Yes. 2 Chronicles 11 does reveal that when the Levites left the northern tribes, a small remnant also out of the northern ten tribes refused Jeroboam’s calf idol worship in the north, and these left the northern lands and went south and joined with Judah. But that by no means the majority of the ten tribes, but only a small remnant of them.
In Luke 2:36, we have Anna, a prophetess preaching Jesus Christ, and she was of the tribe of Asher, a northern ten tribe. Thus she represented one of those small remnants out of the northern tribes that left and joined with Judah.
Did you notice in Rev.7 that only 9 of the northern tribes are listed? I believe “Joseph” is put for the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh which would bring the count to 10 for the northern tribes. However, notice Ephraim and Dan are not in that list.
As for the ‘majority’ of the ten tribes that were scattered, I definitely do not… agree that they were ever known as Jews. That’s a doctrine bent from men’s traditions, mainly by those who are unaware of God splitting old Israel into two nations back in history and thus are ignorant of where that title of Jew originated (from the sole tribe of Judah).
Anyway, only the tribes of Judah, Benjamin, and Levi, and a small remnant out of the other tribes represent today’s Jews of the seed. The rest of the listed tribes are from the northern ten scattered tribes and considered by the Jews and by the world, as Lost.
God explains by His prophet Hosea that He would do this to the ten northern tribes, cause them to lose their identity as part of old Israel during their scattering, but that Judah (the “house of Judah”, the Jews) would not suffer loss of their identity.
Let me say this to the readers of this conversation. This is indeed interesting for me, and I would like to think @DavyP, and maybe to you also. However, do not get too bogged down in non-salvational issues. Neither of my nor DavyP’s views on this topic has anything to do with salvation. That being said (Smile)
You are right about the ancient terminology and Josephus’s commentary. However, where you take that history, concluding that the ten lost tribes migrated to become the Western Christian nations, is a specific theological theory known as Anglo-Israelism (or British Israelism). Correct?
You are right about the linguistic origin of the word “Jew.” After King Solomon died, the nation split into the Northern Kingdom of Israel, made up of ten tribes, and the Southern Kingdom of Judah, made up of Judah and Benjamin. The word “Jew” (Yehudi) literally means someone from the Kingdom or tribe of Judah. Therefore, during the divided kingdom era, a citizen of the Northern Kingdom (Ephraim, Dan, Asher, etc.) would not have been called a Jew; they were Israelites.
The Jewish historian Josephus explicitly backs this up in his Antiquities of the Jews (Book 11), noting that when Cyrus allowed the exiles to return, it was primarily those from the Southern Kingdom. Josephus wrote that the ten tribes remained “beyond the Euphrates until now, and are an immense multitude.”
Now, while you emphasize a permanent, hard separation between “Israel” and “Jew,” the Bible itself actually begins to use the terms interchangeably after the Babylonian exile. Long before the Northern Kingdom was destroyed by Assyria, large numbers of faithful Israelites from the northern tribes actually migrated south to Judah to escape the idolatry of Jeroboam 2 Chronicles 11:16 and 15:9. The Southern Kingdom became a melting pot of all twelve tribes.
In the post-exilic books like Ezra and Nehemiah, the returning exiles are referred to both as “Jews” and as “all Israel” Ezra 2:70, Ezra 6:17. By the time of Jesus, the strict geographical divide was gone. Paul calls himself a “Jew” Acts 22:3, but also an “Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin” Romans 11:1. In the New Testament, Anna the prophetess is explicitly identified as being from the “lost” northern tribe of Asher Luke 2:36, yet she lived in Jerusalem and worshipped at the temple alongside the Jews.
Secular historians and archeologists conclude that the vast majority of the northern ten tribes were forcefully assimilated into the Assyrian Empire (modern-day Iraq, Syria, and Iran) and lost their distinct cultural identity through intermarriage, while the remaining faithful elements fused into the southern Jewish population.
Mainstream Christian theology typically falls into two camps regarding Israel in the New Testament, neither of which tracks the tribes to Western Europe. The view that the “Israel of God” Galatians 6:16 is a spiritual designation for the Church, composed of Jews and Gentiles globally who accept Christ, regardless of their ethnic or national background. Or the view that “Israel” still refers literally to the Jewish people, and that God’s future promises involve a mass spiritual awakening among them Romans 11:26.
You seem to be building a bridge from a real historical linguistic fact (the Judah/Israel linguistic split) to a highly specific geographic theory about Western Europe. It’s a fascinating way to read prophecy, but it requires ignoring how the New Testament itself treats the terms “Jew” and “Israel” as fundamentally united under the umbrella of the Jewish people by the first century.
Peter
No, that is not correct, simply because those who push that theory aren’t staying strictly within the parameters of the written Bible prophecy.
And if you don’t think this matter is important, then I admonish you to explain… who the “company of nations” and “multitude of nations” that Jacob and Ephraim were to become per Genesis 35 and Genesis 48.
Now I’ll leave it at that, and let’s just see how much of The Bible prophecy about it you actually know, instead of your focusing on men’s doctrines and popular opinion instead.
I covered all that, so no need to keep repeating it.
A SMALL REMNANT of the northern ten tribes left the north and joined with the southern “kingdom of Judah” at Jerusalem, as did the Levites that were in the northern kingdom. But that by NO MEANS is pointing to the MAJORITY of the northern ten tribes, which it seems that is what you are wanting… to say, though it would be un-Biblical. Everything I’m saying is Biblical prophecy, so there’s really no need to bring men’s bias into the conversation. I suggest you stay focused in God’s written Word about it.
Even with those of the “kingdom of Judah” that went captive to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar, only a SMALL REMNANT of those returned to Jerusalem to rebuild the city, wall, and 2nd temple.
The majority of the Jews of the southern kingdom chose to remain in Babylon, because God promised to take care of them there, and their numbers even increased, as written. The majority of those Jews that stayed in Babylon were then scattered through the countries like the ten tribes had been scattered over 200 years prior to that.
And like God said through His prophet Hosea, when He broke up the northern kingdom of Israel of ten tribes, and scattered them into the “wilderness”, He would cause them to lose… their heritage as part of Israel so they would not know who they were. That actually happened, and He said He would not… do this to Judah, meaning the Jews, as they have always kept their heritage as part of old Israel. And this ain’t opinion, it is The Word of God as written.
Thus once the ten northern tribes of Israel were scattered beyond Euphrates, they lost their history, and took on Gentile names and customs, becoming a different people. But God still knew who they were, and still does to this day, because His prophecies about their future gatheiring proves that.
Now one of the problems today with those who abuse the title of Jew, trying to even apply it as far back as Abraham even, is about those who seek to ‘steal’ Christ’s Kingdom. They do not want the history of what happened to the ten lost tribes of Israel known, and that is why they apply that title of Jew to all Israelites, which that is un-Biblical.
@DavyP, I appreciate you clarifying your position. We actually agree on a lot of the history here. You’re entirely right that the majority of the ten tribes did not return after the Assyrian exile, and you’re spot on about Hosea. The Northern Kingdom was spiritually divorced, scattered, and historically ‘lost’ its distinct identity among the nations. I’m not trying to push popular opinion; I’m looking at the text just like you are.
You asked who the “company of nations” (qahal goyim) and “multitude of nations” (melo hagoyim) are that Jacob and Ephraim were promised to become. If we stay strictly within the parameters of the written Scripture, the Bible actually interprets its own terminology.
The “Company of Nations” (Genesis 35:11). Scripturally, this was fulfilled by the 12 distinct tribes themselves, which functioned as a commonwealth or confederation of autonomous tribal nations under the Judges and early Monarchy.
The “Multitude of Nations” (Genesis 48:19). The Hebrew word goyim simply means groups, peoples, or nations. Ephraim became so dominant and populous that its name became synonymous with the entire Northern Kingdom. In the prophets, “Ephraim” is used interchangeably with the whole nation of Israel (see Hosea 5:3, Jeremiah 31:9).
The text doesn’t require us to look outside the biblical era or the Middle East to find these nations. Here is the core issue. You argue that the ten tribes lost their identity, took on Gentile names, and became a different people. I agree. But if they completely lost their identity and blended into the Gentile world, on what Biblical basis can anyone claim they specifically migrated to the West to become specific modern Western Christian nations?
To connect the “lost” ancient tribes specifically to Western nations requires relying on secular Anglo-Saxon genealogies, linguistic theories, and British lore. Which are, by definition, the “doctrines and theories of men” outside of the canon of Scripture. The Bible simply says they were scattered.
Ultimately, the New Testament shows us how God chose to fulfill the promise of multiplying Abraham’s seed into the world. Paul explicitly tells us in Galatians 3:29: “If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.”
Through Christ, the scattered, “lost” Israelites who became like Gentiles, along with actual Gentiles, are brought back into the commonwealth of Israel (Ephesians 2). God didn’t need the British Empire or Western nations to fulfil His promise mechanically through DNA. He fulfilled it spiritually and globally through the Church, gathering people from every nation, tribe, and tongue.
Peter
The 12 tribes of Israel are ‘components’ that make up the ONE NATION called Israel, not 12 different nations. And the “commonwealth of Israel” idea of Apostle Paul in Ephesians 2 is about Gentile nations coming into the fold of Christ by Faith with their being added to Christ’s Kingdom of Israel.
Many forget to think why God gave Jacob the new name ISRAEL while he was still later referred to as Jacob. The word Israel means those who overcome with God’s help. It’s actually a name pointing to God’s Salvation Plan through His Son Jesus Christ. It’s the deceived Jews that have butchered its real meaning about Christ’s Church and His Kingdom.
And no, the name Ephraim is not… used in God’s Word to point to all 12 tribes. That idea is error.
Hos 5:3
3 I know Ephraim, and Israel is not hid from Me: for now, O Ephraim, thou committest whoredom, and Israel is defiled.
KJV
At this point when God gave this prophecy to Hosea, God was getting ready to end the northern ten tribe kingdom of Israel because of their idol worship. The Jews of the southern kingdom had not fallen into idol worship yet at this point, so that is another way we can be sure God is pointing only to the northern ten tribes under Ephraim as head in the above verse.
Per 1 Kings 11 forward, God gave Jeroboam of the tribe of Ephraim to be “king of Israel” over the northern ten tribes only. It did not involve the southern kingdom of Jews in the south at Jerusalem, called the “kingdom of Judah”. So when Ephraim is used after God split old Israel, it means Ephraim as the head tribe over the northern ten tribe kingdom called “Israel”. It’s actually God pointing out that the majority of Israelites were in the northern ten tribes, and thus represented the nation of “Israel.” Thus the Hosea 5:3 verse is pointing only to the northern ten tribes with that idea of “Ephraim” and “Israel.”
These Jeremiah 31:9-11 verses are very specific as to whom God is pointing to…
Jer 31:9-11
9 They shall come with weeping, and with supplications will I lead them: I will cause them to walk by the rivers of waters in a straight way, wherein they shall not stumble: for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn.
“Israel” above, again after the split, pointed only to the northern ten tribes. God’s Birthright that was to go to the firstborn, fell upon Ephraim, the younger son of Joseph. And that is still where God’s Birthright which He first gave through Abraham rests to this day, and involves The Gospel of Jesus Christ, as Abraham was first to believe The Gospel (Gal.3; Rom.4).
10 Hear the word of the LORD, O ye nations, and declare it in the isles afar off, and say, He That scattered Israel will gather him, and keep him, as a shepherd doth his flock.
That above “Israel” can apply to all 12 tribes in the final gathering, but this Book of Hosea is God giving specific prophecy about the ten northern tribe kingdom of Israel after the split. The “house of Israel” phrase is specific only to the northern ten tribe kingdom after the split.
11 For the LORD hath redeemed Jacob, and ransomed him from the hand of him that was stronger than he.
KJV
When “Jacob” is used in the above manner, it definitely is pointing to all 12 tribes. And with the above it is about their final gathering at the end of this world involving all 12 tribes.
From the Scottish Declaration of Arbroath (circa 1300 A.D.)
Most Holy Father and Lord, we know and from the chronicles and books of the ancients we find that among other famous nations our own, the Scots, has been graced with widespread renown.
They journeyed from Greater Scythia by way of the Tyrrhenian Sea and the Pillars of Hercules, and dwelt for a long course of time in Iberia [1] among the most savage tribes, but nowhere could they be subdued by any race, however barbarous.
Thence they came, twelve hundred years after the people of Israel crossed the Red Sea, to their home in the west where they still live today.
The Britons they first drove out, the Picts they utterly destroyed, and, even though very often assailed by the Norwegians, the Danes and the English, they took possession of that home with many victories and untold efforts; and, as the historians of old time bear witness, they have held it free of all bondage ever since.
In their kingdom there have reigned one hundred and thirteen kings of their own royal stock, the line unbroken a single foreigner.
The high qualities and deserts of these people, were they not otherwise manifest, gain glory enough from this: that the King of kings and Lord of lords, our Lord Jesus Christ, after His Passion and Resurrection, called them, even though settled in the uttermost parts of the earth, almost the first to His most holy faith.
Nor would He have them confirmed in that faith by merely anyone but by the first of His Apostles - by calling, though second or third in rank - the most gentle Saint Andrew, the Blessed Peter’s brother, and desired him to keep them under his protection as their patron forever.
Overall, I think your historical understanding of the divided monarchy is largely correct. After the kingdom split in 1 Kings 12, the biblical writers frequently use “Israel” to refer to the northern kingdom and “Judah” to refer to the southern kingdom. Likewise, Ephraim, as the dominant tribe in the north, often serves as a representative name for the northern kingdom, especially throughout Hosea. On those points, I don’t think there is much disagreement.
Where I think your argument becomes less convincing is when you make universal statements that go beyond what the text itself says. For example, saying that Ephraim is never used to represent all Israel is too absolute. While Ephraim usually refers to the northern kingdom after the division, the prophets often move fluidly between Ephraim, Israel, and Jacob within the same oracle. In passages such as Jeremiah 31, the prophecy begins with language that certainly recalls the northern kingdom, but it gradually broadens into the restoration of the entire covenant people. By the time we reach Jeremiah 31:31, the promise of the New Covenant is explicitly made with “the house of Israel and the house of Judah.” The chapter is moving beyond the historical division toward the reunification of God’s people.
I would also be cautious about defining the name Israel as meaning “those who overcome with God’s help.” While that is a meaningful theological reflection, it is not the settled lexical meaning of the Hebrew. The etymology of יִשְׂרָאֵל (Yiśrāʾēl) has been debated for centuries, with proposals such as “he strives with God,” “God strives,” or “God prevails.” Genesis 32:28 explains Jacob’s new name by saying, “for you have striven with God and with men, and have prevailed,” but it does not present the name as a technical definition of God’s plan of salvation or of Christ’s Church.
Similarly, I think the statement that “the Jews butchered its real meaning” is stronger than the biblical evidence allows. The New Testament certainly reveals how the promises made to Israel find their fulfillment in Christ, and passages like Ephesians 2 show that believing Gentiles are brought into the covenant blessings through union with Him. However, that is different from saying that the original meaning of the name Israel was always intended to refer directly to the Church. That conclusion requires a theological argument beyond what Genesis itself is saying.
So, while I agree with your historical observations regarding Ephraim and the northern kingdom, I think some of your broader conclusions are stated more confidently than the text supports. Good exegesis should allow each passage to speak within its own historical and literary context before drawing theological conclusions. Jeremiah 31, in particular, appears to move intentionally from the restoration of the divided kingdoms to the promise of the New Covenant, embracing both the house of Israel and the house of Judah, rather than remaining restricted to the northern kingdom alone.
Sorry to hear that you cannot see God’s Hand in the establishing of the Western Christian nations of history. Especially since it is easy to follow the Promises and Blessings that God first gave through Abraham down to where they rest today, and that is not with the middle east nation of Israel, no matter how much the “synagogue of Satan” there tries to pump it up.
Per Galatians 3, Paul says all those of Faith have become the “children of Abraham”. That’s because the Promise by Faith is what God offered Abraham which Abraham believed, and by that God counted Abraham’s Faith as righteousness. So of course that Faith is irregardless of a person’s seed.
Furthermore, the prophecies God gave Jacob and for Ephraim point to ‘seed’, and not simply the concept of Faith.
Gen 35:11
11 And God said unto him, I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins;
KJV
Gen 48:19
19 And his father refused, and said, I know it, my son, I know it: he also shall become a people, and he also shall be great: but truly his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his seedshall become a multitude of nations.
KJV
Under The New Covenant, both ‘houses’ that believe on Jesus are still being represented as two separate ‘houses’, the “house of Israel” and the “house of Judah”. It’s because of it quoting from Jeremiah to show that Christ would fulfill that joining in His Church BY THE SPIRIT, because the actual PHYSICAL GATHERING has not happened yet today, and will not until Christ’s future 2nd coming. At Christ’s 1st coming, He established His Church of The Spirit only through its many members of believers. At His future 2nd coming is when He will actually physically gather all 12 tribes back to the lands He promised their fathers.
Again I disagree with your reasoning, because God actually defined the meaning of that title Israel with the context of that verse. No need to chop the word up into baskets of fragments.
Gen 32:28
28 And He said, "Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed."
KJV
Thus go thousand of pages of baskets of fragments by the wayside once the actual context of what God said above defines what the name Israel means. Thus my definition really is not my own, but God’s per what He said above. I think you have allowed men’s doctrines to creep in and confuse you on that.
Davy would you agree that Jeremiah 31:1 (“all the families of Israel”) is broader than the political northern kingdom?
If so, at what point in the chapter does Jeremiah stop speaking merely of Ephraim and begin speaking of the covenant people as a whole?
If Jeremiah 31:31 names both the house of Israel and the house of Judah, isn’t that itself evidence that Jeremiah’s focus has expanded beyond the northern kingdom rather than remaining confined to it?
This is what the LORD of Hosts, the God of Israel, says: They will again use this saying in the land of Judah and its cities when I restore their fortunes — “May the LORD bless you, O pasture of righteousness, O holy mountain!”
The oracle now shifts from the northern kingdom to Judah. The phrase נְוֵה צֶדֶק (neveh ṣedeq, “habitation” or “abode of righteousness”) portrays Jerusalem as the place where righteousness rightly dwells. The parallel expression הַר הַקֹּדֶשׁ (har haqqodesh, “the holy mountain”) refers to Mount Zion, the site of God’s temple. The promise שׁוּבְתִּי אֶת־שְׁבוּתָם (shuvti et shevutam) employs the familiar Hebrew idiom meaning “I will restore their fortunes.” The expression also creates a subtle wordplay with the root שׁוּב (shuv, “to return”), reinforcing Jeremiah’s broader theme of both restoration and return.
Jeremiah 31 is the theological summit of the Book of Consolation (chapters 30-33) and arguably the single most consequential chapter in all of Jeremiah. It opens with oracles of restoration for northern Israel — Ephraim, the lost tribes — promising that the exiles will return with weeping and joy. Rachel weeps for her vanished children at Ramah, but God commands her to stop: they will come back. The chapter builds to its climax in verses 31-34, where God announces the berit chadashah — the new covenant — the only occurrence of this exact phrase in the entire Hebrew Bible. This covenant will not be like Sinai, which Israel broke; instead, God will write his torah directly on human hearts, making external enforcement unnecessary. The chapter closes with cosmic imagery: as long as the fixed order of sun, moon, and stars endures, Israel will endure as a nation before God.
I don’t disagree that Genesis 32:28 explains why God gave Jacob the name Israel. My point is simply that explaining the significance of a name in its narrative context is not necessarily the same thing as providing its lexical definition. Genesis tells us that Jacob received the name because he had striven with God and with men and had prevailed. But it does not explicitly say, “Israel means those who overcome with God’s help.” That is an interpretation of the verse rather than the wording of the verse itself. Since the Hebrew form יִשְׂרָאֵל has been understood in several ways by conservative Hebrew scholars, I think we should distinguish between what the text explicitly says and the theological conclusions we draw from it. I’m happy to affirm the significance of the name in Genesis 32 without claiming the passage settles every question of Hebrew etymology.
Of course not. Didn’t you read past Jeremiah 31:1 which gives more info on whom God is speaking about there?
Jer 31:1-9
31 At the same time, saith the LORD, will I be the God of all the families of Israel, and they shall be My people.
2 Thus saith the LORD, The people which were left of the sword found grace in the wilderness; even Israel, when I went to cause him to rest.
3 The LORD hath appeared of old unto me, saying, "Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee.
4 Again I will build thee, and thou shalt be built, O virgin of Israel: thou shalt again be adorned with thy tabrets, and shalt go forth in the dances of them that make merry.
5 Thou shalt yet plant vines upon the mountains of Samaria: the planters shall plant, and shall eat them as common things.
6 For there shall be a day, that the watchmen upon the mount Ephraim shall cry, ‘Arise ye, and let us go up to Zion unto the LORD our God.’
7 For thus saith the LORD; Sing with gladness for Jacob, and shout among the chief of the nations: publish ye, praise ye, and say, ‘O LORD, save Thy people, the remnant of Israel.’
8 Behold, I will bring them from the north country, and gather them from the coasts of the earth, and with them the blind and the lame, the woman with child and her that travaileth with child together: a great company shall return thither.
9 They shall come with weeping, and with supplications will I lead them: I will cause them to walk by the rivers of waters in a straight way, wherein they shall not stumble: for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is My firstborn.
KJV
Will believing Gentiles be joined with them back to the lands of promise which God promised the fathers of the seed of Israel? Yes, as that is written in the Book of Isaiah, and hinted at by Apostle Paul in Romans 9.
But to interpret that Jeremiah 31 Scripture only in light of The New Covenant is one of the errors that some in today’s Church makes, which is a creation of basket of fragments of men’s doctrines. So when reading Old Testament prophecy that contains a ‘dual’ type fulfillment, the first fulfillment is just as important to understand, and will involve actual history. The ten northern tribes were known as Israel after the split, God scattered them literally into the ‘wilderness’, and that is where He gave them the New Covenant, along with the Gentiles they were scattered among. History, and prophecy fulfillment, at the same time.
I appreciate the detailed breakdown of the historical split between the Northern and Southern kingdoms. You’re absolutely right that after Solomon, “Ephraim” often serves as shorthand for the ten northern tribes, distinct from Judah.
Peter
However, looking strictly at the text of the Genesis promises themselves, we have to deal with the specific Hebrew wording God chose before any kingdom split occurred. You mentioned that goyim means groups, peoples, or nations, and that Israel is only ONE nation. But in Genesis 35:11, God tells Jacob: "A nation (goy) and a company of nations (goyim) shall proceed from you."
If Israel was only ever meant to be a single nation, the text would not explicitly promise a singular nation and a plural company of nations coming from his loins. Furthermore, in Genesis 48:19, Jacob says Ephraim’s descendants will become a melo-hagoyim. Literally a “fullness” or “multitude” of nations. If this just meant Ephraim would become populous within the single nation of Israel, the word am (people) or rab (multitude) would fit. By using goyim, the text points to a multiplicity of distinct national or political entities.
You noted that the Birthright fell upon Ephraim in Jeremiah 31:9 and that it involves the blessings of Abraham. If the Birthright involves the material and national greatness promised to Abraham, we have to look at what that birthright actually entailed in 1 Chronicles 5:1-2. The birthright was specifically separated from the ruler/scepter promise, which went to Judah.
If Ephraim’s destiny was merely to be swallowed up, scattered, or to simply mean “the Northern Kingdom” until it ceased to exist, then the specific unconditional promise of becoming a multitude of nations was never actually realized historically before the Assyrian captivity.
Also, think about this. When Paul uses the term politeia (commonwealth/citizenship) of Israel in Ephesians 2, he is using a political term for a state made up of various parts. Even before the Monarchy, during the period of the Judges, the tribes operated as autonomous, self-governing entities bound by a covenant, which is the textbook definition of a commonwealth or a confederation of nations.
On what Biblical basis can anyone claim the ten tribes migrated to the West and became specific nations if they lost their identity?
The answer is found in the exact nature of God’s prophecies regarding how they would be scattered, where they would go, and how their identity would be preserved by God, even if forgotten by themselves. God explicitly stated that when Israel was scattered, they wouldn’t just vanish into thin air or become extinct; they would move through the Gentile nations like a sieve while being completely preserved.
"For behold, I will command, and shake the house of Israel among all the nations ** as one shakes with a sieve,
** but no pebble shall fall to the earth." Amos 9:9
Right after telling the Northern Kingdom they are “Not My People” (Lo-Ammi) and losing their identity, God promises in the very next breath.
"Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be like the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured or numbered. And in the place where it was said to them, “You are not my people,” it shall be said to them, “Children of the living God.” Hosea 1:10
They would become a massive multitude while in that “blinded” state. Isaiah 49:12 & Jeremiah 31:10: Prophecy places the scattered remnants in the “north and the west” and in the “isles afar off”. Geographically, if you stand in Jerusalem and look North and West into the Mediterranean and beyond, you are looking directly at Europe and the British Isles.
It’s fascinating that you quote the Declaration of Arbroath, because this 1320 A.D. document written by the Scottish nobility directly supports the migration tracking! Look at what the document actually says: It tracks their ancestral journey from Greater Scythia (where historical records, like the histories of Herodotus, place the exiled Israelite/Saka tribes after the Assyrian captivity), through the Mediterranean (Tyrrhenian Sea), into Iberia (Spain), and finally into the “home in the west.”
The Scottish kings and nobles didn’t invent this out of nowhere; they were recording the ancient chronicles of their migrations. They explicitly tie their timeline to Israel: “twelve hundred years after the people of Israel crossed the Red Sea”.
The Biblical basis is that God promised Ephraim would become a melo-hagoyim (multitude of nations) after being scattered. If they just blended into the Middle East and disappeared, the prophecy failed. But if they migrated North and West, as both secular history (the Scythian/Celt migrations) and historical records like Arbroath testify, then God kept His physical promise to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob perfectly. They lost their identity as Israel, but they never lost their destiny.
Peter
And that is why when we look at God’s Promises and Blessings originally given through Abraham, then to Isaac, then to Jacob, then to Joseph, and finally winding upon Joseph’s two sons Ephraim and Manasseh (per 1 Chronicle 5), it is discovered those were moved to where the historical Christian nations are.
A Scottish pastor sent me a news article many years ago, about a DNA test done on the Caucasian peoples of western Europe, to see if they related. The Anglo-Saxons of Britain try to claim they have no connection with Celtic peoples. The field of science called Anthropology well knows the origins of the Celts and Scythians as Cimmerian tribes having migrated from the east into Europe. What that DNA study discovered is that the Caucasian peoples of Europe are all descended from the same root stock of Cimmerian tribes. That is also where the Celtic peoples descended from.
When I was stationed in Spain in the USAF, a friend of mine was stationed just northeast of Torrejon where I was, at Zaragossa AB, a target practice area for our F-4 Phantom jets. He wanted me to meet his newlywed wife. So I drove up and we all had a picnic at some old ruins just outside the city. I asked what the ruins were but he didn’t know. Then many years later, after I had gotten out of the military and back in the States, had gotten baptized in Christ, and got down to Bible study, God hit me remembering about that place in Spain.
Zarah was the twin brother of Pharez whom king David and Lord Jesus Jesus would be born through. Zarah’s hand stuck out of Tamar’s womb first, and as was the custom to identify the firstborn, they tied a scarlet thread on his hand. Then Pharez, his twin, breached and pulled Zarah back in, and Pharez came out first as the firstborn (See Genesis 38). The name Zara-gossa in Spain means 'stronghold, or fortress of Zarah. So what’s the seed of Zarah doing there in ancient Spain? I noticed that Apostle Paul said he planned to visit the brethren in Spain per Romans 15. Just so happens, the Milesian king line in Spain is who migrated to ancient Ireland and began the Irish kings there having been coronated standing upon or next to a stone like the kings of Israel were.
I will let you think about this. If we look closely at the biblical genealogy, though, God actually chose the line of his twin brother, Pharez, to carry the royal line. 1 Chronicles 5 and the genealogies in Matthew 1 and Luke 3 show that King David, and ultimately Jesus Himself, came strictly through the line of Pharez.
While tracking ancient migrations through Spain or the Stone of Scone is a captivating historical study, the Bible keeps our focus tightly on the spiritual line of Pharez and Christ as the ultimate fulfillment of the throne and the promises to Abraham. What do you think about how Matthew and Luke emphasize Pharez over Zarah?
Peter
And Anna was a Jew. Because all Israelites were called Jews in Jesus’ time.
The majority of Israelites from the northern kingdom weren’t taken captive–they remained. The Samaritans are an example of the divergent religious traditions that occurred following the Assyrian Conquest. The Samaritans are Israelites whose religious practices were shaped apart from the form of Israelite religion that happened in the southern kingdom, especially following the Babylonian Exile.
In this way, “Jew” is also intended to function as a contrast to “Samaritan”; Judaism and Samaritanism arose from Israelite religion–though the view put forward in the Bible, and by the Lord Jesus Himself, clearly is of the position that Samaritanism isn’t faithful to the religion of Moses and the Prophets, but diverged; with Judaism representing true Israelite religion, “Salvation is from the Jews”. However the going forth of the Gospel to the Samaritans early on, clearly is about recognizing the Samaritans as brother-Israelites (as opposed to as alien-Gentiles, which is made clear through the vision given to St. Peter which led to the preaching of the Gospel to Cornelius’ household).
So:
It is abundantly clear that “Jewishness” was not about tribal identity in the time of Jesus, but the form of Israelite religion practiced by the Jews, and which involved anyone from any tribe, not just the tribes which predominantly existed in the southern kingdom.
On a broader scale: Israelite-ness most definitely was simultaneous with Jewishness, but also was extended to the Samaritans, in spite of the religious differences and rivalry between Jews and Gentiles: Samaritans were still Israelites.
What we do not have: Identifiable Israelites outside of the diaspora communities recorded in history.
Even allowing the likelihood that a random Israelite taken captive by the Assyrians may have given birth to a lineage of descendants and through ordinary human migratory patterns have a random descendant that lived in Northern Europe–that would be fundamentally meaningless.
I can trace my ancestry to Northern Europe. But, frankly, I am more likely to have significant Ashkenazi (the Jewish diasporic communities that settled into central and eastern Europe in post-Roman times) ancestry than some random northern tribe Israelite taken captive almost 3,000 years ago. If I were to test my DNA I would be entirely unsurprised to find some amount of Ashkenazi ancestry somewhere from within the last 500 years.
I’m by no means an expert on genetics, but I have a functional understanding of how genetics work to the point to know that, it all becomes a raindrop in an ocean as we go further back.
And I have a competent enough understanding of Scripture and Christian doctrine to know that genetics don’t mean jack squat to God.
I recognize that Pharez is the lineage that David and Lord Jesus would be born through. I have no problem with that, nor why would I?
But Zarah represents a potential king line also, from Judah. And Zarah is connected with the Milesian line of royalty that was in Spain and migrated to ancient Ireland. That is who the Scottish nobles were referring to about Spain.
In the ancient Irish Annals of the Four Masters, it mentions Pharaoh’s daughter, one called Scota, from which comes the name Scotia, Scot, etc. Legend has it that was one of the “king’s daughters” of Jeremiah 43 wound up in the Isles with Jeremiah, as there is evidence that Jeremiah who was guardian of the daughters of Zedekiah, king of Judah, carried them with him into Egypt at Tahpanhes, which there is archaeological evidence of Pharaoh’s palace there. Then they drop out of Bible history. Thing is though, God said He made Jeremiah a prophet to the nations, not only to tear down and destroy, but also to build, and to plant. So where’s the build and plant part of Jeremiah’s ministry? This is what God left us to figure out, as He only gave hints about it in His Word.