1. BRITISH-ISRAEL REBUTTAL #1 - AGAINST ARGUMENTS CONTAINED IN "The Kingdom of the Cults," by Dr. Walter Martin

    A favourite reference used for decades by some pastors as an authoritative and scholarly source-book to place counter-arguments against British-Israel teaching before their flocks is given a rough time in a review assessment by Mr. Douglas C. Nesbit, President of B.I.W.F. (Canada) Inc.. Click on the book's name to see this rebuttal.


  2. One important aspect of the British-Israel explanation of prophecy lies in the fact that, without the national entity of a Christianized Israel, having a sovereign government and co-operative populace, many of God's Laws and their beneficial blessings can not be adequately demonstrated before the rest of the world, which would thus be deprived of the fullness of God's Planned blessings for all.

    Those who teach that God's Laws are of "Old Testament" application only, or only apply to "The Jews" stand in jeopardy of leading their flock to their own destined designation as "the least" in The Kingdom of heaven! (Matthew 5:17-19.) Christ's reference, in the next verse, to "the righteousness of the Pharisees" is a reference, NOT to Pharisaic exactitude in KEEPING ALL of His Law, but rather to the Pharisaic specialty of seeking every assumed legal "loop-hole" which would allow the Pharisee to avoid the full heartfelt law-keeping which God demands, yet claim precise compliance with its exact minimum strictures! Christ's followers are to OBEY His Commandments FULLY without ANY seeking out of those assumed "loop-holes." Many Christians, however, likewise seeking a huge legal "loop-hole", do and teach the exact opposite! Rather than keeping Christ's Commandments fully, these Christians, in an attitude worse than that of those Pharisees, look for a legal "loop-hole", saying that Christ's observance of the Commandments absolves them, "by proxy", from even an attempt to do likewise!

  3. The B.I.W.F. Broadcast of 25 January, 1998 deals with objections to our claim that THE UNION JACK flag's origins are indeed rooted in a connection with the Biblical Patriarch, Jacob (re-named "ISRAEL")

    By Douglas C. Nesbit, B.A.

    Our ongoing series of Bible Studies, which started several years ago with the Call of The Almighty God to Abram in Ur of the Chaldees, has taken us through successive Scripture passages following the tribal history of God's people as Abraham's son, Isaac, and Isaac's son, Jacob (re-named Israel), became Patriarchs of the tribal nation of Israel. They moved down into Egypt, then suffered bondage there, from which The Almighty God drew them forth with great wealth, through the miracles of The Exodus. They have, more recently, formed a tribal encampment under the guidance of The Almighty God Himself, and under the supervision of God's Prophet, Moses.

    Several weeks ago, we were discussing the various symbols on the tribal banners, validated prophetically by Jacob, and I made some further references to the matter of the Union Jack, which now represents a gathering in today's world of a number of the descendants of those ancient Israelites of the wilderness encampments described in the Bible. We, of the British-Israel-World Federation hold that the main bodies of the modern-day descendants of those Israelite clans now form the generally Anglo-Celto-Saxon and kindred peoples of today. These are seen primarily in the British, and their relatives in Holland, Scandinavia, France, those mainly of northern and-western Europe, and those descended of them in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the U.S.A. and other areas now similarly inhabited. We do not forget the fact that many also of their relatives were left in significant pockets along the braided migratory routes by which these peoples moved from their Assyrian captivity and deportation to their homes in these new areas. Thus some peoples of Russian and Ukrainian background, and of Polish, Germanic, Italian, north Spanish and Portuguese, those of Switzerland, and others of central Europe, are by no means excluded from the list.

    The flag, known as the Union Jack, formed in Great Britain, of the Jacks representing a strong concentration of these peoples has been described, most appropriately, as representing a "Union of Jacob", and thus it has become a point of attack by some who would deny the identification of ourselves with ancient Israel.

    I recently learned of one such thrust, a twenty-page attack on our thesis on the internet, and I have also received some letters from interested persons who want further information on the matter. This I hope to supply, at least in part, today.

    I had mentioned that Union Jacks flown at the top of the rigging on old sailing ships, hoisted, as mentioned by Chambers's Twentieth Century Dictionary, at the spritsail topmast-head, and flown amidst such articles as "Jack-blocks" and the "Jack cross-trees" were reached by a "Jacob's Ladder", a rope ladder having wooden steps. A flag thus positioned would be at the top of Jacob's Ladder, and symbolically occupy the position from which The Almighty, in a vision, gave Jacob the remarkable promises of Genesis 28:12-15. The 11th Edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, Vol. 16, item "ladder"; the Oxford Illustrated Dictionary; The Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary, Vol. I; The New Lexicon Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language; Chambers's Twentieth Century Dictionary and three etymological dictionaries all confirm the use of the name Jacob's Ladder to reach such rigging. However, such "Jack" flags are also used at the bowsprit of a vessel, held aloft on a Jack-staff, and according to some sources like The Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology, the source from which the name "Jack" arose was from its size, being smaller than the ensign. Reading this, one might assume that this provides grist to the mills of our detractors. Is this true? Let us follow the trail of investigation further.

    Pursuing the matter, I consulted "History of the Union Jack - How it Grew and What It Is", by Barlow Cumberland, M.A., printed by William Briggs, Toronto, in 1900. That authority states "The origin of the name 'Union Jack' has given rise to considerable conjecture and much interesting surmise. The name used in most of the earlier records is that of 'Union Flag', or 'Great Union.' In the treaty of peace made with the Dutch in 1674, in the reign of Charles II., it is mentioned as 'His Majesty of Great Britain's flag or Jack,' and in the proclamation of Queen Anne, A.D. 1707, as 'Our Jack, commonly called the Union Jack.' The most generally quoted suggestion for the name is that it was acquired from the fact that the first proclamation which authorized a flag, in which the national crosses of England and Scotland were for the first time combined, was issued by James VI. of Scotland after he had become James I. of England, the explanation being that King James frequently signed his name in the French manner as 'Jacques,' which was abbreviated into 'Jac,' and thus the new flag came to be called a 'Jack.'"

    Pointing out that the derivation suggested, while "ingenious", cannot be accepted as "there were 'Jacks' long before the time and reign of James I" the author presents information concerning feudal companies which wore the heraldry of their liege lord and military companies which wore such, marking their allegiance to a king. During the Crusades [which were military expeditions "under the banner of the cross to recover the Holy Land" (the Chambers's Twentieth Century Dictionary definition)], the Christian nations of Europe were combined together to rescue Jerusalem and the Holy Land from the rule of the Mohammedan. Cumberland continues: "Warrior pilgrims recruited from the different countries, wore crosses of different shapes and colours upon their surcoats, to indicate the nationalities to which they belonged." From wearing these crosses they were named Crusaders. For example, French wore red crosses, Flanders, green, Germany black and Italy yellow. Earlier, the English wore white, but later changed to the red cross of St. George."

    Cumberland explains: "These 'surcoats' or 'Jacques' came in time to be known as 'Jacks'... and it was from the raising of one of them upon a lance or staff at the bow of a ship... that the cross of St. George, or the cross of St. Andrew, came to be known as a 'Jack,' and from this origin, too, the small flag-pole at the bow of a ship is still called the 'Jack staff.'" That makes the case for our opponents, one might imagine. Cumberland is quite a recognized authority. But wait a moment, there is yet one thread of inquiry to be pursued before we wrap the matter up! Let us pursue it.

    Those Christian nations of Europe were, in the main, generally composed of the descendants of the Tribes of Israel of old time. From what source, then, did they derive that name, Jacque? Let us consult some dictionaries. The Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology, while noting its use as a pet name for John, adds "the resemblance to F. Jacques James (:-Rom. *Ja-cobus, for L. Jaco-bus Jacob) is a difficulty." That looks interesting. Let us consult some other dictionaries. An Etymological Dictionary of Modern English by Ernest Weekley, Vol. I states "jack. Personal name used in E. as pet-form of John, via Jankin, Jackin, but also representing F. Jacques, L. Jacobus (see Jacob)." That name "Jacob" keeps circling about in the background. Perhaps it is shown most clearly in "Origins - A Short Etymological Dictionary of Modern English", by Eric Partridge. That reference is straight forward and quite clear. It states "Jack, the very common pet-form of John, the world's commonest font-name. Jack, although used for John, derives from OF Jaques (F. Jacques), James, ML Jacobus, LL Iacobus, LGr Iakobos, H Ya'aqobh, lit 'supplanter'." So the name does derive from the Patriarch, Jacob, after all! It always pays to pursue a matter through to the end. It has been truly said, that "The game's not over until 'Its over'." Here we find that the name of the Patriarch Jacob lies in the historic background beyond every diversionary attempt by opponents to obscure the origin of the name of our "Union Jack" in Jacob!

    No wonder that King James VI of Scotland and I of Great Britain signed his name as "Jacques", abbreviated to "Jac". He well knew that this was a form of the name "Jacob". He well knew the origin of both the Scottish people from whom he had come, and that of the English. The Arbroath Declaration had been signed and sealed by the Scottish Parliament under Robert the Bruce in April, 1320 A.D., and in it they told the Pope that the Scottish people came from "the Greater Scythia" and entered Scotland, completely destroying the Picts, twelve hundred years after the outgoing of the people of Israel. According to "The Story Of The Irish Race" by Seumas McManus, the Scots did this about 500 A.D., and Mr. W. H. Bennett, in "Symbols of our Celto-Saxon Heritage" also gives "about 500" as the date of this effective invasion of Scotland. This means that the Scottish barons under the leadership of Robert the Bruce were relating their origins to the emergence of Israelites, at a date of about 700 B.C.. This agrees with our knowledge of the deportations of most of the tribesmen of Israel effectively completed by Assyria in 721 B.C., which was soon followed by the break-up of the Assyrian Empire itself a few years later and the release and flight of the Israelite captives at that time.

    The Royal Genealogy of Elizabeth I, of England, was linked to that of the Davidic monarchy of the Bible, and it is displayed at Hatfield House in England. Her leading admiral, Sir Francis Drake, knew of England's identity with Israel for he mentions the name of "Israel" casually in place of the name "England" without feeling the need for any explanation in a letter written to John Foxe the writer of "Foxe's Book of Martyrs." It is now preserved as Manuscript 167, part of folio 104 of the Harleian manuscripts, British Library, The British Museum.

    Thus, we have sustained our assurance in making reference to the Union Jack as a symbol for the Union of Jacob. We shall revert to our regular studies next week.

  4. The B.I.W.F. Broadcast of 4 May, 1997 dealt with Leviticus 21:1-9; Laws concerning the defilement of Priests. A portion of this broadcast draws in an extension which pertains to the message which The LORD gave to The Prophet Hosea for Northern Israel just prior to their deportation. It seeks to correct a significant misconception of some Christian pastors which they base upon writings by the Jewish historian Josephus.
    By Douglas C. Nesbit, B.A.
    Leviticus 21:
    1. And the LORD said unto Moses, Speak unto the priests the sons of Aaron, and say unto them, There shall none be defiled for the dead among his people:
    2. But for his kin, that is near unto him, that is, for his mother, and for his father, and for his son, and for his daughter, and for his brother,
    3. And for his sister a virgin, that is nigh unto him, which hath had no husband; for her may he be defiled.
    4. But he shall not defile himself, being a chief man among his people, to profane himself.
    5. They shall not make baldness upon their head, neither shall they shave off the corner of their beard, nor make any cuttings in their flesh.
    6. They shall be holy unto their God, and not profane the name of their God: for the offerings of the LORD made by fire, and the bread of their God, they do offer: therefore they shall be holy.
    7. They shall not take a wife that is a whore, or profane; neither shall they take a woman put away from her husband: for he is holy unto his God.
    8. Thou shalt sanctify him therefore; for he offereth the bread of thy God: he shall be holy unto thee: for I the LORD, which sanctify you, am holy.
    9. And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire.

    With that last verse particularly in view, I might draw into consideration two or three Biblical episodes which might not at once come to mind. However, due to its length, I shall treat of only one today, leaving the remainder for next week.

    One Biblical episode concerns the Prophet Hosea to whom had been assigned the task of explaining to the sinful Northern House of Israel (the ten-and-a-half tribed nation which had been split from the House of Judah many years before), their true spiritual condition and consequent impending fate. Assyrian dominance would form God's method of punishment upon this people who had turned their backs upon the God of their fathers. They would soon be deported, and the nation dispersed in captivity, and so Hosea's message was an essential witness to their condition, and its impact had to be forceful. Hosea records in the first chapter of his Prophetic Book how, in order to make his sermons the more dramatic, he was ordered by The Almighty God to take to himself a wife who would be in relation to that Prophet in a position parallel to that of Israel to God. Hosea's words in Hosea 1:2-3 explain thus: "And the LORD said to Hosea, Go, take unto thee a wife of whoredoms and children of whoredoms: for the land hath committed great whoredom, departing from the LORD. So he went and took Gomer the daughter of Diblaim; which conceived, and bare him a son."

    Now a question is placed before us. As we seek an answer, hold in view certain facts. One is the fact that Hosea stood in relation to the nation of Israel among whom he laboured as a Priest. Second, the Law of Leviticus 21:7 states of a priest, a son of Aaron: "They shall not take a wife that is a whore, or profane; neither shall they take a woman put away from her husband: for he is holy unto his God." Third, the law of verse 14 which we shall read shortly, and which pertains to the High Priest states: "A widow, or a divorced woman, or profane, or an harlot, these shall he not take: but he shall take a virgin of his own people to wife." Fourth, we note the fact that God never breaks His own Law. Here is the question: In light of these points, what then must be Gomer's racial origin, and the true nature of Gomer's "whoredom"?

    By God's Law, Hosea could not have been ordered by The Almighty to marry any non-Israelite woman, nor one who was physically an adulteress or harlot. The name Gomer had been used many centuries before by Japheth to name his eldest son in Genesis 10:2. However it must have likewise circulated among Israel's descendants for two considerations. First, this girl had to be an Israelite woman by God's Law, in order to marry one effectively occupying the office of a priest. Second, the whole effectiveness of this dramatic teaching device displayed before all of Northern Israel would have been lost had Gomer been, in fact, of foreign, non-Israelitish extraction because (a) the Prophet would have violated God's Law and lost his authority to speak, and (b) she was chosen to epitomise Israel's condition and relationship to God Himself through her marriage to Hosea.

    The answers must be first, that Gomer was an Israelite, and second, that her "whoredom" must have been, like that of Israel, a spiritual condition. These Israelites would, within a short time, remember Hosea's dramatic preaching, and some might well have begun referring to themselves as "Gomerites" or "Gamir" as they passed into captivity and exile ("Galah" in Hebrew means "captive", and "exile").

    I might extend this comment by adding a most important postscript which, incidentally, may explain why many otherwise learned theologians and Bible teachers have been led astray concerning the thesis of British-Israel. Many centuries after the days of Hosea, and the Assyrian deportations of Israel, there lived in the first century AD, the Jewish historian, Josephus, who sought to supply a genealogic ancestry for various races. Josephus picked up a brief item of genealogical information obtained from the Greeks who were themselves correctly informed concerning the ethnic origins of their neighbours, the Galatians. The Greeks explained to Josephus that these Galatians "(Galls)", were before that "called Gomerites." Now in New Testament times, the more restricted ethnic usage of the word "Galatia" would confine this name to the North Galatians, whom historians know to have been Gauls who had migrated from Central Europe. The New Bible Dictionary, item "Galatia", states: "A great population explosion in central Europe brought Gauls into this area during the 3rd century BC." Another usage assigns the name "Galatia" to an expanded geographic area extending the Roman Provincial boundary southward to include, along with the North Galatians, the areas of Pontus, Phrygia, Lycaonia, Pisidia, and Paphlagonia.

    Competing views assign the Pauline "Epistle to the Galatians" to the southern (Roman) extension alone, or alternatively to all of Galatia. In any event, there is no doubt to whom Peter addressed his "First Epistle General." It was to "Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia" so he was definitely defining "Galatia" in the narrower ethnic sense of "North Galatia".

    It is important to see that Josephus was quoting the Greeks, and their ethnic information, not the Roman usage of the term, and hence the ethnic Galatians are those who were the Gauls that had previously been called "Gomerites."

    Here we find two authorities who differ, and one is right and the other wrong!

    Josephus tacked the item of ethnic information concerning those ethnic Galatians to his genealogical account of Japheth's eldest son, Gomer, in Josephus "Antiquities of the Jews", Book I, Chapter VI, Item 1. My English translation of Josephus contains no Index reference to the Prophet Hosea, nor does the list of "Texts of the Old Testament Parallel to Josephus's Histories" yield any Hosea Scripture parallel. One might assume from this that Josephus knew nothing of Hosea the Prophet, let alone his wife, Gomer!

    Peter, in his Epistle knows thoroughly the prophecies found in Exodus 19:5-6, and, of even more significance because of the specific direction of the assigned prophecy to deported Northern Israel, Hosea 2:23, which can legitimately be assigned only to this deported Northern House of Israel. These he assigns specifically in I Peter 2:9-10 to these North Galatians, together with the others in their area mentioned in I Peter 1:1. These cannot be reassigned to a non-Israelite "church." Whereas Josephus would make the Gauls of Europe Japhethites, Peter clearly knows their identity as Galah (Hebrew: captive, exile) Israelites, whom Hosea had been, in effect, instructed by God to call "Gomerites" before their departure into that exile from which they derived their Hebrew appellation "Galah" or Gaul, subsequently deformed into the name "Galatian."

    So the Greeks were right. The name sequence was "called Gomerite" (by Hosea), Galah (Gaul) in captivity and exile under Assyria, and "Galatians" in after centuries. The Josephus assignation of "Gomerites" to Gomer, son of Japheth was doubtless a guess based on similarity of name and ignorance of the obvious true alternative explanation. He was a good historian, but not perfect. Mistakes are to be expected in any work as vast as his. This is one which ought to be re-examined in light of his apparent lack of knowledge concerning Hosea's preaching and Hosea's wife, Gomer.


    A question has arisen regarding a peculiar coincidence in the similarity of the names of Jewish leaders prominent during the American Revolutionary War of Independence against Great Britain and similar names among the present leaders of the U.S.A. in 2003. This is briefly outlined in the following page.