LATE CORRESPONDENCE.

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXVI, Issue 20519, 22 January 1935, Page 13

LATE CORRESPONDENCE.

BRITISH-ISRAEL A MYTH. Dear Sir.— Kindly allow me to shoot a few more arrows into the BritishIsrael camp, for it has no foundation to undermine. From information gathered from my bookshelves I find that the eccentric Richard Brothers (born 1757, died 1824) was the first person to bring forward this theory. He claimed to be the “ Nephew of the Almighty," and wrote a book, “ Revealed Knowledge,” in which he claimed to be a descendant of David He also prophesied that he would be revealed as' the prince of the Hebrews on November 19, 1795. Years later, in the early seventies, J. Wilson, E. I line and J. Douglas wrote supporting this theme, and Edward I line claimed that over one million people had accepted the theory. I line refers to the late " Queen Victoria as the root of David.” Referring to our national blessings, he says: “The first that we shall inherit is that of living in peace, freed from wars that are yet to convulse Europe.” “ The English people will become entirely exempt from warlike operations.” Another 8.1. leader. Basil Stewart, several years ago prophesied a war for May 28, 1928, which would continue until September 16, 1936, in which “ England and her colonies and those other nations which are a part of Israel will eventually emerge victorious, but Russia will be wiped out entirely.” To get down to facts, it is not hard to believe that the ten tribes were represented in Palestine at the time of Christ, “ For they fell to him (Asa) out of Israel in abundance.” James writes his letter to the twelve tribes of the dispersion, which dispersion: was after the Crucifixion, and refers to Acts 8:1 and 11:19 (A.D. 34). He is not writing to non-existent or lost tribes (A.D. 60). At the time of the Crucifixion it is certain that all who could leave their homes would be present in Jerusalem for the Passover, and many of these probably joined in the cry “ Away with Him . . . His blood be upon us.” Surely Galilee was as guilty as Judea in the rejection and crucifixion of Christ. Matt. 11:20-24.

Concerning “ out of Israel in abundance ” I have an article before me by the Rev F. W. Pitt, well known at present in London, who shows how this “ abundance ” amounted to over four million. In Luke 2:36 we find that the tribe of Asher is not altogether lost. Your correspondent “ Hay ” thinks that Col. 3:11 does away with circumcision. Circumcision is nothing to the Church: but to the Jew it is most important unto this day. Gen. 17:9-14 is still effective. This is unanswerable, as Covenant blessings cannot come without it (John 7:22, 23 >. Many difficulties have arisen through confusing the Church with Israel. "God hath not cast away his People”: that refers to Israel and their coming emancipation, foretold in the Scriptures, when " a nation will be born in a day.” This will happen a few years after I. Thess. 4:15-17 has taken place, at the completion of the Church. Can Mr Tucker tell us how Great Britain fits in with this? “And thou shalt become an astonishment, a proverb and. a byword among all nations whither the Lord shall lead thee.” " Thou shalt not be reckoned amongst the nations.” This was spoken to them all, long before the disruption, and is being fulfilled to-day. Now Judah is the royal tribe, and the promise of the Son of David to reign on the throne of David applies to Judah. Scripture is clear on this point. The ten tribes can never supply. Him. If Christ *is King of the Jews, He is King of the whole Hebrew race There is nothing clearer in the Bible than the fact that Christ is the last King who will reign in Jerusalem. “ lie will reign whose right it is.” “ And the government shall be upon His shoulder." Since they rejected their King no other has reigned in His stead on the Throne of David. BritishIsraelism displaces Christ. I am not an authority on origin and meaning of names, but T have read much criticism of the method used by British-Israelites in this direction: and while reading Mr E. D. Bernstein’s letter T became puzzled to know whv the “h” is put after “Brit” to make -t mean covenant. It seems to me that one can make a word t.o mean anything bv this method. T am not suggesting that Mr Bernstein has done this, but T do know that this is what is done bv B.T. authorities. This has been described as "an ethnological and philo logical impossibility.” Other similar examples could be given. I have read from more than one source that “ Briton ” or “ British ” has come from the word Barantanic. which literally means “ The Tin Islands ” History acquaints US with thr* fact that the ancients came to the British Isles for tin. and the Isles so received their name from the useful mineral that was. and is. mined on them Geoloo’v is against, the “Coronation Stone ” theory, for the stone is of the old red sandstone formation of Scotland, and has nothing in common with the limestone rocks of Palestine. The insoired division of mankind is into Tews. Gentiles and Church of God (T. Cor. 10-32). If. therefore, the Israelites are not among the " Tews.” they are non-existent. British-Israelism is a myth.—l am. etc., W.G.S.