Understanding the Weight of Proof and Evidence
The criteria that Western society uses in this post-Enlightenment era stipulates that we should scientifically validate all that we consider truth or fact. Critics of Anglo-Israelism have fallen victim to this historical-critical method that mandates that only the scientifically proved should be believed.
Such a methodology effectively eliminates faith as a factor in the equation. By these standards — and reminiscent of the worldly Pontius Pilate’s musing, “What is truth?” (John 18:38) — absolutely certain truth is a rare commodity in the human sphere. Anglican clergyman Lesslie Newbigin’s discussion of “reigning plausibility structures” is helpful in revealing how the criteria for defining truth in any age is actually an evolving set of standards (The Gospel in a Pluralist Society, pp. 1-11, 16-39, 68-69, 112-113, 199). Newbigin effectively shows how any received opinion — that which is accepted in society as truth without having to bear the burden of proof — is eternally subject to its own peculiar flaws and weaknesses.
Every set of standards used to measure and evaluate truth is based on certain a priori assumptions that are themselves vulnerable to scientific probe and challenge. As standards, values, and attitudes evolve over the course of time, received opinion will always be something of a moving target.
This kind of subjectivity presents anyone seeking to locate the origins of the Anglo- Saxons with a very difficult if not impossible task. Any honest searcher quickly discovers that it is an enormously difficult task to search for and then establish clear, incontrovertible historical evidence to support many aspects of the Anglo-Israel position.
A missing millennium plus
Clearly ancient Israel disappears as a national-political entity from the historical record in the 8th century B.C.E. Then the Anglo-Saxons appear from out of nowhere on the Northwestern European coastlands around the 5th century C.E. Nearly 1,200 years separate these two historical facts. The Anglo-Saxons were part of the Germanic tribes — a group of vigorous, ethnically similar, and largely illiterate people along the northeastern borders of the 4th-6th century C.E. Roman Empire. The Romans generally considered them as barbarians.
The Anglo-Saxons were among these peoples who migrated toward and eventually into Europe during the obscure period between the disappearance of Israel and the settlement of the Northwest European coastal regions ... but very little historical evidence has survived to document their movements.
Sidebar: A Curtain Across English History
Scholars are hampered in answering questions about “who the Germans were because the Germans left no written records prior to their conversion to mainstream Christianity [generally dating from the conversion of Frankish king Clovis, c. 498]... Our knowledge of the Germans depends largely on information in records written in the sixth and seventh centuries and projected backward” (McKay, et. al., History of Western Society, 3rd ed., pp. 210, 212-214).
Significantly, authority on early-British history James Campbell entitles his chapter on the period C.E. 400-600 “The Lost Centuries.” Concerning the archaeological record of this era, he writes: “[I]f in some ways we know very much less of the fifth and sixth centuries than we do of later periods, in others we know more... [However,] those who wish for certainty in history and who like to feel the ground firmly under their feet are best advised to study some other period. For those who care to venture into a quagmire, the archaeological evidence, and the truly remarkable intellectual effort of archaeologists to make sense of it, are of basic importance” (The Anglo-Saxons, pp. 27, 29).
Thus it is that the period of Anglo-Saxon settlement truly constitutes the lost centuries of British history. Renowned historian, Lord Macaulay writes: “[F]rom this communion [with comparatively cultured Western Continental kingdoms still in contact with the old Eastern or Byzantine Empire] Britain was cut off. Her shores were, to the polished race which dwelt by the Bosporus, objects of mysterious horrors... Concerning all the other provinces of the Western Empire we have continuous information.
“It is only in Britain that an age of fable completely separates two ages of truth. Odoacer and Totila, Euric and Thrasimund, Clovis, Fredergunda and Brunechild, are historical men and women. But Hengist and Horsa, Vertigern and Rowena, Arthur and Mordred are mythical persons, whose very existence may be questioned, and whose adventures must be classed with those of Hercules and Romulus. At length the darkness begins to break; and the country which had been lost to view as Britain reappears as England” (The History of England: From the Accession of James the Second, vol. 1, pp. 6, 10-11).
Sir Frank Stenton observed in his volume about Anglo-Saxon England: “...There stretches a long period of which the history cannot be written. The men who played their parts in this obscurity are forgotten, or are little more than names with which the imagination of later centuries has dealt at will.”
The course of events may be indicative, but is certainly not revealed, by the isolated coincidental references to Britain made by writers of this or the following age. For the first time in five centuries Britain was out of touch with the Continent... Archaeological discoveries have shown that permanent English settlements were founded in Britain during, if not before, the last quarter of the fifth century [tradition places the Saxon arrival in Britain between C.E. 446-454].
But archaeological evidence is an unsatisfactory basis for absolute chronology, and even if the British traditions may be trusted, they do not indicate the rate at which events moved between the coming of the Saxons and the establishment of permanent Kingdoms... The early history of these nations [Saxons and Angles] is enveloped in the obscurity which overhangs all Germany in the age of national migration...
For the next two hundred years the Germanic nations were involved in a movement which carried them to distant seats, created new confederacies which caused the adoption of new racial names... It is only an imperfect story which can be recovered from these [fragmentary comments of Roman writers or poems], and there are irrecoverable passages of crucial importance in the early history of the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes. Of these nations the Saxons are the least obscure... [Ptolemy] places them on the neck of the Cimbric peninsula, in the modern Holstein” (pp. 1-2, 11).
Little wonder that Winston Churchill, in Island Race, concisely notes that in the 5th century C.E., a curtain is drawn again across English history. “Thereafter the darkness closes in” (p. 8). And so, the trail connecting the Israelites to the Anglo- Saxons is viewed as unreliable by some observers, and the information about migration of peoples from the Middle East into Europe quite sketchy.
Archaeological evidence not conclusive
To assertively maintain the British-Israel case based on archaeological evidence alone is very precarious. Moreover, such evidence provides us with a sword that cuts both ways. To present that evidence as though it provides an “open-and-shut” case for a particular point of view creates an illusion of certainty that is lacking in substance. The average layman may be easily bedazzled by unqualified assertions which insist that history unfolded in a certain way and archaeology “proves” it.
In fact, archaeology speaks with many voices. Indeed, it is one of the most subjective disciplines of all the social sciences. As an academic discipline it is, in its interpretive dimensions, far more artistic than scientific. A single find can overturn paradigms — interpretive perspectives — that have held the field for decades. As with all history of antiquity, the scarcity of records makes the interpretation of evidence particularly susceptible to revision.
Furious debates rage as to what many of the most significant finds of biblical archaeology really mean. This is little wonder given the incompleteness of the archaeological record. We would do well to realize that many of the scholars and archaeologists who would ridicule the idea of British-Israelism on archaeological grounds are the same individuals who use their craft to insist that there were no early patriarchs like Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob — that these were merely literary creations of an ancient world people in need of pedigree; that there were no 12 sons of Jacob, let alone an Israel in more modern times.
Further, many of today’s most celebrated liberal theologians and teachers of biblical studies believe that there was no Exodus out of Egypt (Exodus 12-15) or conquest of the promised land as described in the book of Joshua. Some on the extreme edge of the critical school even argue that there was not any historical Israel before the time of King David in the 11th century B.C.E.
Where archaeology helps
Nevertheless, archaeology does yield evidence that can be employed (on either side of the argument, of course). It is found in the Middle East, the British Isles, and somewhat tentatively at various points in-between. Some recent work presents a case that the Anglo- Saxons were not the wild-eyed savages they are traditionally portrayed to be. They seem to have had strong cultural links with the people who had inhabited Britain in Roman days. Writing in Blood of the British: From Ice Age to Norman Conquest (1986), Catherine Hills shows continuity in the settlement of the British Isles, ranging from Megalithic to Norman times. She concludes: “Archaeology does provide a great deal of information about the past, and we do know more than we used to. But the answers aren’t always obvious, and we sometimes have to rid ourselves of preconceptions in order to arrive at them. One of those preconceptions is that all change equals invasion, or, conversely, that all invasions equal change...
“Could some of the ‘Saxons’ really have been Britons? Or were there a lot of Britons still living in England who have left little or no traces? Neither of these ideas is unreasonable, but neither is easy to demonstrate.”
Such a proposition conforms markedly to the traditional Anglo-Israel hypothesis that more than a single wave of Israelitish people settled the British Isles over a lengthy span of time.
Nonetheless, based on known existing records, identification of the Anglo-Saxons as Israelites is impossible to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt. Were these difficulties not so formidable, some enterprising scholar, through use of the historical method, would have proven the identity of Israel and consequently made his career and reputation long ago. Indeed, even Scripture itself implies that God intended Israel to be lost from the view of man (2 Kings 17:18, 20).
Weighing proof and evidence
If we are to present the argument by modern scholarly standards, we must maintain a distinction between compelling proof and cogent evidence. In other words, we can make use of evidence — simply at different levels of credibility:
· Beyond reasonable doubt: No other conclusion can be considered likely.
· Preponderance of evidence: Such evidence as, when weighed against that opposed to it, has more convincing force and thus a greater probability of truth.
· Clear and convincing evidence: More than a preponderance but not proven beyond reasonable doubt.
· Tangible evidence: Material remains which are comparatively easy to interpret, e.g., archaeological finds like the Rosetta Stone, the Behisthun Inscription, or Shalmaneser’s Black Obelisk.
· Circumstantial evidence: Proven facts that provide a basis of inference that other facts are true.
Given the limitations of the tangible historical evidence, the best we can hope for is a measure of credibility and acceptance in the world of scholarship.
But the ordinary person, with a fair measure of common sense, is more easily moved to apply faith in understanding what little perceived historical evidence comes to hand. Did not Christ say, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and prudent and have revealed them to babes”? (Matthew 11:25).
The identity of the post-captivity 10 tribes of Israel may lack the evidence to be conclusively proven (beyond the shadow of a doubt), but it can not be disproved by history, archaeology, or any other academic discipline. There is evidence in support of those who wish to believe and evidence to the contrary for those who do not.
Grasping the weight of biblical evidence
While there are primary resources that buttress our case, the most significant primary resource is the Bible itself. Do the Scriptures support the idea that the Anglo- Saxon/Celtic peoples are descended from Israel? How strongly and what are the consequences?
In fact, without the Bible, there would be little basis or even need for this idea. If the identification of ancient Israel with today’s Anglo-American nations rest on a firm biblical framework, the historical evidence seen in proper perspective can be presented accordingly. Ultimately, our judgment on the matter will stand or fall according to the way we understand and apply Scripture.
We stand at the end of a millennia-long succession of generations, each striving to understand Bible prophecy in the context of the existing times. The British-Israel view is one way in which the indisputable facts of recent world history — a story about the extraordinary ascendancy and dominance of the Anglo-American people — can be arranged to make sense of our contemporary circumstance.
Such an arrangement adds a powerful dimension of relevance of the story of 19th and 20th century history. How do we justify this extraordinary interpretation of the Bible as applied to past events?
The crux of this issue is whether or not God inspires Christians to have an enlarged understanding of Scripture (e.g., Daniel 10-11; Luke 24:25-27) and His will (2 Samuel 7:1- 17; Acts 8:29; 11:12); whether He continues, as He did in Old and New Testament accounts, to be involved in human affairs (compare Psalm 75:6-7; Daniel 4:25; 32; 2Corinthians 2:12); or whether the prophecies of the Hebrew Scriptures were all fulfilled by either ancient Israel or Jesus Christ.
Our point of departure must rest on a single, fundamental concept well-articulated in a booklet entitled Introduction to Prophecy: “The fact remains the historical record is at best sketchy and inconclusive. But the tribes can be located — if we use the clues and signposts of the Bible itself. What happened to the people of ancient Israel is one of the little understood aspects of history. It is vital to know who they are, if you want to make sense of the prophecies of the ‘latter days.’ There is some fragmentary evidence in history, but the proof [emphasis theirs] is in prophecy.”
We will find the answers we seek in the prophetic retrospect (studying the past) and prophetic prospect (inquiring about the future).
Which nations best fulfill the Genesis prophecies?
In retrospect as we question the past, we must ask a series of crucial questions:
· What do the prophecies given by the patriarch Jacob and recorded in Genesis 48 and 49 mean?
· Who among today’s nations best fulfills the incredible predictions relevant to the physical, national blessings and inheritance promised to Abraham’s descendants?
· If Israel still exists (compare Amos 9:9), what are we to make of the prophecies yet unfulfilled about a coming punishment on Israelitish people for their sins — and on a far more encouraging note, a re- gathering and reunion of the tribes in the land of promise? (e.g., Isaiah 11:1-12; 48:20-21; Jeremiah 16:14-15; 23:7-8; 31:7-11; 33:7). Certainly these questions are important ones. The way they were answered in the past has raised serious challenges. Not the least of these comes from National Endowment for the Humanities award-winning American historian, Barbara Tuchman. She describes the methodology of the Anglo-Israel movement as “a tortured interpretation of stray passages from the Bible [by which believers] have convinced themselves that the English are the true descendants of the 10 lost tribes of Israel” (Bible and Sword: England and Palestine from the Bronze Age to Balfour, p. 82). Ironically, Tuchman’s own unique way of presenting Anglo-American and European history provides us with some of the most compelling evidence to suggest that God’s hand has been active in delivering the Abrahamic promises to the British and American people.
At issue, of course, are two matters far larger than Israel’s modern identity: (1) the nature of God’s calling (John 6:44, 65) and (2) divine revelation (Amos 3:7). Does God’s Holy Spirit open the human mind to prophetic insight?
Jesus Christ answers that when “the Spirit of truth” would come, it would “guide you into all truth” and “tell you things to come” (John 16:13).
Understanding the outcome of prophecy subsequently becomes more a matter of faith than mental capacity or intelligence quotient. Understanding and belief become products of something orchestrated by God in the individual human mind — a matter of the revelation of knowledge which, by ordinary physical human means, could not otherwise be fully grasped or comprehended.
God reveals prophetic truth
Are there times when God reveals future events to his earthly servants today? If we take the Bible at face value, this seems to be the case. Certainly God is able to foretell the future. Speaking through the prophet Isaiah, He says: “Remember the former things of old, for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like Me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things that are not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will do all My pleasure’”(46:9-10).
The prophet Daniel forecast a time when knowledge and the truth of God — including the meaning of many heretofore obscure or sealed prophecies — would increase (Daniel 12:1-2, 4, 10). As the end of the age approaches, this passage suggests that God will reveal various aspects of prophecy to His people. The communications revolution created by the opening of Internet and the worldwide web, not to mention the accompanying proliferation of home computers, gives us some inkling of how Daniel’s predictions might be fulfilled.
The prophet Amos indicates that those called by God will have a special insight into how the future will unfold — “Surely the Lord God does nothing, unless He reveals His secret to His servants the prophets” (Amos 3:7). Jesus Christ Himself declared “No longer do I call you [specifically His 1st century apostles, but by extension Christians through all times] servants, for a servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all things that I heard from My Father I have made known to you” (John 15:15).
Nearly 3000 years later Herbert W. Armstrong elaborated on this general concept, writing: “He [God] foretold what would, through the years, happen to these cities and nations [of Middle Eastern antiquity]! In every instance the prophecies that were then to be fulfilled came to pass on Babylon, Tyre, Sidon, Ashkelon, Ashdod, Ekron, Egypt, Assyria, Chaldea, Persia, Greece and Rome. There has not been a miss! Those prophecies were accurate.
“And now, in other prophecies, the same supreme God has foretold precisely what is going to happen to the United States, the British nations, Western Europe, the Middle East, the Soviet Union [sic]... . Great world powers of our time have been, and are, the United States, the Soviet Union [sic], Great Britain, Germany, France, and other Western European nations” (United States and Britain in Prophecy, p. ix, 2).
If the Hebrew prophets do not specifically mention most modern nations in their writings, details about modern events and today’s nation-states nevertheless may well be described in many Old and New Testament prophecies. This can clearly be the case when one understands and applies the interpretive principles of duality and forerunners. Herbert Armstrong observed: “Few have realized it but a duality runs all the way through the plan of God [emphasis ours] in working out His purpose here below” (op. cit., p. 17). The apostle Paul writes of a first and second Adam — the physical human created in the Garden of Eden by God (Genesis 1:26, 2:7, 19) and Jesus Christ, the quickening spirit (1Corinthians 15:22, 45).
As there was a Babylon in ancient times — the capital of the Nebuchadnezzar’s world ruling empire (Daniel 2:1, 31, 37) — so there is a spiritual Babylon prophesied in the Book of Revelation (17:1-6; 18:1-4). In similar fashion, the congregation of ancient Israel in the wilderness was a physical type of spiritual Israel or the New Testament Church of God (Romans 2:29).
God’s Holy Day plan
One facet of the insight brought by the principle of duality relates to the Church’s unique understanding of the meaning of God’s holy days described in Leviticus chapter 23 and other passages in the Pentateuch. Those special days provide us with a blueprint of the “master plan” of God. Christians better understand Christ’s role as the sacrificial Lamb of God (John 1:29, 36; Revelation 5:8) by examining the ceremonies tied to the sacrifice of Passover lambs among the ancient Israelites (Exodus 12:1-14).
The painstaking removal of physical leavening from the home each spring (Exodus 12:8-39) dramatically underscores the Christian’s need to forsake sin (1Corinthians 5:7-8). The wave sheaf offering and harvest at Pentecost enlarges our understanding about the founding of the New Testament Church (Acts 2) and the concept of firstfruits (e.g., Romans 8:23; 11:16).
The Feast of Trumpets (Leviticus 23:23-25) illuminates prophecies about end time war, tribulation, the resurrection of the just and the ultimate return of Jesus Christ (1Corinthians 15:52-54; 1Thessalonians 4:16-17). The two goats of Atonement (Leviticus 16:1-28) reveal aspects of the story of the Christ-sacrifice and the binding of Satan just prior to Christ’s thousand-year reign (Revelation 20:2-3, 7).
The Feast of Tabernacles (Leviticus 23:34-43) gives us a glimpse into the Millennial reign of Christ on earth (Revelation 20:4, 6), and the Last Great Day (Leviticus 23:36, 39) resolves the dilemma of how God will eventually extend salvation to the billions never called in the age between Adam’s sin and the Second Coming (e.g., Matthew 12:41-42; Revelation 20:11-12).
Each respective festival season and holy day portrays something special in the master plan of God.
If the principle of duality magnifies our appreciation of God’s Holy Days, it also shows how predictions, written by prophets of antiquity for people of old, can have a double and quite modern application. It gives us the confidence that God will act today as He has acted in the past.
Indeed, many prophecies, as well as biblical stories like those of Abraham or Joseph, foreshadow the future. Thus, the principle of duality makes possible a variety of complimentary interpretive frameworks (or legitimate ways of understanding and applying Scripture).
This principle can also diffuse some of the concerns often raised about the physical, national promises inherited by the descendants of Abraham. Some critics of British-Israelism challenge the idea that these promises were not fulfilled until modern times. They often explain that Scripture abounds with references in the promises to Abraham that the patriarch’s descendants would become as the dust of the earth (Genesis 13:16), the sand on the seashore (Genesis 22:17; 28:14), and the stars of the heavens (Genesis 15:5; 22:17 — compare Deuteronomy 10:22; 28:62).
Many modern commentators vigorously contend that these very promises were fulfilled in Old Testament times. Numerous verses appear to buttress their argument. In Moses’ departing message to Israel about to cross the Jordan River and enter the Promised Land (Deuteronomy 1), the leader of the Exodus declared: “The Lord your God has multiplied you, and here you are today, as the stars of heaven in multitude” (Deuteronomy 1:10).
Commenting on the conditions prevailing in Solomon’s Israel, the narrator of 1 Kings wrote: “Judah and Israel were as numerous as the sand by the sea in multitude, eating and drinking and rejoicing” (1 Kings 4:20). King Solomon himself added to these assertions: “Now, O Lord God, let Your promise to David my father be established, for You have made me king over a people like the dust of the earth in multitude” (2 Chronicles 1:9).
These passages appear to undermine the idea that the promise to Abraham of a multitude of descendants remained unfulfilled throughout ancient times. There are ways, however, to resolve these apparent difficulties through the use of Scripture itself. But we have to remember the basic biblical principle of understanding a passage in its proper context. One needs only to continue reading the passage in Deuteronomy 1. Moses continued his thought with the prophetic charge, “May the Lord God of your fathers make you a thousand times more numerous than you are, and bless you as He has promised you” (verse 11). There is double and even triple entendre in the bequeathing of blessings from God and the fulfillment of many prophecies found in the Hebrew Scriptures.
History forecasts things to come
The Bible abounds with forerunners which cast a revealing shadow of events yet to come. At one level, the Birthright blessing was inherited by those Israelites who crossed over the Jordan River and occupied the Promised Land. Hebrews 4:3-11 is rich in illustrating that both the Sabbath day and ancient Israel’s occupation of Canaan under Joshua are forerunners of a future establishment of the Kingdom of God on earth. Passages like Deuteronomy 1:10-11 demonstrate how this kind of duality — the successive unfolding of one antetype after another — operates as well. It would be nearly four centuries after Joshua’s initial late-15th century B.C.E. occupation of the Promised Land (Joshua 10:40; 11:23) that Israel would finally fill and dominate Canaan (note Joshua 13:1).
It took no less than David’s personal and political savoir faire to bring unity to these Israelites (2 Samuel 2:4, 5:1-5) who had battled the centrifugal forces of tribalism off and on since Moses had led Israel to Canaan’s borders.
However, the unity that David brought to the whole nation of Israel was a picture of something far greater yet to come. The rule of David and Solomon in the 11th-10th centuries B.C.E. was a forerunner or antetype of Christ’s thousand-year reign over all the earth (Revelation 20:4, 6). Consider how King Solomon’s reign is summed up in the Bible. “And Judah and Israel dwelt safely, each man under his vine and his fig tree, from Dan as far as Beersheba, all the days of Solomon” (1 Kings 4:25).
Prophecy reveals that the Millennium will be the time of the quintessential reunion of the 12 tribes of Israel (Ezekiel 37:19, 22) — a prophetic event forecast during the Davidic-Solomonic era (United States and Britain in Prophecy, pp. 59, 93, 122, 184). At that future point in history, all the Israelite tribes will flourish as never before (e.g., Jeremiah 30:9, Ezekiel 37:24-25). The epoch of the 11th-10th century B C. United Monarchy was but an imperfect forerunner.
Biblical scholar Eugene Merrill describes the fragility of the 12-tribed union even under David’s adroit political leadership: “Once a modicum of unity had been achieved, David was able to centralize government in Jerusalem without sacrificing local tribal distinctions and interests. At best, however, this was a loose federation, for up till the last years of his life David had to struggle with the tendency toward fragmentation, especially between Judah and the north...
“The success of his early wars... attests to his ability to organize the nation, at least on a temporary basis... By the time of David’s death... the old tribal distinctions still existed, but with David there had come at least a sense of national unity in both secular and spiritual affairs.
“The United Monarchy disintegrated within one generation following David’s death. That breakup testifies to the tentative character of this union” (Kingdom of Priests: A History of Old Testament Israel, 1987, pp. 281-284 — see also the Soncino commentary on “Samuel,” pp. x-xi).
The important principle of duality
The success achieved during Israel’s Golden Age under David and Solomon is itself a forerunner of the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Promise to Israel. It is not, however, the greatest fulfillment. One of the most convincing testimonies to this fact is found in 2 Samuel 7:10 and 1 Chronicles 17:9 — ”... I will appoint a place for My people Israel, and will plant them, that they may dwell in a place of their own and move no more.” Concerning this prediction, Herbert W. Armstrong wrote: “The prophecy was for  David’s own time, for  the ultimate fulfillment in the time of the Millennium to come, and also  for a different time in a different land where these scattered Israelites were to gather, after being removed from the Holy Land, and while that land was lying idle and in possession of the Gentiles.”
The Millennial fulfillment to which he refers will see “an era that will far surpass (in grandeur and magnificence) even the reign of King Solomon” (United States and Britain in Prophecy, pp. 59, 93, 122, 184).
To expand somewhat on this quotation, a fulfillment of the promise of Abraham’s inheritance came around 2,520 years after the inhabitants of Israel’s northern kingdom went into Assyrian captivity (see Chapter 6). The ultimate fulfillment will, of course, be realized during the Millennial reign of Jesus Christ. All fulfillments of the promises to Abraham that precede the Second Coming are antetypes or forerunners which show us the pattern we can expect to see under the rule of Christ (Isaiah 11:9).
Since the Millennial realization of the promise is the grandest fulfillment, our concerns in this paper focus on a lesser yet important fulfillment — probably the penultimate one — between the days of Solomon and the return of Jesus Christ. To fully explore that story, we must address the issue of the “Lost 10 Tribes” in more detail.