a
present of silver and gold for the Temple, the building of which was
resumed about five months before, as a result of the stirring appeals
of Haggai. This shows that there was continual intercourse and
communication between the community in Palestine and the majority of the
people who were still "in Babylon"; and we may be certain that little
parties and individuals, "whose spirit God had raised," continually
found their way to the holy city.
In B.C. 458, Ezra, "the scribe of the law of the God of heaven," in
accordance with the decree of Artaxerxes Longimanus, organised another
large caravan of those whose hearts were made willing to return to the
land of their fathers. Part of this most favourable royal proclamation
was as follows: "I make a decree that all they of the people of Israel,
and of his priests and Levites in my realm, which are minded of their
own free will to go up to Jerusalem, go up with thee"; and in response
to it "this Ezra went up from Babylon, ... and there went up (with him)
of the children of Israel, and of the priests and of the Levites, and
the singers and the porters, and the Nethinim, unto Jerusalem in the
seventh year of Artaxerxes the king" (Ezra vii. 7).
This party consisted of about one thousand eight hundred families; and
apart from the priests, Levites, and Nethinim, was made up of "the
children of Israel," irrespective of tribal distinctions, from all parts
of the realm of "Babylon," or Assyria, now under the sway of the
Medo-Persians.
The narratives contained in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, under whose
administration the position of the restored remnant became consolidated,
cover a period of about 115 years, and bring us down to about B.C. 420.
Jewish history during the second period of the Persian supremacy is
wrapped somewhat in obscurity; but we know that nearly throughout the
whole period of its existence it was more or less friendly to the
Hebrews. There was certainly no revocation of the edicts of Cyrus and of
Artaxerxes permitting those "which were minded of their own free will"
to go and join their brethren in Palestine; and that there were many
other large and small parties of exiles who did so, subsequent to those
mentioned in Ezra and Nehemiah, may be taken for granted.[17]
Anyhow, it is a fact that the remnant in the land grew and grew until,
about a century and a half later, in the times of the Maccabees, and
again about a century and a half later still, in the time of our Lord,
we find "the Jews" in Palestine, a comparatively large nation, numbering
millions; while from the time of the downfall of the Persian Empire we
hear but very little more of the Israelite exiles in ancient Assyria or
Babylon.
By the conquest of Alexander, who to this day is a great favourite among
the scattered nation, the regions of ancient Babylonia and Media were
brought comparatively near, and a highway opened between East and West.
From about this time settlements of "Jews" began to multiply in Asia
Minor, Cyprus, Crete, on the coasts and islands of the Ægean; in
Macedonia and other parts of Southern Europe; in Egypt and the whole
northern coast of Africa; whilst some made their way further and further
eastward as far as India and China. There is not the least possibility
of doubt that many of the settlements of the Diaspora in the time of our
Lord--both north, south, and west, as well as east of Palestine--were
made up of those who had never returned to the land of their fathers
since the time of the Assyrian and Babylonian exiles, and who were not
only descendants of Judah, as Anglo-Israelism ignorantly presupposes,
but of all the _Twelve Tribes scattered abroad_ (James i. 1).
As a matter of fact, long before the destruction of the second Temple
by Titus, we read of currents and counter-currents in the dispersion of
the "Jewish" people. Thus Artaxerxes III., _Ochus_, on his way to
re-conquer Egypt, "having taken Apodasmus in Judea, conveyed the Jewish
population into Hyrcania near the Caspian Sea." When he made himself
master of Egypt we read of his finding Jews there, and, being incensed
against them on account of a stubborn defence against him of places
entrusted to their keeping, "he sent part of them into Hyrcania, in the
neighbourhood of the country which the tribes already inhabited, and
left the rest at Babylon"; while soon after many thousands were taken to
Egypt by Alexander; and Ptolemy Soter, one of his chief generals, who
had become King of Egypt, and had invaded Syria and taken Jerusalem in
B.C. 301, carried off one hundred thousand of them, and forced them to
settle chiefly in Alexandria and Cyrene.
THE CONDITION OF THINGS AT THE TIME OF CHRIST.
To summarise the state of things in connection with the Hebrew race at
the time of Christ, it was briefly this:--
I. For some six centuries before, ever since the partial restoration in
the days of Cyrus and his successors, the descendants of Abraham were no
longer known as divided into tribes, but as one people, although up to
the time of the destruction of the second Temple, tribal and family
genealogies were for the most part preserved, especially among those who
were settled in the land.
II. Part of the nation was in Palestine, but by far the larger number
were scattered far and wide, and formed innumerable communities in many
different lands, north and south, east and west.[18] _But wherever
dispersed and to whatever tribe they may have belonged, they all looked
to Palestine and Jerusalem as their national centre_, and, with the
exception of those (and they were no doubt many) who had ceased to
cherish "the hope of Israel" and were gradually assimilating with their
Gentile neighbours, were all one in heart with their brethren in the
Holy Land. "They felt they were of the same stock, stood on the same
ground, cherished the same memories, grew up under the same
institutions, and anticipated the same future. They had one common
centre of worship in Jerusalem, which they upheld by their offerings;
and they made pilgrimages thither annually in great numbers at the high
festivals." Thus Philo could represent to the Roman Emperor Caligula
that "Jerusalem ought not to be considered only as the metropolis of
Judea, but as the centre of a nation dispersed in infinite places, who
were able to supply him with potent succours for his defence. He
reckoned among the places that were still stored with Jews, the isles of
Cyprus and Candia, Egypt, Macedonia, and Bithynia, to which he added the
empire of the Persians, and _all the cities of the East_, except that of
Babylon, from whence they were then expelled."
There is ample confirmation on this point in the New Testament. Thus,
for instance, we are incidentally told in the second chapter of the Acts
of the Apostles, that among the representatives from the Diaspora who
were found in Jerusalem at that memorable feast of Pentecost--who were
doubtless there also during the previous Passover, when the crucifixion
took place--were "Parthians and Medes and Elamites, and dwellers in
Mesopotamia, in Judea and Cappadocia, in Pontus and Asia, in Phyrgia and
Pamphylia, in Egypt and parts of Libya and Cyrene, and sojourners from
Rome, Cretans and Arabians": all of them either Jews or proselytes
miraculously hearing in their own tongues the mighty works of God.
Here it is to be noted that, at the commencement of the Christian era,
we find in this motley and cosmopolitan Jewish crowd representatives
from Israelitish settlements in the very parts where they were carried
by the Assyrians and Babylonians some seven centuries before, _but who
are all called "Jews," and all alike regarded Jerusalem as their
national metropolis_.[19]
III. The name of "Jew" and "Israelite" became synonymous terms from
about the time of the Captivity. It is one of the absurd fallacies of
Anglo-Israelism to presuppose that the term "Jew" stands for a bodily
descendant of "Judah." _It stands for all those from among the sons of
Jacob who acknowledged themselves, or were considered, subjects of the
theocratic kingdom of Judah_, which they expected to be established by
the promised "Son of David"--the Lion of the tribe of Judah--whose reign
is to extend not only over "_all the tribes of the land_," but also
"from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth."
"That the name 'Jew,'" writes a Continental Bible scholar, "became
general for all Israelites who were anxious to preserve their theocratic
nationality, was the more natural, since the political independence of
the Ten Tribes was destroyed." Yes, and without any hope of a
restoration to a separate national existence. What hopes and promises
they had were, as we have seen, linked with the Kingdom of Judah and the
House of David.
Anglo-Israelism teaches that members of the Ten Tribes are never called
"Jews," and that "Jews" are not "Israelites"; but both assertions are
false. Who were they that came back to the land after the "Babylonian"
exile? Anglo-Israelites say they were only the exiles from the southern
kingdom of Judah, and call them "Jews." I have already shown this to be
a fallacy, but I might add the significant fact that in the Book of Ezra
this remnant is only called eight times by the name "Jews," and no less
than _forty_ times by the name "Israel." In the Book of Nehemiah they
are called "Jews" _eleven_ times, and "Israel" twenty-two times. As to
those who remained behind in the one hundred and twenty-seven provinces
of the Persian Empire, which included all the territories of ancient
Assyria, Anglo-Israelites would say they were of the kingdom of
"Israel"; but in the Book of Esther, where we get a vivid glimpse of
them at a period subsequent to the partial restoration under Zerubbabel
and Joshua, they are called forty-five times by the name "Jews," and not
once by the name "Israel"!
In the New Testament the same people who are called "Jews" one hundred
and seventy-four times are also called "Israel" no fewer than
seventy-five times. Anglo-Israelism asserts that a "Jew" is only a
descendant of Judah, and is not an "Israelite"; but Paul says more than
once: "I am a man which am a _Jew_." Yet he says: "For I also am an
Israelite." "Are they _Israelites_? so am I" (Acts xxi. 39; xxii. 3;
Rom. xi. 1; 2 Cor. xi. 22; Phil. iii. 5).
Our Lord was of the House of David, and of the tribe of Judah after the
flesh--"a Jew"; yet it says that it is of "_Israel_" that He came, who
is "over all, God blessed for ever" (Rom. ix. 4, 5). Devout Anna was a
"Jewess" in Jerusalem, yet she was "of the tribe of Aser." But enough on
this point.
IV. From the time of the return of the first remnant after the
Babylonian exile, sacred historians, prophets, apostles, and the Lord
Himself, regarded the "Jews," whether in the land or in "Dispersion," as
representatives of "all Israel," _and the only people in the line of the
covenants and the promises which God made with the fathers_.
At the dedication of the Temple, which was at last finished "on the
third day of the month Adar, which was in the sixth year in the reign of
Darius the king," they offered "for a sin-offering _for all Israel,
twelve he-goats according to the number of the tribes of Israel_" (Ezra
vi. 17).
Similarly, on the arrival of Ezra with the new caravan of immigrants,
they "offered burnt-offerings unto the God of Israel, _twelve bullocks
for all Israel_, ... and twelve he-goats for sin-offering" (Ezra viii.
35), showing that the returned exiles regarded themselves as the nucleus
and representatives of the whole nation. In the post-Exilic prophets we
have no longer two kingdoms, but one people--one in interests and
destiny, although they had formerly for a time been divided.
To show that the revived nation was made up of members of the Northern
as well as the Southern kingdoms, the prophet Zechariah calls them by
the comprehensive name of "Judah, Israel, and Jerusalem" (Zech. i. 19);
or, "the house of Judah and the house of Joseph" (Zech. x. 6). In the
prophecy occasioned by the question addressed by the deputation from
Bethel, in reference to the continuation of the observance of the fasts,
he says: "And it shall come to pass that as ye were a curse among the
nations, _O house of Judah_ and _house of Israel_, so will I save you,
and ye shall be a blessing; fear not, and let your hands be strong"
(Zech. viii. 13).
Here the formerly two houses are included; together they are for a time
_among the nations_ "a curse," and together they shall be saved, and be
"a blessing."[20]
Malachi, nearly a century later, when the people in the land had become
a prosperous nation, and when, in consequence, the majority was rapidly
falling into a state of religious formality and godlessness, addresses
them as "Israel" or "Jacob," which surely includes all his descendants,
in contrast to Esau and his descendants (Mal. i. 1-3).
THE TESTIMONY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT THAT THE "JEWS" ARE REPRESENTATIVE OF
"ALL ISRAEL."
In the last words of the last of the post-Exilic prophets we have the
expression "all Israel" addressed to the people in the land; and then
the long period of silence sets in, lasting about four centuries, during
parts of which Jewish national history is lost somewhat in obscurity.
_When the threads of that history are taken up again in the New
Testament, what do we find? Is there one hint or reference in the whole
book to an Israel apart from "that nation" of the "Jews," to whom, and
of whom, the Lord and His apostles speak?_ There is, indeed, reference
and mention of the Diaspora, "the dispersed among the Gentiles" (John
vii. 35), forming, as we have seen, the greater part of the nation, and
some of them still settled in the ancient regions of Assyria and
Babylon; but wherever they were, they are all interchangeably called
"Jews," or "Israelites," who regarded Jerusalem, with which they were in
constant communication, as the centre, not only of their religion, but
of their national hopes and destiny.
The "Israelites" who in the time of Christ were dispersed among the
Parthians, Medes, and Elamites (Acts ii.), were as much one with the
sojourners in Egypt, Greece, and Rome, as the "Jews" in Bagdad, Persia,
or on the Caspian Sea to-day, are one with their wandering brethren in
London, Berlin, New York, or Australia, although they then, as now
(apart from the Hebrew, which ever remains the sacred tongue, and
thoroughly understood only by the minority), spoke different languages
and dressed differently, and conformed to different social and family
customs.
But let me give you a few definite passages from the New Testament in
justification of my statement that the Lord Jesus and the apostles,
equally with the post-Exilic prophets centuries before, regarded the
"Jews" as representatives of "all Israel," _and as the only people in
the line of the "covenant, and the promises which God made unto the
fathers_."
(a) In Matthew x. we have the record of the choice, and of the first
commission given to the apostles. "These twelve," we read, "Jesus sent
forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles,
and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not; but go rather _to the
lost sheep of the house of Israel_." Of course, the merest child knows
that this journey of the twelve did not extend beyond the limits of
Palestine, but the "Jews" dwelling in it are regarded as the house of
Israel, although many members of that "house" were also scattered in
other lands.
In this charge of the Lord to the apostles, we see also, by the way, in
what sense Israel is regarded as "lost." Now Anglo-Israelites are very
fond of this word, but they use it in an unbiblical and unspiritual
sense. The Ten Tribes, like the other Two, were, in the time of Christ,
even as they still are, "lost"; but not because they have forgotten
their _national_ or tribal identity, but because they "all like sheep
have gone astray, and have turned every one to his own way." Or, as
Jeremiah pathetically puts it: "My people hath been lost sheep; their
shepherds [their false teachers and leaders] have caused them to go
astray; they have turned them away on the mountains; they have gone from
mountain to hill; they have forgotten [not their national origin, but]
their resting place"--viz., Jehovah, who is the true dwelling-place of
His people in all generations. It was this terrible fact of their
spiritually lost condition which again and again moved our Lord Jesus to
compassion for those multitudes which followed Him, because they were
"distressed" or "plagued," and were scattered abroad as sheep not having
a shepherd.
(b) On the first day of Pentecost, Peter, with the eleven, addressed
the "men of Judæa," and the great multitude from among the dispersed
"Jews," as "Ye men of Israel," and wound up his powerful speech with the
words: "_Let all the house of Israel_, therefore, know assuredly that
God hath made Him both Lord and Christ--this Jesus whom ye crucified"
(Acts ii. 14, 36). In chapter iii. of Acts, as "all the people ran
together unto them in the porch that is called Solomon's, greatly
wondering," at the notable miracle in the name of Jesus Christ of
Nazareth, Peter said: "_Ye men of Israel_, why marvel ye at this Man?...
The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers,
hath glorified His servant Jesus, whom ye delivered up and denied before
the face of Pilate when he had determined to release Him.... Repent ye,
therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out, that so
there may come seasons of refreshing from the presence of the Lord....
_Ye are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant which God made with
your fathers_, saying unto Abraham, 'And in thy seed shall the nations
of the earth be blessed.'"
From Acts xiii. onward we find Paul among the "Jews" in the Dispersion;
and how does he address them? By the same name as Peter addressed their
brethren in Palestine: "_Men of Israel, ... the God of this people
Israel_ chose our fathers, and exhorted the people when they sojourned
in the land of Egypt" (Acts xiii. 16, 17); and when he was at last
brought to Rome "and gathered the chief of the Jews" in that city to
him, he assured them that he had neither done anything "against the
people, or the customs of our fathers," nor did he come to Rome "to
accuse my nation," but "because of the _hope of Israel_ am I bound by
this chain"--namely, "the hope of the promise made of God unto our
fathers; as he had previously explained before Festus and Agrippa--unto
which _our Twelve Tribes_, earnestly serving God night and day, hope to
attain" (Acts xxviii. 17-20; xxvi. 6, 7).
Paul knew of no "lost Ten Tribes," but on his testimony the "Jews" in
Palestine and in the Dispersion were the "Israel" of _all the Twelve
Tribes_, to whom the "hope of the promise made of God unto the fathers"
belonged.
(c) And, as it is in the Gospels, and in the Acts of the Apostles, so
also in the Epistles. It would be easy to multiply passages, but one
more must suffice.
The ix., x., and xi. of Romans form the prophetic, or "dispensational,"
section of that great epistle, and was written for the special
instruction of Gentile believers in the "mystery" of God with Israel.
Now I cannot, of course, stop here to give an analysis of that
wonderful and comprehensive scripture, which is also a vindication of
God's ways with man; _but there is not a hint or suggestion in it of a
"lost Israel," apart from the one nation whose whole history he
summarises from the beginning to the end_, and which is now, alas!
divided into the small minority--the "remnant according to the election
of grace," who believe, and the majority who believe not, until the day
of grace for the whole nation shall come, and "so _all_ Israel shall be
saved, even as it is written, 'There shall come out of Zion the
Deliverer; He shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob.'"
But in the touching introduction to this section (Rom. ix. 1-6), in
which the apostle gives utterance to his "great sorrow and unceasing
pain of heart" because of the unbelief of his own nation, "his brethren
and his kinsmen according to the flesh," for whose sake he had been
wishing, if it were possible, even to be himself "anathema from
Christ"--how does he call these unbelieving "Jews" who had rejected
their Messiah, and were blindly persecuting His servants? Here are His
words: "_Who are Israelites_; whose is the adoption, and the glory, and
the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, _and
the promises; whose are the fathers, and of whom is Christ as concerning
the flesh, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen._"
Now I must try to draw this very long letter to an end. I have not
followed Anglo-Israelism in all its crooked paths of misinterpretation
of Scripture and history; I have only shown you the baselessness of its
foundations, and that the premises upon which the whole theory rests are
misleading and false. I have also given you a summary of the true
history of the tribes, which I trust may prove helpful to you in the
study of God's Word; and the conclusion at which you and every unbiassed
person must arrive on a careful examination of the facts which I have
adduced is, that the whole supposition of "lost tribes," in the sense in
which Anglo-Israelism uses the term, is a fancy which originated in
ignorance; and that "_the Jews_" are the whole, and the only national
Israel, representing not only the "Two Tribes," but "_all the Twelve
Tribes" who were "scattered abroad_."
EARLY MISCONCEPTIONS AND CONFUSION ON THE QUESTION OF THE TEN TRIBES.
I have thought it necessary to enter all the more fully into this point,
because even some otherwise sober-minded teachers and writers, who are
not Anglo-Israelites, have fallen into some confusion in dealing with
this subject; and no wonder, for already Josephus, who vaguely locates a
separate multitude belonging to the Ten Tribes somewhere beyond the
Euphrates ("Antiq." xi. 1, 2)--a Jewish tradition which locates a mighty
kingdom of the Ten Tribes beyond the fabled miraculous river Sambation,
which no one can cross because it throws up stones all the week, and
only rests on the Sabbath; and the Talmud (Jer. Sanhedrin, 29, c.),
which speaks of three localities whither they had been banished, viz.,
the district around the above wonderful Sambation, Daphne, near Antioch;
and the third locality could neither be seen nor named because it was
continually hidden by a cloud--all these show how early people's minds
became muddled on this subject.[21]
Coming to the legends about the Ten Tribes in more modern times, Eldad
Ben Mahli Ha Dani came forward in the ninth century claiming to give
specific details of the contemporary existence of the Ten Tribes and of
their location at that time.
"Dan, Naphtali, Gad, and Asher were," according to him, "in
Havilah; Zebulun and Reuben in the mountains of Paran; Ephraim, and
half of Manasseh, in South Arabia; Simeon, and the other half of
Manasseh, in the land of Chazars (?)." According to him, therefore,
"the Ten Tribes were settled in parts of Southern Arabia, or
perhaps Abyssinia, in conformity with the identification of
Havilah. The connection of this view with that of the Jewish origin
of Islam is obvious; and David Reubeni revived the view in stating
that he was related to the king of the tribes of Reuben situated in
Khaibar in North Arabia.
"According to Abraham Farisol, the remaining tribes were in the
desert, on the way to Mecca, near the Red Sea; but he himself
identifies the River Ganges with the River Gozan, and assumes that
the Beni-Israel of India are the descendants of the Lost Ten
Tribes. The Ganges, thus identified by him with the River
Sambation, divides the Indians from the Jews. The confusion between
Ethiopia and Farther India, which existed in the minds of the
ancients and mediæval geographers, caused some writers to place the
Lost Ten Tribes in Abyssinia. Abraham Yagel, in the sixteenth
century, did so, basing his conclusions on the accounts of David
Reubeni and Eldad Ha Dani. It is probable that some of the reports
of the Falashas led to this identification. According to Yagel,
messengers were sent to these colonists in the time of Pope Clement
VII., some of whom died, while the rest brought back tidings of the
greatness of the tribes and their very wide territories. Yagel
quotes a Christian traveller, Vincent of Milan, who was a prisoner
in the hands of the Turks for twenty-five years, and who went as
far as Fez, and thence to India, where he found the River
Sambation, and a number of Jews dressed in silk and purple. They
were ruled by seven kings, and upon being asked to pay tribute to
the Sultan Salim, they declared that they had never paid tribute to
any sultan or king. It is just possible that this may have some
reference to the 'Sâsanam' or the Jews of Cochin.
"It is further stated that in 1630 a Jew of Salonica travelled to
Ethiopia, to the land of Sambation; and that in 1646 one Baruch,
travelling in Persia, claimed to have met a man named Malkiel, of
the tribe of Naphtali, and brought back a letter from the king of
the children of Moses: this letter was seen by Azulai. It was
afterwards reprinted in Jacob Saphir's book of travels (Eben
Sappir, 1. 98).
"So much interest was taken in this account that in 1831 a certain
Baruch ben Samuel, of Pinsk, was sent to search for the children of
Moses in Yemen. He travelled fifteen days in the wilderness, and
declared he met Danites feeding flocks of sheep. So, too, in 1854,
a certain Amram Ma'arabi set out from Safed in search of the Ten
Tribes; and he was followed in 1857 by David Ashkenazi, who crossed
over through Suakin to make enquiries about the Jews of
Abyssinia."[22]
But all these are legends and fancies. "We in this twentieth century,"
to quote the words of a Christian writer, "to whom there is no longer
any part of the earth unknown, know that in no country whatever,
however far from civilisation it may be, do the Ten Tribes dwell. The
'travellers' tales' have been proved to be false; the Ten Tribes, as
such, do not exist." In this connection I may quote Professor A.
Neubauer, a prominent learned Jew, who sums up his studies in a series
of illuminating articles on the subject which will be found in Vol. I.
of _The Jewish Quarterly Review_, with these words:--
"Where are the Ten Tribes? We can only answer, Nowhere. Neither in
Africa, nor in India, China, Persia, Kurdistan, the Caucasus, or
Bokhara. We have said that a great part of them remained in
Palestine, partly mixing with the Samaritans, and partly
amalgamating with those who returned from the captivity of Babylon.
With them many came also from the cities of the Medes, and many, no
doubt, adhered to the Jewish religion which was continued in
Mesopotamia during the period of the Second Temple."
Some Christian writers cling to the view that while some of the "Ten
Tribes" amalgamated with the "Jews," there is nevertheless a distinct
people somewhere, who are descendants of the Israel of the ancient
northern kingdom, which is to be brought to light in the future, and,
together with "Judah," will be restored to Palestine, and enter into the
enjoyment of the promises. Thus the Nestorians, who inhabit the
inaccessible mountains of Kurdistan (which is part of ancient Assyria),
the Afghans, the North American Indians, and even the Japanese have been
variously identified as that people; but this view rests upon what I
believe to be a misconception of the meaning and scope of some of the
prophecies.
It _may_ be true that the Nestorians, and the Afghans, and some other
Eastern tribes are descendants of the original Israelitish exiles in
Assyria, but having more or less mixed themselves up by inter-marriage
with the surrounding nations, and having given up the distinctive
national rites and ordinances, such as circumcision, the observance of
the Sabbath, etc., they have, like many "Jews" in modern times (who
gradually assimilate with Gentile nations), cut themselves off from the
hope of Israel, and are no longer in the line of the purpose which God
has in and through that "peculiar" and separate people.
THE TESTIMONY OF PROPHECY IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY.
In conclusion let me very briefly call your attention to the remarkable
prophecy in Amos ix., which will show you that the view which I have
enunciated in my letter is the only one in keeping with the sure word of
prophecy.
The prophet Amos, though himself a Judean, his native village, Tekoa,
being about twelve miles south of Jerusalem, was commissioned by God to
prophesy more particularly to the northern or Ten-Tribed kingdom; and
for that purpose he went and took up his abode in Bethel, which was the
centre of the idolatrous worship set up by Jeroboam in opposition to the
worship and service of the divinely-appointed sanctuary in Jerusalem.
There his duty was to announce the coming judgment of God on the Israel
of the Ten Tribes, on account of their apostasy. The last paragraph of
his book (chap. ix. 8-15), uttered not more than about seventy years
before the final overthrow of Samaria in B.C. 721, is one of the most
remarkable and comprehensive prophecies in the Old Testament, and this
is the inspired forecast of the history of the Ten-Tribed kingdom which
is given in it: "_Behold, the eyes of the Lord God are upon the sinful
kingdom, and I will destroy it from off the face of the earth; saving
that I will not utterly destroy the house of Jacob, saith the Lord. For
lo, I will command and I will sift (or 'toss') the house of Israel among
all the nations, like as corn is sifted (or 'tossed' about) in a sieve,
yet shall not the least grain fall upon the earth. All the sinners of
thy people shall die by the sword, which say: The evil shall not
overtake or prevent us._"
Here, then, we have the whole subject as to what was to become of the
Ten Tribes in a nutshell.
(a) First, _as a kingdom_, they were to be destroyed from off the face
of the earth, _never to be restored_; for its very existence as a
separate kingdom was only permitted of God for a definite period as a
punishment on the house of David: and when, after a period of about two
hundred and fifty years of unbroken apostasy, it was finally broken up
by the Assyrians, there was an end of it, without any promise of a
future independent political existence.
(b) But when it was destroyed as a kingdom, what became of them as a
people? This prophecy tells us: "Saving that I will not utterly destroy
the house of Jacob, saith the Lord"--that is, they are to return to the
house of Jacob. They are to form part of the one family made up of all
the descendants of Jacob without distinction of tribes. But as one house
of Jacob, or "of Israel" (as the next verse interchangeably calls them),
something terrible and unique is to befall them; and what is it? To be
"lost" some two thousand six hundred years, and then to be identified
with the Anglo-Saxon race? Oh no! this is what was to happen: "For lo, I
will command and I will sift (or 'toss') the house of Israel among all
nations, even as corn is tossed about in a sieve"--or, in the words of
Hosea, another prophet, who spoke primarily to the Ten Tribes, "My God
will cast them away" (not for ever, as the whole book shows, but for a
time), "because they did not hearken unto Him; and _they shall be
wanderers among the nations_."
I draw your attention all the more to this point, because a good deal
has been made by some writers of the expression in Isa. xi., where
Israel is called "outcast," from which they infer that "Israel" is to be
found somewhere in one place, in contradistinction to the "dispersed of
Judah." But this is a fallacy. In Jer. xxx. Judah and Israel are
together called "an outcast," but it by no means implies that they are
therefore to be sought for and found in one particular region of the
world.
It is clear from the prophecies of Amos and Hosea, which, as we have
seen, were primarily addressed to the Ten Tribes, that if they were in
the first instance "cast out" by force from their own land, as the word
in the Hebrew means, it was with a view that they should be "tossed
about" and "wander" among "all nations."
Now note, Anglo-Israelism tells you to identify the Ten Tribes with one
nation; but if you are on the line of Scripture and true history, you
will seek for them "among all nations."
And which people is it that is known all over the earth as "the tribe of
the weary foot and wandering breast"? Anglo-Israelites call them "Jews"
in the limited sense of being descendants of "Judah"; but God's Word
tells us that it is "_the house of Israel_," or "the house of Jacob";
and, as a matter of fact, since "Judah" joined their brethren of the Ten
Tribes on the destruction of Jerusalem by the Chaldeans in B.C. 588, the
two have kept on their weary march together, "wandering among the
nations." Eastward and westward (only a remnant of all the tribes
returning to the land for a time), nowhere finding ease for any length
of time, nor do the soles of their feet have rest--even as Moses, _at
the very beginning of their history, and long before the division among
the tribes_, prophesied would be their _united_ experience in case they
apostatised from Jehovah their God. And thus they will continue ever
more mixed up and intermingled among themselves, with all genealogies
lost, and not one of them either east or west being able any longer
documentarily to prove of what tribe or family he comes--until the day
when He that scattered Israel will gather him, and by His own Divine
power and omniscience separate them again into their tribes and
families.
A SOLEMN WARNING.
My last words on this subject must be those of warning and entreaty. Do
not think, as so many do, that Anglo-Israelism, even if not true, is
only a harmless speculation. I consider it nothing short of one of the
latter-day delusions by which the Evil One seeks to divert the attention
of men from things spiritual and eternal. Here are a few of its
dangers:--
I. It goes, sometimes to the length of blasphemy (as shown in the
extracts I have copied for you at the beginning of this letter), in
misinterpreting and misapplying Scripture. One of its foundation
fallacies is that _it anticipates the Millennium_, and interprets
promises--which will only be fulfilled in that blessed period, after
Israel as a nation is converted--to the British nation at the present
time. But by this process it distorts and confuses the whole prophetic
Scripture.
II. It fosters national pride, and nationalises God's blessings in this
dispensation, which is individual and elective in its character.
Its proud boastful tone, its carnal confidence that Britain, in virtue
of its supposed identity with the "lost" tribes, is to take possession
of all the "gates" of her "enemies" and become practically mistress of
the whole globe, is enough to provoke God's judgment against the nation,
and to make the spiritual believer and every true lover of this
much-favoured land tremble. It diverts man's attention from the one
thing needful, and from the only means by which he can find acceptance
with God. This it does by teaching that "a nation composed of millions
of practical unbelievers in Christ, and ripe for apostasy, in virtue of
a certain fanciful identity between the mixed race composing that nation
and a people carried into captivity two thousand five hundred years ago,
is in the enjoyment of God's special blessing and will enjoy it on the
same grounds for ever, thus laying another foundation for acceptance
with God beside that which He has laid, even Christ Jesus."
After all, in this dispensation it is a question only as to whether men
are "in Christ" or not. If they are Christians, whether Jews or
Gentiles, their destiny is not linked either with Palestine or with
England, but with that inheritance which is incorruptible and undefiled
and which fadeth not away; and if they are not Christians, then, instead
of occupying their thoughts with vain speculations as to a supposed
identity of the British race with the "lost" Ten Tribes, it is their
duty to seek the one and only Saviour whom we must learn to know, not
after the flesh, but in the Spirit, and without whom a man, whether an
Israelite or not, is undone.
III. Then, finally, it not only robs the Jewish nation, the true Israel,
of many promises in relation to their _future_ by applying them to the
British race in the _present_ time, but it diverts attention from them
as _the_ people in whom is bound up the purpose of God in relation to
the nations, and whose "receiving again" to the heart of God, after the
long centuries of unbelief, will be as "life from the dead to the whole
world."
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 15: According to Grätz, "History of the Jews," vol. i., p.
186, the tribe of Simeon, which was merely a subsidiary of that of
Judah, also remained faithful to the House of David; but this is
doubtful.]
[Footnote 16: See 2 Kings xxiii. 29, where the King of Babylon is called
"King of Assyria."]
[Footnote 17: "It is inconceivable," says Dr. Pusey, "that, as the
material prosperity of Palestine returned, even many of the Ten Tribes
should not have returned to their country."]
[Footnote 18: Thus Strabo (quoted by Josephus in "Ant." xiv. 7, 2) could
already say in his day that "these Jews had already gotten into all
cities; and it is hard to find a place in the habitable earth that hath
not admitted this race and is not mastered by it."]
[Footnote 19: "Everywhere we have distinct notices of these wanderers,"
says Dr. Edersheim, "and everywhere they appear as in closest connection
with the Rabbinical hierarchy of Palestine. Thus the Mishnah, in an
extremely curious section, tells how on Sabbaths the Jewesses of Arabia
might wear their long veils, and those of India the kerchiefs round
their head, customary in those countries, without incurring the guilt of
desecrating the holy day by needlessly carrying what, in the eyes of the
law, would be a burden; while in a rubric for the Day of Atonement we
have it noted that the dress which the High Priest wore 'between the
evenings' of the great feast--that is, as afternoon darkened into
evening--was of most costly Indian stuff."]
[Footnote 20: Some have supposed that the 14th verse of Zechariah
xi.--"_And I cut asunder mine other (or 'second') staff, even Bands (or
'Binders'), to destroy the brotherhood between Judah and between
Israel_"--foreshadowed another division between the Ten Tribes and the
Two Tribes subsequent to the partial restoration from Babylon, and after
the coalescence of the people before and in the Exile--as a punishment
for their rejection of their true Shepherd the Messiah, which is
symbolically set forth in that chapter. But this is a mistake. The
אַחֲוָה (_achavah_), "Brotherhood," which was to be destroyed "between
Judah and between Israel," is not to be understood in the sense "that
the unity of the nation would be broken up again in a manner similar to
that in the days of Rehoboam, and that two hostile nations would be
formed out of one people," although the disruption of national unity
which took place in the days of Jeroboam may be referred to _as an
illustration_ of that which would occur again in a more serious form.
"The schism of Jeroboam had a weakening and disintegrating effect on the
nation of the Twelve Tribes, and the dissolution of the brotherhood here
spoken of was to result in still greater evil and ruin; for Israel,
deprived of the Good Shepherd, was to fall into the power of the
'foolish,' or 'evil,' shepherd, who is depicted at the close of the
prophecy."
The preposition בֵּין (_bain_), which is twice repeated, has the meaning
not only of "_between_," but also of "_among_," and the formula, House
of Judah and House of Israel, or simply, "Judah and Israel," is, as we
have had again and again to notice, this prophet's inclusive designation
of the whole ideally (and to a large extent already actually) reunited
one people. I think, therefore, that we may rightly render the sentence
"to destroy the brotherhood _among_ Judah and among Israel"--that is to
say, among the entire nation. The consequence of it would be the
fulfilment of the threat in the 9th verse: "Let them which are left eat
every one the flesh of another"--solemn and awful words, which had their
first literal fulfilment in the party feuds and mutualy destructive
strife, and in the terrible "dissolution of every bond of brotherhood
and of our common nature, which made the siege of Jerusalem by the
Romans a proverb for horror, and precipitated its destruction."]
[Footnote 21: It has also been supposed that the references by Agrippa
in his remarkable oration (reported by Josephus, "Wars," ii., xvi.
4)--to those who dwelt "as far as beyond the Euphrates," and to "those
of your nation who dwell in Adiabene," upon whom the Jews might rely for
help in their struggle against Rome, but would not be permitted by the
Parthians to render them any assistance--were to some unknown
settlements belonging to the Ten Tribes. But this is a mistake. These
dwellers in Adiabene might or might not have belonged to the Ten Tribes,
but they formed part of the known Dispersion and of "your nation"--the
Jews.]
[Footnote 22: Jewish Encyclopædia.]