The World of Fairyland: The World Tomorrow
Pt. 1 | Pt. 2
Herbert W. Armstrong Teaches British-Israelism:
Then let me come to the third and the last one of the cults that he draws from and this is the one, of course, that he majors in and that is British-Israelism, or Anglo-Israelism, if you want to call it that. They came up with this theory years concerning the "ten lost tribes"22 and I don't know don't why anyone would use that. The tribes never were lost. They're not lost any more than the others are lost, because no Jew today knows what tribe, actually, he belongs to. And certainly no one knows whether they belong to the family of David, or not. But the ones who've developed this cult, they claim that England and America are two of the tribes. They're Ephraim and Manasseh. May I say that it makes a nice little theory, and it has no basis whatever in the Word of God.
I'll quote from him here. He says:
Our white English speaking peoples today--Britain and America--are actually and truly the birthright tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh of the lost house of Israel.
Then you'd say, "What about the other eight tribes?" Well, he's got a way for them, too. He says there's "ample evidence" (and I can't even find a little). But he says:
There's ample evidence that these other eight have descended into such northwestern European nations as Holland, Belgium, Denmark, northern France, Luxemburg, Switzerland, Sweden Norway, Finland and at least portions of western Germany.
Now the thing that interests us is the fact that England and America (our white Americans and white English) are the lost tribes. May I say that this right now is one of the most dangerous cults for racism in this country that you could possibly have. As if one race has some superiority. And that's always been propagated by some. No race has any superiority over another race, and God never made us that way. This idea that we've come from these tribes....
Now the way he arrives at it is fearfully and wonderfully made, let me tell you. (I'll give you that quotation in just a moment.) But it is one of the things that today is very popular, especially in England. England is a third rate nation. I'm sorry they are. I'm sure all of us that have come from that area, and from Europe, that we hate to see that area go down, and it is going down. Civilization is dying over there and Great Britain is just a third rate nation. That's all that they are. And this sort of thing bolsters you up to make you think, "Well, we are the lost tribes. We'll be all right." It administers to pride and there's no accident that he has a college in England. Naturally. The British would fall for this sort of thing, especially in these days when they've lost prestige all over the world.
I was in Victoria several years ago--and what do they call this about the colors? I never found out what that is. Striking of the colors. I was walking down the street in Victoria and I heard a band--my, it was good--they were really coming down the street playing. And I followed them because I'm from the country. I wanted to know where they were going. They went down to the government building, the palace there, and you've never seen such a ceremony. They had a regular band concert. Then they lowered the flag and they were blowing the trumpet and everything, and the Union Jack came down, and one solider he folds it and he hands it to a soldier and that soldier he hands it to a soldier and he hands it to a soldier and they just kept passing it until it got way off somewhere and then that fellow took it and hid it somewhere. I don't know where it took it.
And frankly, as I stood there and watched that, there was a day when it could be said that the sun never set on the Union Jack. I must confess, I just stood there and tears came down my eyes and I said, there was a day when that meant something, but now they're just like a bunch of children playing. It doesn't mean anything now. But there was a day when that really meant something.
So if you're one of the lost tribes, it makes you feel pretty good, you see. You can feel like you've got a special, ringside seat to the Millennium, to the world tomorrow; it makes it nice.
Now somebody says, but doesn't he have more evidence than that? Well, would you like to listen to his statement? This is interpretation for you. Now you listen to this. I'm quoting: [words in italics are McGee's]
In view of the linking together of biblical history, prophecy and Irish history (well, I've heard of Irish coffee, but I've never heard of Irish history), can anyone deny that this Hebrew princess was the daughter of King Zedekiah of Judah (well, I can deny it--and I do) and therefore heir to the throne of David?
Let me read on. This is strange.
That the aged patriarch was, in fact, Jeremiah and his companion (Jeremiah's scribe, or secretary) Baruch and the King Herremon was a descendent of Zarah, here married to the daughter of Pharez, healing the ancient breach. [last few words were somewhat unclear]
Do you understand that? Neither do I. Now let's go on:
That when the throne of David was first overturned by Jeremiah it was replanted in Ireland. [emp. McGee's]
Now, frankly, I'll be honest with you, I don't see how anyone today could accept that type of interpretation and it brings Bible interpretation into disrepute to do that.
It was replanted in Ireland, later overturned a second time and replanted in Scotland (and I'm glad we got in on it a little there), overturned a third time and planted in London, from where it cannot be overturned, or moved again, until the coming of Christ when it once again shall be overturned and transplanted back in Jerusalem.
I'm a little confused whether Christ is coming now to London or Jerusalem when He comes to the earth.
Now will you listen to this. If you think that was something, listen to this:
The Royal Family of the British Commonwealth possesses a chart showing its ancestry, every generation, back to Herremon and Tephi, to Zedekiah, on back to David, and through the scriptural genealogy, clear to Adam. The writer has a copy of this chart and also his own genealogy for each generation back into the line of ancient British kings, and therefore has the complete record of his genealogy through the house of David clear to Adam--believe it or not. (and believe it or not, I don't believe it)
Now, isn't that amazing? I'll be honest with you, I am absolutely overwhelmed to think anybody would believe that.
When Christ returns to earth to sit on that throne, he shall take over a live, existing throne, not a non-existent one. God's word's still stands. Almighty God has kept all his promises.
Now when the Lord Jesus returns to the earth, will He take over a live throne? Let's let James, at the first council of the church at Jerusalem, answer that question. And this was where they settled, once and for all, that man is saved by grace and grace alone. "And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me: Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:" [Acts 15:13-16] [emp. ours]
Now when He comes back will someone in the house of David be sitting on the throne in London? James says no! He says that when He comes again He will build again the house of David that's fallen down and there's not a person, there's not a Jew on topside of this earth, can say he belongs to the house of David today. Not an individual. Because when He comes again, He's the only one that has a claim to it. When the Lord Jesus comes again, He will restore the house of David that has fallen down in the ruins therefore. Now this man says that He comes back to a live throne. Whose right? James, or the modern man? I say to you that I agree with James; that when He comes back it will be as James says it will be. This [HWA's interpretation] is something that is indeed way out.
Now, there is another angle to this that is quite interesting. I won't develop it other than to just mention it. He makes it very clear that he thinks Judah crucified Christ and that tribe is guilty and the rest of us, if we belong to the Ephraim and Manasseh, we're not guilty. May I say to you that we are guilty, and not only are we guilty, but when Peter was speaking to them, he said, Ye men of Israel (not Judah, but ye men of Israel), hear me. You are the ones who took Him and you crucified Him. [Acts 2:22-23] He held the whole house of Israel guilty! And you and I can't point our finger at anyone, because if I had not been a sinner He would never have died on the cross. He said no man taketh my life from me. I have power to lay it down; I have power to take it again. [John 10:18] And He said that He died for my sins. So the one that put Him on the cross was Vernon McGee, and I'm as guilty as anyone. This idea of trying to point your finger at someone today and saying they are guilty. Peter said, speaking to them, the whole house of Israel is guilty. You can't pick out just two tribes and blame them and say the other ten are not guilty.
Now the final test--and this is, I think, the one thing that is all important.
"What think ye of Christ?" is the test,
To try both, your state and your scheme;
You cannot be right in the rest,
Unless you think rightly of Him.
A Statement of HWA's That is Blasphemy:
What about the Lord Jesus Christ? Now here is something--and frankly I must confess I'm not sure I understand him. In fact, I don't understand him in many things he says. But he makes a statement here that, if it is as I interpret it, it is blasphemy. And in the magazine he deals with the Lord Jesus in words like this. Now I am quoting: [words in italics and blue are McGee's]
One year ago in The Plain Truth (and that's a name for a magazine. To me it's not plain, nor truth, but he calls it The Plain Truth magazine) of February 1962 appeared an article caption, "Just What Do You Mean Born Again?" It warned, "Don't be too sure you know. Many religious people talk about being born again and don't really know what Christ meant by these words." That article of a year ago is available in booklet form, free for the asking. But how many realize that Jesus Christ Himself was born-again and in the same manner in which He said we must be born again? Just what did Christ mean when He said to Nicodemus, "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of God"? The universally accepted idea of fundamentalist Christians is that being born-again means the experience of having one's sins forgiven. They call it a "born-again experience." (I still think that's right) By it they mean a sinner being converted, experiencing salvation from sin. Many fundamentalist Protestants will say, "I'm a sinner, born again and saved by grace" and similar expressions. Have these people really been born again--or have they been deceived? Have they had the same born again experience Christ had? But wait a minute! Surely that last sentence can't mean what it said. (I wish it didn't) Was Jesus Christ actually born again and in the same manner that he taught that we must be born again? Incredible! Unbelievable! (and you're right) Was Jesus Christ a sinner? Did He need salvation from sin? No! Of course not! Yet Jesus Christ was born again, just as he taught that we must be born again. I now show you one scripture--and there will be more later in this article--but most readers who claim to have been born again will not believe it, though it's the very Word of God. Here it is: "And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren."
Now he takes this being born again and he relates His first birth to Bethlehem and His second birth to His resurrection. And what he is saying here (if I understand him) is that He got his human nature from Mary at His first birth, and He got his divine birth at His resurrection, and He never was God until then.
Now may I say to you, that that is the oldest heresy that is known to man. It's Gnosticism. It comes actually from the very beginning. It was the first heresy in the church. You see, that's what the Gnostic says, that deity came upon Him. Now the Gnostics, they were divided. Some of them said it came upon Him at His baptism, others at His temptation, others when He began His public ministry, others at the time He was crucified, others when He was raised from the dead, and others even when He ascended into heaven. This man believes deity did not come upon Him until His resurrection. That is to deny the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ. [Note by ESN: Read the book Jesus Christ IS God! by Robert L. Sumner]
I'll not go into this other here, but he despises the name of Jesus, which is to me is a very terrible thing. [emp. ours]
We Are Saved By Faith:
Now let me add one other thing in closing. A moment ago we mentioned one of the things that he gives for being saved. And now I'd like to mention another thing that he says. You're to believe in the government of God. That is Jehovah's Witnesses. Now you are to keep the Law. That's Seventh-day Adventism. And not faith in Christ alone, but actually you are to keep the Law, and I think he is very clear in making this statement. Let me read this, and I am quoting: [all words in italics and in blue are McGee's]
The idea Satan is trying to put across is that it is impossible for man to keep the spiritual law of God, and so Jesus came as our Savior, not in the flesh with normal human nature, but through some special process (see, again, he denies the deity) so that he could keep the Law of God in our stead and, therefore, we don't have to keep the spiritual law. What Christ did in our stead was to die for us, but his obedience was our example. Those who believe this doctrine seem to forget that Jesus obeyed God in every way, leaving us an example that we should follow in his steps. "If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments."
You see, going back and quoting what our Lord said before He went to the cross to an Israelite under the Law. And the Israelites... Peter could say at the council in Jerusalem, our fathers never kept the Law, and we have not kept it. And why should we saddle this on the Gentiles? We never did keep it.
Now he goes on to say:
Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God. We are not only to keep the letter of the Law, but to follow it as it is magnified throughout the bible in every word of God.
You see that sounds very good. Now let me read again before we mention this. And this, by the way... I think that we should quote at least from his son Garner Ted Armstrong who now, I understand, has the program. And if you think the father's confused, you listen to this now...if he doesn't takes a clear passage of Scripture and makes it mean the opposite of what it really means. Listen to this:
To many people justification means vaguely the same thing grace has meant to so many thousands of deceived persons. It means to many deceived ones a condition permanently attributed to a Christian. Many people think once a person is justified he is made right from then on, but this is simply untrue. Again, let's go to the only source to understand these all-important points.
Now he quotes Romans 2:13:
"For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified."
Now here again is taking Scripture out of context, wresting it from its meaning. In the second chapter of Romans Paul is not even discussing salvation. In Romans 1, Romans 2, down to Roman 2:20, Paul is showing man is a sinner. Now he takes up the different classes of men. When he shows how terrible sin is, those that are down and out, a great many people--so called good people, religious people--draw the cloaks around and say, "I'm not like that." Paul says you're a sinner just like they are. Then he puts down the principles by which God is going to judge men, not the principles by which God is going to save men. He's not talking about salvation; he's talking about the principles of judgment.
Now, one of them is "it's not the hearers of the law that are just before God, but the doers of the law." It's the thing today. A great many people think if they approve...or they say, "My, the Ten Commandments are wonderful and the Sermon the Mount is great." This man said to me at this luncheon years ago, "Why the Sermon on the Mount is my religion." I asked him how he was doing with it and he said, "What do you mean?" I said, "Well, do you keep it?" And he said, "I try." I said, "That's not the point. If that's your religion, then you ought to be living by it." He said, "Just what do you mean?" I said, "The Lord took two commandments and lifted them to the endth degree. He said, if you are angry with your brother, you are guilty of murder." I said, "Do you live up to that?" "Well," he said, "I'm not sure I do." (Of course, he doesn't, if the man is honest.) Then I said, "Let's take the other one. He said if you so much as look upon a woman to lust after her, you are guilty of adultery. I said, "Look me in the eye and tell me that you're not guilty." And he said, "Well, I guess that gets me." I said, "It sure does. If you are honest, you know the Sermon the Mount is not your religion. You just approve of it. That's all. It's a great document."
Why the Sermon on the Mount...Paul makes it very clear to the Galatians that the Sermon on the Mount and the Law were given as a paidagōgos (Paul calls it a paidagōgos). It is a schoolmaster not to teach us, but a servant in a Roman home that took the little child by the hand and led him to school where he could be taught. And the Law was given that it might take us by the hand and bring us to Christ. Listen to Paul (and this ought to answer it):
Galatians 2:16: "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified." [emp. McGee's]
Now you would think that would be clear enough. But it's not clear enough for those that garble it and try to put you under Law to be saved, my beloved.
Will you listen again to what Paul says here in Galatians in 3:19:
"Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come ..."
It was given until Christ should come. It was the schoolmaster to bring us to Christ. The Law was given to show us that we are guilty before God, and any man that is honest, who will look at his own heart; knows that he does not measure up to God's standard, and when he knows he doesn't measure up to God's standard, then he can come to a Savior and accept Him and only on that basis and that basis alone.
Let's notice here again [Galatians 3:21]:
"Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law."
God could not give a law to give you life, because you can't measure up to God's standard; therefore God had to provide another way since He loved us and He provided that way in Christ that we might be saved.
Listen again to him:
"Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith." [Galatians 3:24]
May I say to you, you're not saved by the Law. The Law doesn't enter into salvation. And what a horrible, awful thing to tell poor, weak sinners today.
I close with this statement. A businessman also told me that he knows something about that campus out there. He told about what high class folk that they have. He [HWA] has the very best. He goes first class. Money is no object. But that those that are there move like they're robots. That is characteristic... And I thought that explanation was quite interesting that characterizes those that go into cults. They move as if they are just robots, following a pattern, doing certain things, and going through that little ritual--as if that commends us to God. [Read: These People Remind Me of the Characters in The Stepford Wives]
Paul also says in Galatians 5:1:
"Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, ..."
He's delivered us from the Law. He's delivered us today from this world, and today He says we can live for Him, not following some little ritual, some little patent, but to be joined to the living Christ. Oh, what a wonderful privilege that is today, to be joined to the living Christ and not be joined to some little ritual and some little legal system, or some little cult or ism. To be joined to the living Christ, and today to love Him and to serve Him. That's the thing that's all important.
Shall we pray.
Our gracious, loving Father God, we do rejoice in this glorious gospel of the grace of God, that by grace we are saved through faith, and even that is not of ourselves; it's the gift of God, not of works lest any man should boast. And tonight we cannot boast of anything we are, or have done, but we tonight can boast of a Savior. And God forbid that we should glory save in the cross of the Lord Jesus Christ, by which we are crucified unto the world and the world unto us. Oh God, take our minds and our hearts off from these systems today and even churches today, and may we be fixed in our thinking, and in our minds, upon the living Christ. Make Him real. For we pray in Jesus' name. Amen.
By J. Vernon McGee (1904-1988)
1960s (exact date unknown)
Transcribed June 27, 2005 by Exit & Support Network™
The death of Richard David Armstrong was no doubt a tragic thing, especially in light of the above testimony from the doctor who said that if a shot had been allowed to be administered to Richard, it could have saved his life. Herbert Armstrong (of course) never mentioned how he had said not to give his own son the shot. Instead, in the Autobiography of Herbert W. Armstrong, HWA says that Richard died a week later in route to UCLA Medical Center in order to get an "artificial kidney" connected to him. (Vol. 2, p. 421, 1961; revised 1987)
How common were kidney transplants back in 1958?
In researching a history of kidney transplants we find that one was done in 1954 from one twin to another without any immunosuppressive medicine (twins do not reject the other's organ). However, the first successful cadaver transplant to non-twins wasn't until 1962. Notice:
1962: First cadaveric kidney transplant is performed at Brigham Hospital in Boston, Mass. (Transplant History and Transplant Timeline)
"Tissue typing and immune system suppression with drugs was first used in a human kidney transplant in 1962, paving the way for transplantation of other organs." (Organ Transplants: 50 Years of Sharing Life)
Dr. Mortimer Levy (History of the Nephrology Division at the Royal Victoria Hospital in Montreal puts the date at 1964). He goes on to say:
"In the late 1950s, when I was becoming interested in nephrology, nothing could be done about chronic renal failure in any of its forms except when due to obstructive cause. ... the artificial kidney was considered highly experimental even 8 years later. It was never used at Bart's when I was a student. It was used once or twice when I was at Hammersmith but more as a desperate last-ditch stand, and nearly always, as far as I remember, without success. At the Royal Victoria Hospital in the late 1950s, it was still a procedure of last resort."
Herbert Armstrong's teaching at this time was "no medical intervention" and so Richard did not receive the needed shot for shock. Yet, it was contradictory for HWA to write in his autobiography that the reason Richard was moved to the second hospital (a week later) was to undergo a kidney transplant--an operation which records show was considered highly experimental in those days, and usually without success.
Read: How Did Worldwide Church of God Instruct Ministers to Deal With "Health and Medical Problems"? (These policies were taught to the ministers to "avoid prosecution.")
Now let's look at an earlier account of Richard Armstrong's accident--Herbert Armstrong's July 17, 1958 Co-Worker letter to the members in which he says Richard died the previous Wednesday. (Note: July 17 must have been a misprint and meant to say July 27 since HWA mentions it being "Sunday afternoon." Read the original letter.) In it HWA says that the first hospital (which he doesn't name) refused to keep Richard unless he (Richard) would allow them "free hand in medical treatment" and so they hastened to transfer him to another hospital where he was given a blood transfusion. (Co-Worker letter, July 17 [?], 1958, p. 1) He says Richard was actually "dying" when removed from that first hospital. (Ibid., p. 2)
HWA says he and Norman Smith (WCG minister) picked up Dr. Ralph E. Merrill (their college physician) and drove to the hospital in San Luis Obispo. Richard's condition was described as very severe (extreme shock; broken bones, broken jaw; displaced organs; collapsed lung, etc.), yet members were led to believe that Richard had been conscious enough to reject medical aid, pray constantly for his own healing, bear up under the pain, and even able to communicate feebly to his father! (Ibid., p. 4)
HWA goes on to tell how Richard's kidneys were "being overloaded" and "unable to produce normally" and so the doctors were unable to begin tending to his broken bones, displaced organs, etc. until that condition was cleared up. In the same paragraph he says, "Yesterday and today the kidney condition is improving. The doctors are much encouraged." (Ibid., p. 2) [bolding ours]
We can see from what the witness told Dr. McGee that it is most likely that Richard went into shock in the emergency room (due to HWA not letting them give him the necessary shot) and was dead by the time HWA arrived at the hospital. Read 2005 letter to ESN which states Richard was "dead on arrival" at the hospital.
Richard's Armstrong's Accident Enabled HWA to Coerce More Money Out of Members (12-9-05 letter to ESN)
Richard David Armstrong and the Automobile Accident (includes the Co-Worker letter)
Pt. 1 | Pt. 2
Footnotes by ESN:
1 J. Vernon McGee (1904-1988) was pastor of the Church of the Open Door in Los Angeles, California, and founder of Thru the Bible Radio. He lived in Pasadena, California. His messages are still aired around the world today.
2 Charles E. Fuller (1887-1968) became the director of The Old Fashioned Revival Hour on radio.
3 Worldwide Church of God sold the Ambassador College Big Sandy campus to Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. in March 2000, who then leased the campus to Bill Gothard, president of Institute in Basic Life Principles (IBLP). Gothard bought all the property in the buildings. (Calvary Contender, May 15, 2000) For an in-depth exposé on Bill Gothard and his pharisaical, cultic "system," read: Bill Gothard. UPDATE: Bill Gothard resigned from his organization in 2014 after allegations of rampant sexual harassment.
4 The "degree" that students received from Ambassador College after graduation was virtually worthless in the real world.
5 This statement is part of HWA's double-talk because AC was set up basically to train young men to become ministers in the Worldwide Church of God.
9 Confusion is always a part of mind control in cults.
10 The Nicene Creed was the first written creed of the Church. In it the Church confesses that Christ is "very God of very God: begotten, not created; co-substantial with the Father." Athanasius defeated Arianism, which stated that Jesus was only a created Being. Athanasius said that Jesus was God. (Also see: Jesus Two Natures)
12 D. L. Moody (1837–1899). Many feel he was the greatest evangelist in the history of the New Testament church. Within a 40-year period he won one million souls, founded three Christian schools, and inspired literally thousands of preachers.
13 G. Campbell Morgan (1863-1945) was born in Tetbury, England; was a Bible teacher and pastored many churches, including Westminster Chapel in London.
16 Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer (1871-1952) was a Bible teacher, author and lecturer; president and founder of Dallas Theological Seminary (originally, the Evangelical Theological College) in 1924. His emphasis was on the centrality of Christ and the grace of God. Update: Today Dallas Theological Seminary is a New-Evangelical institution, promotes Spiritual Formation, Progressive Dispensationalism, and takes no firm stand against liberal views of the Bible.
17 HWA's beliefs were indeed an eclectic mixture, since he plagiarized much of his doctrines from other religious cults, and then added his own spin. Read ESN's critical review of HWA's book Mystery of the Ages.
18 This article is not found in the 1963 GN online (also page 1 appears to be missing); therefore, we do not know which publication Dr. McGee was referring to, or if something was removed. But HWA proclaimed, "Christ, the person, is not the gospel!" and, "it is necessary to believe that precise identical gospel in order to be saved!" (Ambassador College Bible Correspondence Course, Lesson 18, "What is the True Gospel?").
19 The automobile accident happened in July 1958. Richard was 30 years old.
20 Roman Catholicism.
21 Alton Billingsley (also known as Don Billingsley), long time WCG minister (disfellowshipped in 1995) was the driver of the car Richard Armstrong was in when the accident happened. Today Billingsley is head of Church of God, Faithful Flock, Modesto, California, a controlling, deceitful group that holds to "God's government." Billingsley states that Herbert Armstrong was the "last apostle" and the "Elijah to come." He teaches that he (Billingsley) has preserved all of HWA's "restored doctrines" and that the other HWA splinter groups are "God's true people" but were scattered by God after HWA's death. COG FF publishes The Philadelphia Remnant. More info: Billingsley was previously with Church of God, Established in Modesto (EIM), with Steven LeBlanc, which airs a radio program called "World Watch Today." Before COG, EIM, Billingsley was with United Church of God and then Church of God, An International Community (David Hulme).
22 ESN's critical reviewer of Mystery of the Ages tells us that the Lost Ten Tribes actually ended up in Armenia, Greece, Macedonia, Ethiopia--just about everywhere but Europe. In spite of legends concerning Paul "going to England," Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles, which should show that England was a Gentile country. Read: Where Are the Tribes of Israel Located? (A Critique of Herman Hoeh's Article).