A History of Anglo-Israelism

Anglo-Israelism, the teaching that the English and American peoples are descendants of the northern "lost" ten tribes of Israel, is often associated with the name Herbert W. Armstrong, who popularized the doctrine with millions of copies of his book The United States and Britain in Prophecy.¹

But Anglo-Israelism did not originate with Herbert Armstrong. Some believe it originated as far back as 1649, when John Sadler speculated in Rights to the Kingdom that the English descended from Israel's lost tribes.

This paragraph refers to Jacques Abbadie (and other spellings), 1654-1727. He wrote in French for French Huguenot refugees in England, extolling the virtues of Britain and its monarchy. Some of his works were translated into English and German. He wrote the Le Triomphe..., which was published in Amsterdam. He was made Dean of Kilaloe in Ireland in recognition of his support for William of Orange. His work, Le Triomphe... is available in several academic libraries - see the Union Catalog.

Mike Linacre, Research Associate, University of Chicago

In 1723 a Dr. Abade allegedly wrote, "Unless the ten tribes have flown into the air . . . they must be sought for in the north and west, and in the British Isles."² Another version of this story calls him Dean Abbadie of Kilaloe, Ireland. The quotation in this version of the story is also different: "Unless the ten lost tribes of Israel are flown into the air . . . they must be those ten Gothic tribes, that entered Europe in the fifth century . . . and founded the ten nations of modern Europe." The quotation is supposed to have been published in his book Triomphe de la Religion.³

Other scholars believe Anglo-Israelism began with Richard Brothers, a Canadian. Around 1800 Brothers both amused and irritated the upper echelons of English society. Troubled by visions, Brothers claimed to be God's prophet called to warn London of its impending doom. Armageddon was coming. Of all the centers of evil and corruption, Parliament was singled out for God's special wrath. He identified it as the beast of Revelation to which God gave the number 666.

Brothers increased his infamy by claiming descent from King David, through the apostle James, the brother of Jesus Christ. God told him, Brothers said, that he was the "nephew of the Almighty." To complete the picture, Brothers claimed to have received a revelation as to the racial origin of the English people — they were Israelites.

Brothers reasoned that since he was a descendant of King David and the English were Israelites, only he had the right to be king of England. George III disagreed. He had Brothers convicted of treason and sent to an asylum.

Though motivated by visions, Brothers used Scripture to justify his claims. Yet ultimately the "revelation" that England was Israel didn't come from the Bible. Brothers died insane in 1824. Before he died, his caretakers had concluded that Brothers was harmless enough to be released. After his release he was supported by a handful of his disciples. They continued publishing his ideas until 1850.⁴

Modern Anglo-Israelism arose during those waning years of Brothers' cult, primarily through the writings of John Wilson. Wilson based his theories on his understanding of Scripture, not upon a madman's dreams. While there are similarities between what Wilson and Brothers taught, there are many significant differences. To date, no one has produced a single passage from Wilson that has been clearly influenced by Brothers. While the chronological overlap of Wilson's book with the remnants of Brothers' cult suggests that the madman Brothers planted the germ for Wilson's ideas, that suggestion remains unproven.

There is some evidence that other writers preceded Wilson in giving Anglo-Israelism an apparently biblical face. Did these writers actually exist, and if so, did they have ties to Brothers' cult? At the present time, we cannot say.⁵ Perhaps Wilson is not the originator of modern Anglo-Israelism after all. If so, then he can at least be remembered for popularizing the belief.

In 1840 Wilson published Our Israelitish Origin. The public's demand for it was such that the printers produced several editions, in both England and America. The American edition came out in 1850. The widely known George Storrs read and recommended it.⁶ His recommendation places him among the first American Anglo-Israelites.

Anglo-Israelism began to catch on about the same time Millerism excited both American and British evangelicals. Millerism — the belief that Jesus would return sometime in 1843-45 and that believers should warn others and prepare themselves — began with William Miller, a reluctant Baptist preacher from rural New York state. Miller was almost ignored by the public until Joshua Himes converted to Miller's belief. Himes used his extensive advertising and publishing skills to spread the word.

Millerites first proclaimed the autumn of 1843, then the spring, and later the autumn of 1844, as God's appointed time. When their predictions failed, their humiliation became known as the Great Disappointment.

Millerism penetrated Great Britain by 1840. There the Disappointment was delayed a year because many British Millerites thought 1845, not 1844, was the expected year. British converts to Millerism generally came from smaller, prophetically oriented churches on the fringes of British Christianity. These believers generally took a literal approach to Scripture. Often their prophetic views were bookish, lacking any social impact. By 1845, British offshoots of the Anglo-Israelite movement were among those attracted to Millerism.⁷

William Miller encouraged his followers to read British writers on prophecy. It seems there was some communication between Millerites and various British prophecy buffs. In that way, Millerism helped set the stage for the introduction of Anglo-Israelism in the United States. While we aren't certain, that might explain how George Storrs, a former Millerite, came to recommend Our Israelitish Origins in 1850 and why the book sold well in this country.

Before then, the Great Disappointment had led to the collapse of Millerism and the discrediting of its leaders. Most Millerites returned to their former churches. Those who did not became known as Adventists, because they continued to emphasize the imminent second advent of Christ. Their numbers included a few Sabbathkeepers.

After the Great Disappointment George Storrs continued working for the Adventist cause. Storrs' most important contribution to the movement came when he started teaching that the dead were unconscious. The dead, Storrs believed, are not in heaven nor in hell. They are asleep in their graves. People do not have immortal souls. They must be given eternal life through Jesus Christ at the resurrection of the saints.

Storrs discovered this doctrine while riding in a railroad car. He literally picked it up off the floor, where he found a tract on the subject written by an independent Sunday-keeping preacher. Storrs took the teaching and popularized it among Adventists. "Soul sleep" thus became a belief of most developing Adventist groups.

Although many Adventists opposed sect formation, on the grounds that organized sects immediately became Babylonian by virtue of their being organized, the advantages of organization soon became apparent. As typical in the formation of religious sects, Adventist groups began to coalesce around doctrines each group felt justified their independent organization. Adventist doctrinal differences revolved around the Sabbath, the nature of the millennium, the state of the dead, church government and Ellen G. White's prophetic claims.

This process of sect formation among the earliest Adventist groups continued until the 1920s. Since then, additional sects have arisen as offshoots of them. Though the parent groups decided that their differences justified separate organizations, their similarities frequently produced cooperation between their members.

Storrs played a part in this process. In 1863 he helped found the smallest of the Adventist bodies, the Life and Advent Union, a Sunday-observing sect. In 1964 the Life and Advent Union merged into the Advent Christian Church.

Although the group Storrs helped found represented an extremely small branch of Adventism, his influence far exceeded its meager numbers. Every branch of Adventism, including the Seventh-day Adventists, the Church of God (Seventh Day) and the Jehovah Witnesses, owe their doctrine of conditional immortality to this man.⁸ Because we, the members of the Worldwide Church of God, trace our history through the influences of the Church of God (Seventh Day), the same can be said of us.

In light of Storrs' widespread influence among Adventists, one can conclude that his recommendation of Our Israelitish Origins helped spread Anglo-Israelism among the American Adventist movement. If George Storrs recommended a book, then one can be reasonably sure that others would also read it.

One who may have followed Storrs' recommendation was R.V. Lyon. Lyon has been misidentified as a Church of God (Seventh Day) minister.⁹ The confusion arises because Lyon, though not a Sabbathkeeper, had influence within the Church of God (Seventh Day).

Ordained a Baptist preacher, Lyon left the Baptists and become a Millerite. After the Great Disappointment, he settled in a group that, with other groups, eventually coalesced into the Church of God (Abrahamic Faith). The highly independent congregations within that fellowship taught conditional immortality, an earthly kingdom of God and Israel's restoration to Palestine.

So completely did they identify themselves with a belief in Israel's restoration that they have at times been known as the Restoration Church of God. While their restorationism would appear to have created a receptive atmosphere for Anglo-Israelism, we know of no one from among them who accepted that doctrine. Nonetheless, it is but a short step from Lyon's restorationism to classic Anglo-Israelism.¹⁰

The shortness of the step is evident in Lyon's conviction that the Jews do not represent all of end-time Israel. He understood the history of Israel's two divisions and how each went into separate captivities. He concluded that only the Jews returned. Israel supposedly continued to exist as an independent people from the Jews, but lost their identity.

Lyon believed Ezekiel 37:15-28 to be an important restorationist prophecy. It speaks of the reunification of Judah and Israel, and how they are again to be ruled by one king — King David. In interpreting this passage, Lyon applied both a literalist and a typological hermeneutic. He did not seem to be aware of his inconsistency.

Let's examine Lyon's typological explanation first. In his booklet The Scattering and Restoration of Israel, Lyon explained that the "David" of Ezekiel 37 was actually Jesus Christ.¹¹ King David, Lyon understood, was an ancient type of the Messiah. So Ezekiel's reference to David, Lyon believed, was a typological reference to Jesus.

While literalists would find such an explanation problematic, Lyon was justified in interpreting Ezekiel 37 typologically. Consider Ezekiel's broader message. A primary theme in Ezekiel is Israel's violation of the old covenant (16:8, 59-62; 17:13-19). This was evidenced by their commandment breaking and defilement of the Temple. Historically, Israel's violation of the covenant led to the rebellion of the northern tribes and their rejection of the Davidic monarchy, as well as the nation's division. Eventually, Babylon invaded Judah, taking away many captives. God called Ezekiel to proclaim to his fellow Israelite captives the final collapse of Judah, the destruction of the Temple and the apparent end of the Davidic rule.

Accompanying Ezekiel's message of doom is one of hope. In chapter 20 Ezekiel proclaims God as Israel's king (20:33). As Savior, God will deliver them from their tribulation. He will bring them within the bond of the covenant (verse 37). The nation will revive within this renewed relationship (verses 40-44).

In chapter 37 Ezekiel prophesies that God will revive the people, Israel, who spiritually had been as dead, dry bones. God will place his Spirit within them, giving them life (Ezekiel 37:13-4). Ezekiel 37:15-27 expands this theme. Ezekiel explains that their King and Savior — already established as God — will dwell in their midst (verse 27). Dwelling among his people, he will make a new covenant with them (verse 26). Israel will again be God's people (verse 27). Unlike the old covenant they violated, the new covenant will be everlasting.

Other Old Testament prophets also spoke of a new David, and a new son of David, who would lead the nation with righteousness (Isaiah 11:1-3; 9:6-7, 16:5; Jeremiah 23:5, 33:15). The prophets saw David and Solomon as types of the messianic king. This view became a principal typological theme of the New Testament.

Jesus is the new David/Solomon (Revelation 5:5, 22:16). Not only is Jesus a descendant of David through Mary (Matthew 1; John 7:42; 2 Timothy 2:8), but also in him are typologically fulfilled the Davidic promises. He is the one to sit on David's throne (Luke 1:32). His kingdom is the kingdom of David (Mark 11:10). With the founding of the church, God raises David's tabernacle (Acts 15:13-19). As the antitype of Solomon, Jesus is the Son of David (Matthew 9:27; 12:23; 15:22; 20:30-31; 21:19; 15). In the Psalms, the church sees David as the type, Jesus as the antitype (Acts 2:25, 34; 4:25; 13:33, 35). In Hebrews, Solomon is a type of Jesus (cp. Hebrews 1:5; 2 Samuel 7:13-14). It is Jesus who fulfills God's promise that David would never lack an heir (Acts 13:34-36). The New Testament does not look to a resurrected David, for it has a resurrected Christ (Acts 2:25-36; 13:34-37).

As the messianic type, the original David reunited the tribes (2 Samuel 5:1-5). With that as background, Ezekiel 37 looks to the future antitypical "David" who will bring a greater reunification. He reigns in Israel at the time God establishes his new covenant with them.

Thus, in the New Testament typological interpretation of the Old, the greater fulfillment of prophecy is in the antitype (Christ) rather than the type. Christ is a greater king than David or Solomon. Since Christ is the fulfillment of the prophets, there is no need to look elsewhere for some other fulfillment.

Lyon apparently believed this as far as it applied to the "David" of Ezekiel 37. However, having started typologically, he then applied a literalist hermeneutic to other parts of the chapter. Lyon reasoned that Ezekiel 37 could only be fulfilled millennially. Though the text only states that "David" would rule over a unified Israel, Lyon assumed Israel's reunification would be coincident with "David's" rule.

In his discussion Lyon ignored the early chapters of Ezekiel, which speak of Israelites and Jews as already dwelling together (see Ezekiel chapters 3-4, 8-11). Missing also was Jesus' claim that when he went to the Jews he went "only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel" (Matthew 15:24). For Jesus, "House of Israel" and "Jews" were synonymous. Finally, Lyon did not discuss the New Testament's witness that God has already made the new covenant with spiritual Israel — the church (Luke 22:20; 1 Corinthians 11:25; 2 Corinthians 3:6; Hebrews 8:6).

Ignoring the mingling of Israel and Judah, Lyon argued that the church must look beyond the Jews to find Israel today. Yet to the question, Where is Israel today? Lyon offered no answer. Lyon was close to Anglo-Israelism, but apparently did not embrace it.

So why mention him? Lyon is important because of his influence within the early Adventist movement. By the American Civil War, he was evangelizing across the Great Lakes region of the United States and Canada. In addition to preaching, for 30 years Lyon sent his free literature to anyone who requested it, until his death in 1891. He had readers throughout the northern United States and Canada. Though he was not widely known among the general public, Lyon and his prophetic doctrines were known and welcome among those who would become the Church of God (Seventh Day).

Through the latter 1800s and early 1900s, restorationists such as R.V. Lyon and ministers of what would become the Church of God (Seventh Day) had many contacts.¹² While the Sabbath separated them, both groups had much in common, including a fascination with Israel. While it was not until 1874 that elements of the future Church of God (Seventh-Day) published Lyon's prophetic viewpoints, his influence was indirectly felt earlier than that through the person of R.W. Reed.

Reed was a member of the Sabbath-observing Church of Christ at Marion, Iowa.¹³ In those years, the congregations that later formed the Church of God (Seventh Day) acted independently of each other. In the mid-1860s members of the Marion congregation revived the defunct Hope of Israel, which later became The Bible Advocate. The paper was a local, not a national, production supported by private contributions from around the country. Reed was one of those instrumental in the paper's revival.

Like Lyon, Reed believed there were more Israelites in the world than just the Jews. In 1868 he wrote an article for The Hope of Israel explaining this position.¹⁴ A comparison between Reed's 1868 articles and Lyon's earlier 1861 tract, The Scattering and Restoration of Israel, clearly shows the influence. In every point Reed followed Lyon's arguments. And just like Lyon, Reed left the question unanswered: If a non-Jewish Israel still exists, where is it?

In the following years, the paper failed two more times. Changing its name to The Advent and Sabbath Advocate didn't help. In March 1874 Jacob Brinkerhoff spent all of his savings to keep the paper going.

Brinkerhoff became the one person editorially responsible for the paper, though the Iowa brethren gave their support and viewed it as a church publication. The paper changed its name to The Sabbath Advocate, but continued its previous policy of publishing opposing views on a variety of biblical subjects. Brinkerhoff had no problem with this. As long as the articles did not criticize the central doctrines of the paper, which included the Sabbath, an earthly kingdom of God and opposition to the Seventh-day Adventist prophetess Ellen G. White, he would print them.

Shortly after taking over the paper, Brinkerhoff reprinted within its pages Lyon's tract about Israel. Though the question, Where are the lost tribes? remained unanswered, it was not long before some Sabbatarians thought they knew the answer. In 1884 the paper reported that a Brother Ellsworth believed in Anglo-Israelism and had converted several others to it. This is the first clear statement of Anglo-Israelism's presence in the Sabbath-observing Churches of God. By then, Lyon's views had circulated among them for more than a decade.

Brinkerhoff became concerned. In response, he wrote an article that ridiculed Anglo-Israelism.¹⁵ Six months later he published a second, more lengthy refutation.¹⁶ But the issue would not die. Just two issues after the second refutation, in early 1885, Brinkerhoff reprinted an article from the otherwise unknown Bible Banner.¹⁷ Though not relevant to the article's main theme, it nevertheless casually commented that England was Israel. Brinkerhoff responded to this statement by remarking that the idea had no evidence to support it.¹⁸

That was the last mention of Anglo-Israelism in any Church of God (Seventh Day) publication for several years. We don't hear of it again until 1900, when Merritt Dickinson accepted it. After spending three years in Jerusalem, the Dickinson family returned to the United States to settle in Oklahoma. It was there that Merritt became an Anglo-Israelite.

A Dickinson family tradition says that in 1912 Merritt Dickinson and Andrew Dugger discussed Anglo-Israelism. (This is the same Dugger who later corresponded with Herbert Armstrong.) Andrew Dugger allegedly commented, "You can preach about that [Anglo-Israelism] if you want to, and there may be some truth to it; but you can't get anywhere with the people."¹⁹

Dugger's father had been an Advent Christian minister before accepting the Sabbath. (The Advent Christian Church was another offshoot of Millerism.) After accepting the Sabbath, the older Dugger played an important role in the national organization of the Church of God. In 1884 he established the Church's first Sabbath-school department and was elected their general conference's first vice-president. For several decades he was a contributing editor to the church paper. In 1905 the Conference elected him to be the paper's managing editor.²⁰

In 1906 the church ordained A.F. Dugger's son Andrew to be an elder. He was a schoolteacher, though he didn't complete college. He was alleged to be the most educated Church of God (Seventh Day) minister of his day. Eight years later he assumed the editorship of the church paper, a position he held for two eventful decades.

World War I began in 1914, the year Andrew N. Dugger became the editor of The Bible Advocate. Before this, Andrew's father had believed that a great war would break out sometime between 1912 and 1914. Decades later, Andrew explained that this belief sprang from his father's understanding of the seven "times" of punishment prophesied in Leviticus 26.²¹ That prophecy reads, "And if ye will... walk contrary unto me [the Lord]; then I will walk contrary unto you also in fury; and I, even I, will chastise you seven times for your sins" (Leviticus 26:27-28, KJV).

A.F. Dugger interpreted the words "seven times" not as a sevenfold intensity of punishment, which a study of different translations and many commentaries would show, but as a duration of seven "times" in length [even though the word "times" is not in the Hebrew text].

How long were seven "times"? To answer this question, A.F. Dugger followed a common Adventist belief that one prophetic "time" in the Bible equals a year of 360 days (a belief also found in dispensational circles). Thus seven "times" are said to equal seven years. A.F. Dugger multiplied seven years by 360 to arrive at 2,520 days.

He then applied the year-for-a-day assumption a second time, so that 2,520 days became 2,520 years. It was in this manner that a sevenfold intensity of punishment became transformed into a seven-year punishment, which in turn became a 2,520-year punishment. What this mathematical exegesis supposedly proved was that the punishment God promised in Leviticus 26 to sinful Jews was to last for 2,520 years.

Even if one accepts that the numeric gymnastics are valid, there remains for Christians another significant problem with this line of reasoning. Leviticus 26 says God imposed the curses for violation of the old covenant (Leviticus 26:2, 9, 15, 25). Leviticus 26 adds that the covenant relationship could be reestablished on national repentance, not upon the passing of a certain time-span (verses 40-42). Such was also the message of the prophets (e.g., Isaiah 24:4-5; Jeremiah 11:10; 22:8-9; Ezekiel 16:8, 59-62; Daniel 11:30, 32; Hosea 8:1). Therefore, for Leviticus 26 to have any modern application would require the continued validity of the old covenant and a national repentance.

That God prophesied the end of the old covenant and the establishment of a new — an event fulfilled in Christ — seems not to have affected A.F. Dugger's prophetic teaching (cp. Zechariah 11:10; Hosea 2:18-20; Jeremiah 31:31-34; Matthew 26:28; Luke 22:20; 1 Corinthians 11:25; 2 Corinthians 3:6; Hebrews 7:22; 8:6-13). Hebrews 8:13 says that the old covenant was obsolete, was growing old, and was about to disappear. Yet fundamental to A.F. Dugger's exegesis is the imposition of the old covenant blessings and cursings on modern peoples.

In his favor, we can say that A.F. Dugger correctly understood that the curses of Leviticus 26 began to reach their climax with Nebuchadnezzar's first siege of Jerusalem. The problem lay in how long he believed the curse would last. Dugger dated Nebuchadnezzar's first siege to 606 b.c. With that as his beginning point, he calculated 2,520 years forward and came to a.d. 1914.

The year 1914 then took on great importance. Dugger thought that 1914 was the year in which God would remove the Levitical curse blocking the reestablishment of a Jewish state because the decreed time had passed. (He never thought that God might remove the curse at any time through repentance or by means of faith in Jesus' sacrifice.)

Dugger also believed that 1914 was to bring an end to the "times of the Gentiles" mentioned by Jesus Christ, who said "Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled" (Luke 21:24, KJV).

While it is true that World War I began in 1914, and that it set in motion events that led to the establishment of a Jewish state, that does not verify A.F. Dugger's erroneous assumptions, misunderstandings or miscalculations (he was off by two years).²² While on the surface it appeared that Dugger was right, it appeared so only if one did not look too closely at the evidence.

Remember, just because world events appear to support an elaborate mathematical interpretation of Scripture, that does not make that interpretation correct. The corroboration may be an illusion, a coincidence. Those who put too much trust in the interpretive mirage set themselves up for a spiritual crisis once the illusion vanishes. A safer approach is to ask if the interpretation properly explains the biblical text. If it does not, no mathematical scheme, no historic event, can make it correct.

In the case of the seven-times theory, A.F. Dugger had accepted an approach first proposed by H. Grattan Guinness, a once popular, though now forgotten, British millenarian.²³ Guinness' first book, The Approaching End of the Age, was first published in 1878. Extremely popular, it went through 13 editions between 1878 and 1897. In 1918, after Guinness' death, E.H. Horne produced a revised and abridged edition.

In speaking of the supposed 2,520 years of Jewish punishment, Guinness wrote, "This is inferred from Scripture rather than distinctly stated in it."²⁴ Having admitted this, however, Guinness proceeded to create an elaborately complex prophetic scheme. Though he was once a popular speaker, the failure of his date-setting doomed him to obscurity.

Guinness interpreted the 2,520 years as "the times of the gentiles." In a second book, Light for the Last Days, Guinness expanded his thoughts further. He dedicated four chapters to the seven "times" idea.²⁵ Amazingly, Guinness proposed not one time span of 2,520 years, but many. These spans ended in 1884, 1889, 1893, 1898, 1906, 1915, 1917, 1923 and 1933-4.²⁶ But of all these, 1917 was for him the most important.

In Britain, Guinness was a sought-after speaker on prophecy.²⁷ As for the United States, Richard Nickels reports that A.F. Dugger published Guinness' ideas in the Advocate in the 1890s.²⁸ It appears, therefore, that the trail of the 2,520-year theory from Guinness through the elder Dugger resulted in it becoming an important part of Church of God eschatology.

On the other hand, Jehovah's Witnesses would readily notice another possible source of the seven-times doctrine — themselves. Jehovah's Witnesses are the largest group that has descended from the disciples of Charles Taze Russell. Once called Russellites, today they are more commonly known as Jehovah's Witnesses. Though in a different form, the seven-times idea had circulated among the Russellites for several years before Guinness published his first book.

The Russellites were part of the Adventist movement. Russell had been a student of Jonas Wendell, an independent Sunday-keeping Adventist. When Wendell's prediction that Christ would return in 1874 failed, Wendell replaced it with another date — 1914.²⁹

The major difference between the Jehovah's Witnesses version of the 2,520-year doctrine and that of Guinness is that the Witnesses prefer Daniel over Leviticus to explain their understanding of the seven "times."³⁰ Daniel 4 in the King James Version says that Nebuchadnezzar would be insane for seven "times." Jehovah's Witnesses see this as the type and the "time of the gentiles" as the antitype. From this premise they reason that the "time of the gentiles" was to last seven "times" or 2,520 years. They count the "time of the gentiles" from Nebuchadnezzar's siege of Jerusalem, which they incorrectly date to 607 b.c. Therefore, they believe that the "time of the gentiles" ended in a.d. 1914. Just as World War I confirmed to the Church of God (Seventh Day) that it properly understood prophecy, so it did for the Witnesses.

World War I also helped to popularize Anglo-Israelism. That is because Anglo-Israelites would claim that Ephraim, as the British Empire, had liberated Jerusalem from the Muslim Turks. They were giving it to their brothers, the Jews, all in fulfillment of biblical prophecy.

As previously noted, by 1914 Anglo-Israelism had penetrated the Church of God in the person of Merritt Dickinson. In Oklahoma, another Sabbathkeeper who embraced the doctrine was G.G. Rupert. He had been a Seventh-day Adventist missionary to South America and a regional conference leader in the United States. After leaving the Seventh-day Adventists, Rupert associated himself with the Church of God (Seventh Day).

Though an Anglo-Israelite, Rupert's version of Anglo-Israelism was unique. He rejected the racial descent theory and replaced it with one of spiritual descent. Spiritual Judah, he said, was the Greek Orthodox Church. Spiritual Israel he identified as the Roman Catholic Church. The Protestant churches he labeled Ephraim. Since America was a Protestant stronghold, the United States was Ephraim. Because Hosea was written to Ephraim, Rupert believed Hosea was written for America. (Never mind the contextual evidence that places Hosea's intended readers in the eighth-century b.c.)

The Bible Advocate Publishes Anglo-Israelite Articles The Bible Advocate Publishes Anglo-Israelite Articles

In 1915 G.G. Rupert convinced A.N. Dugger to allow him to advertise his most famous book, The Yellow Peril, within the pages of The Bible Advocate. Though Rupert advertised in The Bible Advocate, he worked independently of it. Readers of Rupert's paper, The Remnant of Israel, formed a nucleus of followers.

After his death in the early 1920s, Rupert's wife continued the work. Though the paper ceased publication in 1929, a small remnant of Rupert's disciples remains.³¹ No evidence exists that proves Rupert to be the source for either Merritt Dickinson's or Herbert Armstrong's Anglo-Israelism. Rupert's Anglo-Israelism was not their Anglo-Israelism.

In 1917 A.A. Beauchamp issued his first edition of J.H. Allen's Anglo-Israelite classic, Judah's Sceptre and Joseph's Birthright. Though not a Church of God minister, Allen greatly affected the church. As we have mentioned, Merritt Dickinson was the first Church of God (Seventh Day) minister to preach Anglo-Israelism. He claimed to have accepted the doctrine about 1900, and to have discussed it with A.N. Dugger in 1912. This was before the Beauchamp edition of Judah's Sceptre.