Ministers of Jesus Christ do not want their understanding of the pure Word of God to be polluted by the world. Yet in every generation the culture, customs, beliefs, traditions and values of society, as well as the ministry's own sinful natures, corrupt the understanding of even the best.

Prophetic doctrines are naturally vulnerable to such corruption. This corruption results, in part, from the desire of many Christians to see prophecy fulfilled — especially prophecies of their Lord's return. Like thirsty people in a desert who believe mirages are real, these Christians may see prophetic fulfillment where none exists.

An overzealous desire to silence those who disbelieve the Bible may also corrupt our understanding of Scripture. Biblical prophecy displays God's inspiration of the Scriptures, but some Christians have unconsciously misread biblical prophecy trying to make it say things it does not, all in a vain attempt to "prove" the Bible. The church must guard against such misguided zeal lest in the end its message be further ridiculed.

Another corrupting influence on our understanding is the tendency to misunderstand the nature of the biblical literature itself. While it is not difficult to grasp the general moral messages of the biblical prophets, to grasp the details of their messages requires more than a casual approach to the text. Exegesis benefits from an appreciation of the intricacies of the biblical languages. It requires a consideration of the ancient literary genres used by the prophets and their compilers. And it demands an awareness of the original circumstances under which the prophecy was given.

A wise interpreter pays close attention to the linguistic, literary, historical, cultural and canonical contexts in which God gave his word. Unfortunately, many Christians have read the Bible as if it were written according to the literary standards of post-Enlightenment Europe. And many Christians have rejected and ridiculed scholarship that could have tempered their opinions.

Wisdom moves Christians to consider the role that their own fears, prejudices and political leanings have in shaping their interpretations. Christians — ministers and laymembers alike — often share the fears, prejudices and political leanings prevalent in their society. As a result, Christians may unconsciously read these attitudes into the Bible, especially biblical prophecy. When this happens, instead of seeing the future, Christians only see distorted reflections of themselves.

Unfortunately, the history of Christian prophetic interpretation is not encouraging. Misinterpretation has been rampant, disappointment from failed prophetic doctrines all too common.

When a prophetic doctrine fails, Christians generally react in three ways: 1) They become cynically disillusioned, 2) They deny the failure through some form of reinterpretation or 3) They maturely confess their error.

The Worldwide Church of God strives to be a mature church. It struggles against the vanity, pride and traditionalism that shackle its advancement, while wishing to uphold those things that God's Word truly teaches. In that spirit it investigates what beliefs, what values and what traditions it holds that might be culturally bound.

The church realizes that our historic prophetic doctrines have come to us through Herbert Armstrong. It respects him as the person God used to bring many to a saving knowledge of Christ. Nevertheless, his prophetic writings are no less subject to investigation than mine or yours. The church should ask of his teachings the same searching questions it should ask of anyone's teachings.

In that spirit it is fair to ask, What portions of Herbert Armstrong's prophetic teachings were biblically sound, and what portions were not? Did culture ever influence his teachings more than the Bible?

Mr. Armstrong wrote so much on biblical prophecy that this paper cannot cover it all. This study focuses, therefore, on the prophetic doctrine that more than any other shaped his thinking and ministry — Anglo-Israelism.

Herbert Armstrong Tests the Church of God

Early in his conversion, Herbert Armstrong believed that the Church of God (Seventh Day) understood the Bible better than any other group. Yet it troubled him that they were small, weak and virtually unknown. How could this be God's church?

If this were God's church, he reasoned, then it should be willing to confess doctrinal error and change. While he did not expect to find a church perfect in knowledge, he did expect to find a church willing to grow in knowledge. Consequently, before he would become a member of the church of God, he decided to test its willingness to grow in knowledge.

This approach assumed three things. The first assumption was that a test of knowledge and the willingness to accept "new truth" was the primary way to determine where God was working. The second assumption was that a test for one of the church's leaders would be a sufficient test for the church as a whole. The third assumption was that Mr. Armstrong himself understood the Bible well enough to administer such a test. It apparently never occurred to him to ask that the Church of God test him as well. It was the Church of God (Seventh Day), not he, that was on trial.

His first test dealt with a minor difference over how to understand Matthew 28:1, one of Jesus' resurrection appearances. The second test was greater. It dealt with prophecies of the end-time House of Israel.

Prophecy had played an important role in the conversion of Herbert Armstrong. As he struggled over his faith, he "realized that the place to start was to prove whether God exists and whether the Holy Bible is his revelation." But how to do this? Though he studied several subjects, it was ultimately his investigation of Bible prophecy that led him to believe in the divine inspiration of the Scriptures.

He concluded that "in every instance (except in prophecies about a time yet future), [biblical prophecy] had come to pass precisely as written!" (The Autobiography of Herbert W. Armstrong, Pasadena, California: Worldwide Church of God, 1986, volume 1, 296-7). It is no surprise, then, that prophecy continued to play an important role in his thinking and in his test of the Church of God (Seventh Day).

Like many Protestants, the Church of God (Seventh Day) believed that many Old Testament prophecies about Israel had yet to be fulfilled. Their general Adventist perspective taught that God would eventually fulfill these prophecies among the Jews.

Herbert Armstrong thought otherwise. He believed Anglo-Israelism — the doctrine that the Anglo-Saxons of the United States and Britain were the true descendants of the House of Israel, while the Jews descended from Israel's other division, the House of Judah — provided the key to understanding the prophets. He concluded that instead of applying the House of Israel prophecies to the Jews, one should apply them to the United States and what was then called the British Commonwealth.

As we will see in detail later, Mr. Armstrong's second test was a detailed presentation of his views on Anglo-Israelism. If they accepted what he had to say, that would prove they were who they said they were, the Church of God.

After he read Mr. Armstrong's manuscript, A.N. Dugger, editor of the church's Bible Advocate, appeared to agree with him. Yet he was unwilling to proclaim it. He wrote to Mr. Armstrong:

I am returning from the Arkansas conference... and have just finished the manuscript on the Third Angel's Message and British Israel.... You have put much work on this and I am impressed to write you now while the matter is fresh on my mind.... I have seen no work near its equal in clearness and completeness. You surely are right, and while I cannot use it in the paper at the present you may be sure that your labor has surely not been in vain.... There is a purpose in your having gone into this matter so deeply... and you will hear more from these truths and the light herein revealed later. (A.N. Dugger to Herbert W. Armstrong, 28 July 1929, The Autobiography of Herbert W. Armstrong, 1967 ed., 406)³³

Dugger's response deeply disappointed Herbert Armstrong.

Did this Church accept and proclaim this vital new truth — the key that unlocks the doors to all prophecy? Here was the key to understanding one third of the whole Bible. But this Church refused then to accept it or preach it or publish it... though their leader frankly confessed it was truth and a revelation from God!

Yet here was the Church which appeared to have more truth, and less error than any other.... Truly, this was bewildering! (The Autobiography of Herbert W. Armstrong, 1967 ed., 346)

Herbert Armstrong couldn't understand why Dugger treated Anglo-Israelism so casually. In Mr. Armstrong's eyes, this doctrine directly affected the preaching of the gospel. It gave it power, at a time in world history that the gospel needed more power. Jesus was about to return!

Mr. Armstrong's bewilderment was further compounded by his deep conviction, already formed, that God had commissioned him, and no other, to shout an end-time Anglo-Israelite message to the world. (We will closely examine this conviction later in this paper). Though not directly expressed in his Autobiography, Mr. Armstrong believed as early as January 1929 that the rejection of Anglo-Israelism was tantamount to rejecting him as God's special messenger.

Herbert Armstrong's Source

How did Mr. Armstrong come to believe in Anglo-Israelism? One possible source is G.G. Rupert, a Sabbath-keeper in Oklahoma. In 1915 Rupert convinced A.N. Dugger to allow him to advertise his book The Yellow Peril in The Bible Advocate. Thus it is possible that Herbert Armstrong could have come across Rupert's book in back issues of the Advocate. However, no evidence exists that proves Rupert to be the source for Mr. Armstrong's Anglo-Israelism. Rupert's Anglo-Israelism was not his Anglo-Israelism.

However, Herbert Armstrong did (perhaps later) become familiar with Rupert's work. Copies of Rupert publications were among Mr. Armstrong's possessions. Rupert's observance of the biblical festivals might have increased his attractiveness to Herbert Armstrong. Still, an examination of Mr. Armstrong's correspondence for the late 1920s proves that his Anglo-Israelite beliefs came from another direction, which we will now discuss.

In 1927, the Bible Advocate published an article about pyramidology, and Herbert Armstrong wrote to the author, Lincoln McConnell, pastor of the First Baptist Church of St. Petersburg, Florida. Reverend McConnell responded to Mr. Armstrong's inquiry on June 3, 1927. Among other things, he wrote:

If you really want to KNOW your Bible you will have to get the books on "Anglo-Israel".... You will never know the real truth the BOOK is teaching without this key. This sounds radical perhaps, but you will see when you study it that it's simple truth. (Reverend Lincoln McConnell to Herbert W. Armstrong, 3 June 1927, Herbert W. Armstrong Papers collection [HWAP], #867).

Herbert Armstrong took the challenge. As was his custom whenever studying a biblical subject, he went to the Portland, Oregon public library. At that time, the Pacific Northwest was a stronghold of Anglo-Israel belief. Because of this, the library's collection held several Anglo-Israel titles, including W.H. Poole's Anglo-Israel or the Saxon Race, Samuel Albert Brown's The House of Israel or the Anglo-Saxon, and the 1917 edition of J.H. Allen's Judah's Sceptre and Joseph's Birthright.³⁴

Herbert Armstrong took some time to familiarize himself with these and other Anglo-Israelite works. Then he wrote to Beauchamp asking for more information:

What do you regard as the most authoritative and dependable book on the Anglo-Israel theory? I have seen many on this subject which I could not regard as at all reliable. One book which I have read, Judah's Sceptre and Joseph's Birthright, by Allen, appears to be more reliable than others I have seen. (Armstrong to A.A. Beauchamp Publishing Co., 28 March 1928)

Mr. Armstrong seemed unaware that Beauchamp had published Judah's Sceptre and Joseph's Birthright. For him to ask Beauchamp for an opinion as to its validity is like asking the pope if one should be Catholic. In reply, Beauchamp commented:

You ask my opinion as to the most dependable book on the Israel theory? I have always thought myself that Judah's Sceptre and Joseph's Birthright was the best book. (A.A. Beauchamp to Armstrong, 5 April 1928, HWAP, #874).

Beauchamp, publisher of Judah's Sceptre and Joseph's Birthright, enclosed with his letter a 12-page catalogue of all his publications. It would be fascinating to know what was in that catalogue and if Mr. Armstrong ordered anything from it. It might be particularly insightful to know if Mr. Armstrong subscribed to Beauchamp's magazine The New Watchman (1922-?), originally called The Watchman of Israel (1918-1922).³⁵ The idea of being an end-time watchman to modern Israel became an important part of Mr. Armstrong's ministry. Did he pick up this theme from Beauchamp?

Beauchamp was an interesting character. Before his correspondence with Mr. Armstrong, he had converted to a now-defunct offshoot of Christian Science called the Church of Integration. His publishing house became the principal means by which the Church of Integration grew. Through his influence, Anglo-Israelism became the central perspective of the sect, while its prophetess, Annie C. Bill, became increasingly fascinated with pyramidology.³⁶

Correspondence With the Runcorns

By the time Mr. Armstrong wrote to Beauchamp, he had already corresponded about Anglo-Israelism with his friends the Runcorns. In a lengthy letter to them he mentioned that he and his wife were nearly convinced of Anglo-Israelism's truthfulness, but they had yet to make a final decision. Nevertheless, he felt confident enough to speculate that God never intended the Sabbath to be for gentiles, but for one race only — Israel.

"In that case, the Sabbath, not being intended for the rest of the world, was not part of the Gospel of Christ, nor of the Apostles." And he wondered if modern racial Israel, to once again inherit their Abrahamic blessings, must become Sabbatarian besides becoming Christian. "But, unless they accept, also the Sabbath, they are not recognized in the sight of God as of Israel, subject to those special and higher blessings — higher than salvation — an additional reward."³⁷

The union of Anglo-Israelism with Sabbatarianism later became an important part of Mr. Armstrong's preaching on these subjects. The union he created between these two doctrines explains much of his future work. He commented,

Now as my mind works on this subject, it appears thus: The theory is that England and the U.S. are descendants of Joseph. The Jews are the descendants of Judah, and possibly also of Benjamin and Levi. If we have them located, then where are the other eight tribes? Why, why not right here in the U.S., mixed, thru immigration and inter-marriage between different races? They would all be of the white race. We have married and intermarried with other white races, but not with Negroes, Japs, or Chinese, or Indians.... 

Now if my theory is worth anything, it is this: Salvation is for all the world who will come to Jesus and accept it, regardless of race. But the special blessings, many of which I believe are to pertain to the next world, promised Israel, are for that one blood race alone. (Armstrong to Mr. and Mrs. Runcorn, 28 February 1928, HWAP, #807, 4-5)

Shortly after writing this letter, Herbert Armstrong was convinced. In spring 1928 he wrote to Dugger telling him of his plans to write several manuscripts about both Anglo-Israelism and evolution. Dugger replied, "Your manuscripts... will be read with pleasure" (Dugger to Armstrong, 20 April 1928, HWAP, #871). The door was now open for Mr. Armstrong to advocate Anglo-Israelism within the Church of God.

About the same time he approached the Church of God (Seventh Day) about publishing his Anglo-Israelite and antievolution views, he was also approaching A.A. Beauchamp with the same idea. To Beauchamp he wrote,

I wonder if there is not a real need, as well as a ready market, for a new book on the Anglo-Israel subject?.... 

I have read very little, as yet, of the book by Discipulus. However, judging from what little I have had an opportunity to read, I do not believe this book as sound and authoritative as the one by Allen. (Armstrong to Beauchamp, 4 May 1928, HWAP, #873, 1-2).

For historians and literary critics, Mr. Armstrong's following comments are most enlightening.

The book I have in mind would follow, in great measure, the line of thought and proof offered by Allen. I would endeavor to keep it as dependable and as sound in its arguments as Allen's. But the ground covered by Allen would be covered in boiled-down form, condensed where possible.... The book would be written, moreover, in an entirely different style.... 

If you believe there is a need and a market for such a book, and you would care to consider the possibility of undertaking to publish it, then I should like to go into the matter further and in more detail with you. (Ibid., 2-3, emphasis mine)

Herbert Armstrong also mentioned to Beauchamp an offer he had to publish his antievolution book (an apparent reference to his correspondence with A.N. Dugger). "But [I] am afraid the publishing house in question is not equipped to turn out as up-to-date and attractive a job as I feel will be necessary."

Beauchamp's reply came quickly.

Your letter of May 4 at hand. In reply will say that I am quite sure that I would not be interested in publishing the book on evolution and as for the one on Israel I would not offer a great deal of encouragement. There have been three or four books on that subject brought out the last year, and I am now at work on the manuscript of one by the author of Judah's Sceptre and Joseph's Birthright, which I expect to publish some time during the fall. (Beauchamp to Armstrong, 9 May 1928, HWAP, #5044).³⁸

With this rebuff, Herbert Armstrong's only encouragement came from A.N. Dugger. As Mr. Armstrong prepared his manuscript, he continued to learn all he could about Anglo-Israelism. Elder A.H. Stith informed him that S.S. Davison of Fairview, Oklahoma, had some Anglo-Israelite tracts written by Alfuc Davison that Mr. Armstrong could obtain by writing to him.³⁹ The Davisons had been Church of God ministers for several generations. (Alfuc is probably Alpheus Davison.)

The Davison's Anglo-Israelism clearly preceded Mr. Armstrong's and was known within the Church of God (Seventh Day). Whether they influenced Merritt Dickinson or he influenced them is not known. Their response to Mr. Armstrong, if any, has not survived.

By January 1929 Mr. Armstrong had begun writing his manuscript. He was getting ready to put the Church of God to the test. On January 1 he wrote Dugger to remind him of his project.

In his letter Mr. Armstrong presented Anglo-Israelism with a new twist, a twist he hoped would make his book more attractive to Dugger. He claimed that Anglo-Israelism, as he presented it, shed new light on a longstanding Church of God doctrine, the Third Angel's Message. Dugger replied that he would welcome any new information Herbert Armstrong could provide on that subject.⁴⁰

Endnotes

33 A photograph of this letter appears in both the 1967 and 1973 editions of Mr. Armstrong's Autobiography. It is not in the 1986 two-volume edition. Nor does the HWA Personal Papers Catalog by Date list it. A photograph of this letter appears in both the 1967 and 1973 editions of Mr. Armstrong's Autobiography. It is not in the 1986 two-volume edition. Nor does the HWA Personal Papers Catalog by Date list it.