Exploring Anglo-Israelism, Part 1: Seven Times Curse

This is first of a series of articles in response to a particular issue discussed in a book called Preach the Gospel. This issue is British Israelism. This is the doctrine or belief that the British nation together with its Commonwealth of Nations and the United States constitute the lost ten tribes of Israel (of at least a portion thereof). This is an intriguing proposition, but I have some reservations about accepting this teaching. I have only read the first chapter of the book, so the author may have already addressed some of these reservations.

The first issue is the prophecy of the 2520 years. The author mentioned that it had to do with the “seven times curse” mentioned in Leviticus 26:14-39. 2520 = 360 x 7. But where does the 360 come from? Ezekiel 4:5 says that the punishment for Israel is 390 days (the fact that days symbolize years is clearly explained in the context), not 360. This adds an extra 210 years, which (if you count from 720 B.C. as Mr. Armstrong suggests), puts the fulfillment of the prophecy at about right now!

OK, I know how another assumption goes into this, but I’m skeptical because I think that the above interpretation may be equally valid. The extra assumption is that first, God will decree a certain number of years of punishment (captivity—note the transition between verses 17 and 18 in Leviticus 26), God will bring them back into the land (?), and then if Israel does not repent, then the REMAINING years of the decreed punishment will be multiplied by seven. The other assumption is that the punishment for Israel (390 years) and Judah (40 years) are lumped together in the calculation. (The significance of the figure 430 years is that this was the period of time that the Israelites were enslaved in Egypt.) So, since the Babylonian captivity was seventy years (2 Chronicles 36:21, Daniel 9:2), we have 430-70 = 360. So that is, I think, how Mr. Armstrong arrived at the answer, but it took me a while to figure this out. To me, it wasn’t the most natural interpretation of the prophecy. I wouldn’t have even thought of it if hadn’t been for a third interpretation which I have heard of.

This third interpretation of the prophecy is even more intriguing to me. This one is attributed to television evangelist/eschatologist Grant Jeffrey. Like Armstrong’s interpretation, Jeffrey lumps the 390 and 40 years together and subtracts 70. But unlike Armstrong, Jeffrey counts off the 2520 years starting at the RETURN of the Judahites from the Babylonian captivity, not the time that the northern kingdom of Israel entered into captivity. There is also another big difference. Jeffrey uses a 360 day year in his calculation. So you must multiply 2520 by 360 and count off the number of days. Jeffrey claims that if you do this, the date comes out to be May 15, 1948 which is the EXACT DAY that the modern state of Israel of gained its independence and became a nation again. I haven’t done the necessary research to verify the exactness of this calculation, but it is at least correct to within a year.

I think that this interpretation, though it is hard to arrive at, is much more compelling than Mr. Armstrong’s (if it is in fact, really that accurate). It also seems to make more sense. Why would you subtract 70 years (606-536 B.C.) from the 430, and then go back and start counting the remaining years (times seven) at 720 B.C.? You are then recounting Judahite captivity years again! The Jehovah’s Witnesses believe the same thing, but they count from 606 B.C. to get 1914.

Secondly, the prophecy in Leviticus 26:14-39 clearly indicates that the “seven times punishment” would occur after a period of punishment. Notice that it says “they that hate you shall reign over you” as being part of the punishment. Though England became prominent in the early 1800s, they were not ruled over by peoples that hated them up until that time the way that the Israelites were up until the time that the modern Israelite nation was reborn.

Thirdly, prophecies concerning this national rebirth are much more prominent in Scripture than any prophecy concerning other nations coming from Ephraim or Manasseh. These prophecies state that the people would return to the land God promised them which is modern day Israel.

Fourthly, the obvious connection to the 430 years of bondage in Egypt fits more with those who are widely accepted as descendents of Israel, not the Anglo-Saxons. Armstrong’s interpretation has no exactness to it that I can see, but even the exactness of the prophecy has significance with the figure 430. Exodus 12:40-41 indicates that 430 years is an exact figure to the very day. Also the fact that the 430 years ended with a return to the land of Canaan fits with Jeffery’s interpretation better than Armstrong’s, because the British did not move back to Israel at that time.

In conclusion, even as good as Jeffrey’s interpretation is, I am still skeptical even of it. Part of it is based on the idea of a 30 day month and 12 month year. But I thought that a month was a cycle of the moon (not quite 30 days) and that the extra days were lumped into a thirteenth month, so that a year was more or less an exact year, not 360 days. (But I’m willing to be proven wrong about this.) Without this assumption, you get 1985 instead of 1948. And as I have said, I haven’t yet verified the exactness of the prophecy. Neither of the two interpretations explain why the 430 is divided up into 390 for Israel and 40 for Judah. It seems more logical that it would be divided up into 360 and 70, even though 40 is a number that is quite often associated with punishment. (But I similarly don’t know why the first 69 of the seventy weeks of Daniel 9:20-27 are divided up into 7 and 62 either.) It also seems more logical that the two figures would represent separate (conditional) punishments for each group and that the multiplication by seven would be of each of the two figures separately. And the idea that the intensity of the punishment, rather than the length, is what is being multiplied also seems like a more natural interpretation. Finally, even if Jeffrey’s interpretation of this prophecy is right, that doesn’t necessarily disprove British-Israelism. But with so many valid interpretations of a prophecy, it seems like it has much less apologetic value than more straightforward prophecies, such as those which plainly state a return to Israel and rebirth of the nation. Take everything with a grain of salt. The series continues here.