Anglo-Israelism
Redefining the Term, Jew
It is generally accepted today that the term “Jew” identifies not only the tribe of Judah but encompasses every other tribe of Israel. Anglo-Israelism, or British Israelism, as it was known in its earlier days, stands in opposition to this. Anglo-Israelism asserts that the term “Jew” only equates to the tribe of Judah.[1], [2]
According to those who adhere to this belief, when individuals in the United States, Europe, or any other part of the world say they are Jewish in the ethnic sense, what they are really saying is that they are from the tribe of Judah, or possibly the tribes of Levi and Benjamin, who held a close association with the Southern Kingdom.
Supporters point to the abbreviated definitions found in Strong’s Concordance, which defines “Jew” as coming from the tribe of Judah. For them, this is proof that the term “Jew” cannot be used for the other tribes. However, supporters see no problem including the tribes of Benjamin and Levi.
A New Seating Chart
Not allowing the term “Jew” to be a synonym for all the tribes creates some open seats, and those within the embryonic stages of British-Israelism set out to fill them. They asserted that the tribe of Ephraim was England.[3] However, an early, prominent writer for the system, John Wilson, did not think it necessary to connect the United States with a tribe. Wilson was an Englishman who was only interested in linking England. He believed that the United States was full of the descendants of Japheth, who merely coexisted with English immigrants from the tribe of Ephraim.[4] Later, Reverend Glover, someone who is covered more fully in The Stone of Destiny section of this website, came to define the United States as Manasseh. At first, Glover thought Manasseh was the Welsh people, but after seeing signs he could no longer deny, he came to believe that Manasseh was the US.[5]
Footnotes
[1] Herbert W. Armstrong, The United States and Britain in Prophecy (New York: Everest House, 1980), p. 79. www.herbert-armstrong.org/indexUSBIP.html.
[2] Some supporters also view the English word “Gentiles” differently as well. They believe the word refers to the other Israelite tribes who were not part of the tribes of Judah, Benjamin, and Levi. The idea that Gentiles means “the rest of the Israelite tribes” greatly narrows the possibility of who can be saved. Due to this, demonstrating that they are Israelites, the only people group who will find salvation, becomes paramount to these supporters’ faith.
However, the English word Gentiles is used to refer to non-Israelites. See Hosea 8:8-9 where there is a clear distinction between non-Israelites who are labeled as Gentiles in the KJV and Israel who are specifically from the ten northern tribes.
From an original language perspective, in the KJV, the Hebrew word gôwy and the Greek words, ĕthnŏs, ĕthnikŏs, and Hĕllĕn are translated to Gentile(s). In some cases, the KJV does not bother to translate these words to Gentiles. Instead, the KJV employs the word nation which can be applied to a variety of people. In Genesis 17:20, for example, gôwy is translated to nation and is speaking about Ishmael’s line. In Genesis 12:2, gôwy refers to Abram’s descendants, the Israelites. In the cases of Isaiah 1:1-4 (v.4) and Jeremiah 7:1-28 (v.28), gôwy is referencing Judah specifically. Acts 2:5 is a New Testament example where the Greek term ĕthnŏs is translated to nation and is employed in a similar generic way to mean all the nations of the world. Claiming the word Gentiles can only mean “other Israelite tribes” ignores the usage of the original Hebrew and Greek terms behind the English word Gentiles.
[3] John Wilson, Our Israelitish Origin: Lectures on Ancient Israel, and the Israelitish Origin of the Modern Nations of Europe, 3rd edition (London: James Nisbet and Co., 1840), Queries on the Subject of the Israelitish Origin of the British Nation, https://books.google.com.
[4] Ibid., p. 22.
[5] F.R.A. Glover, England, The Remnant of Judah and The Israel of Ephraim, 2nd ed., (Waterloo Place, London: Rivingtons, 1881), pp. 149–151, https://archive.org.