In Chapter 4, Bishop Titcomb begins laying the scriptural basis for British Israelism. He reminds us the Mosaic covenant was a nigh interruption between the Abrahamic and Messianic, and we shouldn’t be too distracted by it, “In other words, although the Mosaic Law intervened, yet there was no break between the Abrahamic covenant and the Messianic.” (p. 24) Starting with elements of promise given to Abraham, Titcomb divides the chapter into three parts: “the seed”, the ‘nation’, and the ‘land’, explaining each.
The 61st chapter of Isaiah was the first lesson for our Saturday Morning Prayer as set by the American Prayer Book’s 1943 lectionary. Within this OT chapter was a number of verses describing the blessings of the coming Restoration. To help clarify these select passages. the NT reading was given as Luke 4. Here, the Lord reads the same chapter of Isaiah to the Nazarite synagogue, ending at the third verse (‘the accepted day of God’). Jesus then closes the scroll and declares, “Today this scripture has been fulfilled”. Consequently, I’d like to understand this prophecy in the context of Luke, meaning it speaking of the believing Jews around Christ rather than omitting such solely in favor of a latter-day revelation of Lost Israel. This was standard fare in the late 18th-century. Continue reading “Isaiah 61:4-9 “ye shall have double””
Ran across these verses from the book of Micah while keeping up with the select readings from the 1943 American BCP lectionary. Comments from Benson and Scott communicate basic Restorationist views or the mindset of Evangelicals of their age. What I find interesting are three things: 1) there’s no reason why Lost Israel isn’t converted with Gentiles; 2) there’s no hesitancy to identify the catholik church with Zion, and 3) there’s a strong expectation that Jewry will rejoin Israel or the Church toward the latter-days (what a detractor might call Zionist-Masonry or what I see in quarters of Ulster nationalism). The verse from the American Standard Version reads: Continue reading “Micah 5:3 “children of Israel””
This is a fourth post in a series on Bishop Jon Holt Titcomb’s evidence for British Israelism. His pamphlet is not only an argument for BI but also a defense of its methodology. Chapter 3 of his book, Message From the 19th-Century, now introduces the point that contemporary events may clarify Scripture’s prophecy regarding the fulfillment of Promises. Continue reading “Rt. Rev. Titcomb: From the 19th Century. Chapter 3”
The Rev. William Smith, first provost of the College of Philadelphia and founder of the settlement of Huntingdon in Pennsylvania, was an American episcopalian and advocate of Westward expansion into the Ohio Valley during the colonial and revolutionary eras. Dr. Smith was fascinated by America’s role in bible prophecy. Since Identity students often treat the “Isles Afar” as referring to the British Nation, the Rev. Smith’s learned insights on the same phrase is worthwhile to mention. There is also a related question regarding what constitutes, in terms of geographic boundaries, ‘the world’. Here, Smith also offers sound thoughts. The quotes below are taken from Smith’s 1760 Sermon addressing Christian Education, delivered to the Society for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge. Continue reading “Rev. William Smith: “Isles Afar””
This is a third entry in a series on Bishop Titcomb’s probable evidence for British Israelism. Chapter 2 of his book, Message From the 19th-Century, posits unfulfilled promises given to Abraham, Isaac, and Israel as confirmed in both the Old and New Testament. These promises, according to Titcomb, belong to the latter Messianic dispensation. Continue reading “Rt. Rev. Titcomb: From the 19th-Century. Chapter 2”
A curious reading of Esay. 7:14-16 was found upon considering the perpetuity of a Davidic line with Britain. As we might recall, the Rt. Rev. Jon Titcomb essentially rejected this view as too conjectural, requiring more belief in Legend than Scripture. So no Messiah is mistaken other than Jesus, Dr. Adam Clarke dislikes a secondary rendering. However, Mr. Joseph Benson is less restrictive, admitting with other 18th-century commentators a verse which speaks of two figures– the Christ-child, born of Mary, but also the son of Isaiah, leaving his infancy during Ahaz’s reign. Other commentators like Thomas Scott invite a double-meaning but leave more mystery. In so far as Clarke’s estimates David’s progeny extinct by reason of their diffusion among late-Jewry applicable, we may dismiss Clarke’s more rigid reckoning.