Although Herbert Armstrong's teachings about Anglo-Israelism had their roots in the Nineteenth Century, the culmination of his work on the subject came with the publication of a 251-page book in 1980 titled The United States and Britain in Prophecy. The teaching and the book made the Worldwide Church of God stand apart from other churches and denominations. For many thousands of people across the globe, it seemed that Herbert Armstrong had unlocked the secrets necessary to understand biblical prophecies. Indeed, Armstrong's unique teaching seemed to make sense of the wider world while simultaneously validating God and the Bible!
Since Herbert Armstrong's death (1986), and the rise of the internet, the teaching has been thoroughly and repeatedly discredited by a mountain of historical, archaeological, linguistical, genealogical, and scientific evidence. Nevertheless, many of Armstrong's followers have continued to insist that the teaching is correct and have steadfastly rejected all evidence that suggests otherwise. The teaching's persistence, of course, has dumbfounded scholars and theologians and has caused many of them to conclude that Armstrongists are immune to reason and are unpersuadable. In other words, they have written these folks off to the phenomenon known as willful ignorance.
I, however, believe that the persistence of this teaching in the face of so much evidence to the contrary is attributable to the Fundamentalist reasoning that serves as the foundation of the thesis. In brief, Armstrong and many of his followers believe(d) that this teaching is firmly rooted in Scripture - that the Bible itself confirms/proves the teaching. Simply put, for them, the Bible is supreme. They believe that the teaching is an integral part of Scripture - just like the stories about the creation of Adam and Eve, Noah and the flood, the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt, and the miracles of Jesus! In other words, it is an article of faith that no amount of evidence from any other source (including science) can discredit God's Word! Hence, for these folks, the ONLY way that this teaching could ever be discredited is to demonstrate that it is NOT Scriptural!
Thus, this series of posts will disprove/discredit the teaching of Anglo-Israelism "from the pages of your own Bible!" As was suggested earlier, there are numerous scholarly treatises available on this subject. For those who are interested in that perspective, I encourage you to Google "Anglo/British-Israelism" and peruse those works for yourself. Once again, from the perspective of history, linguistics, archaeology, and DNA, this teaching has been completely discredited. For those who are open to what the Bible has to say on this subject, I encourage you to carefully review and verify everything that follows - searching those Scriptures just like the Bereans did of old!
To begin, it is important that we establish the premises/reasoning which Herbert Armstrong employed in arriving at this teaching. After a careful review of the above-mentioned book (and as someone who once embraced the teaching), it is apparent to me that the teaching is founded on these premises:
1. Since so many smaller/obscure nations are mentioned in Bible prophecy, it is illogical to suppose that nations like the United States and Great Britain are not.
2. That one-third of the Bible is prophecy, the overwhelming majority of which deals with the end times, and the key to understanding those prophecies is understanding the modern identity of the nations referenced in those writings.
3. The promises made to Abraham were NEVER fulfilled through the ancient Israelites.
4. The identity of the true descendants of Israel was lost to history and has subsequently been revealed to a few select individuals whom God has chosen to reveal this knowledge to for his own purposes.
5. The meteoric rise of Great Britain and the United States, and their acquisition of unparalleled wealth and power prove that these nations have been singled out for special blessings by God, and their inheritance of the promises made to Abraham is the best explanation for this.
6. Likewise, the decline of both powers is best explained by the fact that these peoples have followed in the footsteps of their hardheaded ancestors and have ignored/abandoned God. And, as a consequence, God is withdrawing his protections and blessings and is punishing them for their wickedness and ingratitude.
7. That these facts mean that most of the prophecies addressed to ancient Israel in the Old Testament were intended for the English-speaking folks of the world in this day and age.
8. Therefore, the commission given to those prophets to warn Israel away from their sins – to repent and return to God – has devolved upon the true Christian Church (replacing and/or superseding the Great Commission given by Christ to his apostles at the conclusion of the Gospel of Matthew – Although proponents of this teaching frame this as being an integral part of proclaiming the “Gospel of the Kingdom of God.”)
9. Once again, all of these premises are made dependent on THE BIBLE, not science, history, archaeology, etymology, or intellectual reasoning.
Just starting your series. Looking forward to it. -- Neo
ReplyDeleteThanks, I'm looking forward to hearing any thoughts/comments you may want to contribute on this topic. - Lonnie
DeleteI believe this kind of analysis, based on the Bible, is a needed approach. A Bible based response to BI has been missing. Everything that comes out of the physical realm can be discounted by BI advocates, even to the point of using "magical realism." For instance, it would not be surprising if someone, somewhere in Splinterland would assert that God changed the genetics of the Israelites in order to hide them from the world. Therefore, genetics has no traction in dealing with BI.
ReplyDeleteJames Tabor wrote in an article about the Branch Davidians and the Waco Disaster that they were Old Testament-oriented and would not respond to traditional, reason-based arguments. They would only respond to Biblical arguments. And law enforcement did not understand this. At least, that is the way I interpreted what he wrote. I think it was an article in Texas Monthly.