Birthright, Scepter, Blessing, and Promise!

Anglo-Israelism is a monster that has been slain over and over again, but it refuses to die. Its proponents either ignore all of the evidence which contradicts their teaching, or they figure out a new way to defend it! Why? Why do the Armstrong Churches of God hold on to this heretical teaching so tenaciously?

To answer that question, we must first understand that their embrace of Anglo-Israelism is deeply rooted in the founding of the movement. Herbert Armstrong, the founder of the old Radio Church of God (which later became the Worldwide Church of God), taught his followers that he had discovered the lost identity of the English-speaking peoples of the earth. For him and his followers, this was the key to a proper understanding of biblical prophecy. Moreover, this understanding justified a unique message for their Church. Instead of preaching the traditional Gospel message which Christians had been preaching for centuries, Armstrong and his followers could focus on relating current events to biblical prophecy and warning the English-speaking peoples of the earth about their impending doom (as a consequence of their national sins). In other words, Anglo-Israelism is a foundational element of their theology! It is one of the primary things which has set them apart from all of those other "so-called Christians." Hence, their stubborn resistance to admitting that the beast has been slain!

Having established what motivates these folks to keep on keeping on, the next question to address is "what allows them to persist in this delusion?" In answering that question, we must first acknowledge that human will is a powerful force in any belief system. As Herbert Armstrong used to say, "one convinced against his will is of the same opinion still!" In other words, folks are going to believe what they want to believe. We've seen this phenomenon at work in the society around us too - folks who are impervious to facts and reason. Not only do these folks reject anything which contradicts their belief(s), they refuse to even entertain/consider any such evidence! They surround themselves with folks who believe the same thing(s) which they believe, and they only read or listen to material which supports their belief(s). In other words, they live in a kind of self-reinforcing bubble!

Nevertheless, for the supporters of Anglo-Israelism, this cultural phenomenon does not tell the full story - there is another element which allows these folks to continue to hold on to this teaching. The thing which allows them to ignore evidence or reinterpret this teaching is their conflation of a number of scriptural passages and concepts. To be more precise, Armstrong and his supporters have failed to understand the biblical distinctions between a birthright, scepter, blessing, and promise. Moreover, their failure to distinguish the real differences in these elements is not only the basis for their misunderstanding of the scriptures which deal with them, it has also allowed them to perpetuate their error!

As I previously related in my six-part series on the scriptural basis for Anglo-Israelism, the birthright played a central role in how a father's estate was inherited by his children. Basically, it was the right of the firstborn son to inherit a greater share of his father's estate than his siblings. Moreover, the book of Genesis provides us with a series of stories about the setting aside of this birthright (Ishmael was displaced by Isaac, Esau was displaced by Jacob, Reuben was displaced by Joseph, Manasseh was displaced by Ephraim). Hence, the birthright was separate and distinct from the promises made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as INDIVIDUALS. In other words, in Scripture, there is NO such thing as a "birthright promise." Likewise, Scripture makes very clear that the birthright was distinct from the blessing (see the story of Esau and Jacob regarding Isaac's blessing, and Jacob's blessing of his sons and grandsons). In similar fashion, I Chronicles 5:1-2 makes very clear that the birthright and the promise of the scepter were two distinctly different things.

In terms of the birthright, Scripture also makes clear that Joseph received a double portion of his father's estate as a consequence of displacing his elder brother (Reuben) as the heir to the birthright. Joseph's sons, Ephraim and Manasseh became two of the twelve tribes of Israel (see Genesis 49). Moreover, yet again, the younger brother supplanted the elder brother in terms of the preferred inheritance! Indeed, subsequently Ephraim is identified as the leading tribe in Israel (at times, even being considered synonymous with the northern kingdom).

As for Anglo-Israelism's claims about the British monarch sitting on the throne of David, let's take a closer look at Judah's inheritance/possession of the scepter. First, it should be noted that Jacob/Israel's blessing of his children was also delivered in the capacity of something which was predicted/prophesied for each child. Hence, when we read the forty-ninth chapter of Genesis, it is imperative that we remember that the focus is on what was to become of the descendants of these children. In that place, we read: "The scepter will not depart from Judah, nor the ruler’s staff from his descendants, until the coming of the one to whom it belongs, the one whom all nations will honor. He ties his foal to a grapevine, the colt of his donkey to a choice vine. He washes his clothes in wine, his robes in the blood of grapes. His eyes are darker than wine, and his teeth are whiter than milk." (Verses 10-12) Obviously, this points to Jesus Christ, and it precludes its inheritance by ANYONE other than him. And, just in case we have any KJV devotees out there, the NLT translated this passage in this way because "Shiloh" is associated with the Messiah in the Hebrew Bible (see Strong's and other modern translations).

Interestingly, while Armstrong and his followers had/have no problem conflating birthrights, scepters, blessings and promises, they had/have no problem making a distinction between "material/physical" promises and "spiritual" ones (a distinction which is NOT found in Scripture)! Indeed, by characterizing the promises of "a nation and a community of nations" as "material/physical" and the scepter promise as "spiritual," they directly contradict Paul's language in the New Testament which suggests that ALL of these promises find their fulfillment in Jesus Christ! In short, this inability of Armstrong and his followers to distinguish between the birthright, scepter, blessing and promise, as well as their differentiation of the promises into "physical" and "spiritual" components is responsible for both their initial erroneous conclusions about Anglo-Israelism and their continued devotion to the doctrine. The premise: If the "physical," "birthright promises" were never inherited by the ancient Israelites, then we must look for their fulfillment in more modern times! Unfortunately, this is the erroneous reasoning which underpins Anglo-Israelism and allows its proponents to justify its perpetuation!