The Kings of the East

British India: Colour Party of the 15th Sikhs

IV. Britain extends her Eastern possessions westward, prevents the immediate occupation of Judea by Russia, and initiates its colonization by the Jews.

‘The many and severe wars which our country has had to sustain, in order to preserve her Eastern territories, have by many been considered as too dear payment for their possession. We do not here however, enter on this question, but beg to inform such, that a far higher purpose than commercial interest or extended empire is to be served by the presence of the British power in the East. So far, indeed, as she herself is concerned, this may have been the real aim; and now that she is in possession, the commercial advantages which accrue from them will be a sufficient incitement to their retention. To preserve the East India market, and keep a path open to it, Britain will strive much and do much; but while her rulers may think they are merely serving the nation, they are really accomplishing one of the grand designs of God, and evolving events, while they cause her to take measures for the preservation of this distant part of her empire, will really and only produce occurrences which will facilitate the great design of Jehovah. Both God and Britain had a special design in the annexation of the Indian territory to the lion power, but these designs were as different in nature and object as the finite is from the infinite. While Britain thought only of wealth and conquest, God thought of his ancient people, and of his covenant, and placed the British Lion in the East to prepare a way for his ransomed, and to become their protection in the infancy of their restoration. Such is God's design, and he has enlisted the energy of the Anglo-Saxons in its accomplishment, by making it their interest to bring it to pass. The value of these lands to the nation is the inducement he has given it to retain them at all risks; and one means of their retention, which will by-and-bye become very obvious, will be to do that which will tend to introduce the accomplishment of Jehovah's long promised purpose — the restoration of the Jews. The idea has long been held, by those few who do believe in a restoration, that it must be preceded by a conversion. This is erroneous. The Jews, to some extent, will return to their own land as faithless in Jesus as the Christ as when they left it. . . .

‘It is needless, therefore, to look for the conversion of Israel as an indication of the coming of the latter days. It is the preadventural partial colonization of Judea that becomes an evidence of this; and we can imagine with what surprise the conversion-theorists will witness the approaching colonization of the land of Israel by its former inhabitants. . . . [The Jews will] be colonized [again] there, and . . . Britain [will] become the principal agent in the work . . . .’

(From: The Coming Struggle Among the Nations of the Earth . . . Described in Accordance with Prophecies in Ezekiel, Daniel, and the Apocalypse, Shewing also the Important Position Britain will Occupy During and at the End of the Awful Conflict; by John Thomas; published Toronto: Thomas MacLear, 45, Yonge Street, 1853; pp. 24-25).

‘Britain . . . [will] favor the formation of a Jewish colony in Palestine; and thus, it will appear, that the Euphrates is drying up in order “that the way of the kings of the East might be prepared.” The drying up of the river, which is in part the destruction of Turkey, will render it necessary for the British power, which then extends to the Euphrates, to promote the return of the Jews to their own land, by extending its protection over it, and holding out every inducement for the sons of Abraham to repair to it. Be this, however, as it may, it is Britain that favors the return of the sons of Judah, as we learn from the eighteenth chapter of Isaiah, where the prophet is furnished with a command to “the land shadowing with wings, that sendeth ambassadors by the sea,” enjoining it to render service in the presentation to the Lord of “a nation scattered and peeled, a nation terrible from their beginning hitherto, a nation rooted out and trodden down, whose lands the rivers have spoiled.” What a powerful and graphic description is this of the present and past state of the Jews! How their former greatness and present degredation and desolation is associated and contrasted! But how, it may be asked, do we identify the “land widely over-shadowing with wings?” We are told that it is from beyond to the rivers of Cush. Now, going east, from Judea, across the Euphrates and Tigris, we reach to the “beyond,” that is, to Hindostan, the most important of our Indian possessions and therefore governed by a power that “sendeth its ambassadors by the sea,” in other words, by an island state, which shows that the reference is to Britain, and to her alone. The allusion will, however, become more apparent in a short time, when our empire is greatly extended in that quarter, and when the lion-flag waves o'er many an island and country, proving as much its protector as its ruler. There can then be no doubt as to the fact that this country will open up a way for the despised and persecuted race of Abraham, to stand once more in their father-land, and raise anew the songs of David upon the holy hill of Zion . . . But, first of all, this country must seize a great amount of territory adjacent to the Holy Land. In the present state of affairs, there would neither be peace nor safety for the Jews in their own country. The Sultan has “divided it for gain,” and his pachas lay it waste and hold it waste at their pleasure. It will, therefore, be necessary to occupy Egypt, Ethiopia, and Seba, besides other places, in order to make these a wall of defence for the Jewish colony, and hence the language of Jehovah to his restored people — “I gave Egypt for thy ransom, Ethiopia and Seba for thee.” By possessing these she will also lay her hands upon Edom, Moab, Ammon, and other places on the Red Sea, till at length shadowing “to the rivers of Cush,” and on every side the new colony, under the wings of this great maritime power, will grow and prosper, like a cedar on their own mountain of Lebanon.’ (ibid. pp. 27-28).

BRITAIN'S STEAM MARINE FORETOLD BY ISAIAH.

‘ “Which sendeth by sea whirling things even upon vessels of fleetness on the surface of waters.” Tzirim uvkli-gma ol-pni-mim pronounced tzirim uviklai gome al-penaimayim, — This is the orginal which I have rendered “whirling things even upon vessels of fleetness on the surface of waters.” Could any thing be more descriptive of steamers as they appear to a spectator when gliding over the water? He sees a vessel moving with rapidity, and observes something on its sides whirling with remarkable velocity. After beholding such a vessel for the first time in motion from a position exterior to it, its fleetness and whirling things would be the two characteristics by which he would describe it to others, I do not doubt the prophet understood that in the evening time there would be a great maritime power sending swift vessels by sea to its possessions in India, propelled by whirling things instead of by sails: It is a fact, that such a power exists, and navigates the waters of the Red Sea with fleet vessels without sails; which before his day bore on their surface the sluggish craft of Solomon and his Tyrian ally in their voyages to the Indian Tarshish. The fact is foretold in the prophet's description of the shadowing land.’ (ibid. pp. 108).

(For other posts on the “Kings of the East” click on the link in the Index below).

“Drang nach osten”: Germany’s drive to the East

(Above: front cover of H Charles Woods' The Danger Zone: Changes and Problems in the Near East, 1911; and below: the title-page of his later work The Cradle of the War: The Near East and Pan-Germanism, 1918).

This post continues on from the theme of the previous post from February concerning the conflict between the “King of the Earth” (Germany and the Central Powers) and the “Kings of the East” (or “sun-rising”: the British Empire with its “jewel in the crown” centered on India).

First from a work I cited from in a post from last year (in the Archive for May 2010 on the World War Armageddon blog):

‘Let us now review our position, and see how we stand with regard to the events which we have shown to be foretold as destined to take place during the era of the sixth Vial in which we are now living. The drying up of the Euphrates has long been going on: the power of Turkey has long been declining. Our statesmen tell us “The Sick Man is sicker than ever.” In our daily papers we read: “The Ottoman Empire exhibits all the signs of a state in dissolution.”. . . Those evil agencies symbolised by the three frog-like spirits, which are yet to embroil the world, have began to show signs of increased activity. No one can deny that there is in the minds of thinking men, whose eyes are open to see the signs of the times, a presentiment that a great crises is approaching in the history of our world. There ever lingers on the horizon the dark storm-cloud of the Eastern Question. Now and again it seems gathering to a head, and threatening to burst. But, as often happens in thundery weather, the storm is averted for a while. Yet there the cloud is still, waiting for the time fixed by God's eternal decree, and when that time comes the cloud of the Eastern Question will once more gather and come down, involving the nations in widespread calamity and destruction. There can be little doubt that in the crises of the end of this dispensation the Eastern Question will play its part.’

(The Rev. Joseph Tanner, B.A.; from: Daniel and the Revelation: The Chart of Prophecy and our Place in it; A Study of the Historical and Futurist Interpretation; London; Hodder and Stoughton, 1898; p. 370).

Before moving on to quote from the latter work detailed above by H Charles Henry, the following quote is taken from H A Gibbons' The Reconstruction of Poland and the Near East, 1917 (pp. 57-58):

“Hemmed in on the west by Great Britain and France and on the east by Russia, born too late to extend their political sovereignty over vast colonial domains, and unable (if only for lack of coaling stations) to develop sea power greater than that of their rivals, nothing was more natural than the German and Austro-Hungarian conception of a Drang nach Osten through the Balkan Peninsula, over the bridge of Constantinople, into the markets of Asia. The geographical position of the Central European states made as inevitable a penetration policy into the Balkans and Turkey as the geographical position of England made inevitable the development of an overseas empire.”

(As cited in, Turkey, The Great Powers, and the Bagdad Railway: A Study in Imperialism; by Edward Mead Earle, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of History in Columbia University; The Macmillan Company, New York, 1924; p. 51).

Now to H Charles Woods' work:

‘[First:] the reasons which have prompted me to call this book “The Cradle of the War.” For many years, and more especially since the re-establishment of the Ottoman Constitution in 1908, the numerous problems connected with the Near East have been a source of continual danger to the world's peace. This was due in part to the fact that the Balkan Peninsula and Asia Minor might at any time be the scenes of insurrection, massacre, or local conflict, and in part — a larger part — to the international rivalry which has existed for years concerning a future domination over many of the areas in question.

‘These localities, together with the waterways which they control, form the great and only corridor from west to east and from north to south, and they constitute the natural highway from Central Europe to Asia and from Russia to the Mediterranean. Thus, ever since the birth of her Mittel-Europa scheme, Germany has been determined to push open the Near-Eastern door, in order to be able to strike a deadly blow at the very vitals of the British Empire, and at the same time automatically to prevent Russia from expanding towards warm water. As I shall endeavour to show, therefore, it is not so much the murder of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his Consort at Serajevo on June 28, 1914, as the developments preceding and following that occurrence which make the Near East the region of primary existence of the present conflict — the area in which many of its most important events have been sheltered and nurtured.

‘In the manner that a little cot is made ready for the expected child, so did the enemy prepare for the war which he was designing. This preparation, in progress from the time of the accession of the present [German] Emperor to the throne in 1888, was carried out by the gradual development of Germanic influence and power in Turkey, and by a constant and determined opposition to the establishment of stable conditions in the Near East. From the moment of the birth of his war child, too, the Kaiser has been an ever vigilant mother, for instead of allowing the real primary cause of the world conflict to be forgotten, he has consistently rocked the “cradle” in the apparent hope that she who performs this task rules the world.’

(From the Preface to The Cradle of the War: The Near East and Pan-Germanism; published: Little, Brown, and Company, Boston, 1918; pp. ix-x).

‘Whilst the policies of England and Russia during the thirty years following the signature of the Treaty of Berlin may be described as those of procrastination, the Central Powers and particularly Germany were working and intriguing for the maintenance of a state of unrest in the East destined to prepare the way for the eventual realisation of their policies. Indeed, ever since the accession of the present Emperor to the throne in 1888 that rider has been carefully developing his influence in the East. One year later, and in 1889, His Majesty paid his first visit to Constantinople — a visit more or less connected with the then recent grabbing of the Scutari-Ismid railway and with the concession for the prolongation of that line to Angora as a German concern. Directly afterwards, early in 1890, by the “Dropping of the Pilot” there was in the retirement of Bismarck a clear reversal of the policy based upon the assertions of that statesman to the effect that the whole Eastern question was “not worth the bones of a Pomeranian Grenadier.” Before and particularly after the appointment of Baron Marshal von Bieberstein, who had then been a personal friend of the Kaiser's for many years, as Ambassador in Constantinople in 1897, Germanic policy was run with the sole object of securing concessions in and gaining the favour of Turkey. Indeed although so far as the Balkan States were concerned the Kaiser at this time endeavoured to screen his intentions behind a nominally Austrian programme, he was really preparing the way for the realisation of his Pan-German dreams in the Near and Middle Easts. Thus the power of Von der Goltz Pasha, who introduced the present military system into Turkey in 1886, and of his pupils was greatly increased until the Ottoman army was finally completely under Germanic control.’ (ibid. pp. 5-6)

And on a chapter on “Mittel Europa” H Charles Woods writes:

‘I have already dealt . . . with the question of German intrigues in the East prior to the out break of the War, that I propose here only briefly to refer to one or two points raised in the “Revelations of Prince Lichnowsky”, published in pamphlet form by The New York Times. To begin with, no doubt whatever is left upon the mind of the reader that Germany, and not Austria, made this War, largely with the object of improving her position in the East. Indeed from the time of the Congress of Berlin of 1878, when Prince Lichnowsky says his country began the Triple Alliance Policy, “The goal of our [German] political ambition was to dominate in the Bosphorus”, and “instead of encouraging a powerful development in the Balkan States, we [Germany] placed ourselves on the side of the Turkish and Magyar oppressors.”

‘These words contain in essence and in tabulated form an explanation of the Pan-German policy in progress during the period covered by this book — a policy the existence of which has often been refuted and denied by those who refused to see that, from the first, the Kaiser was obsessed by a desire for domination from Hamburg to the Persian Gulf. What is even more striking, too, is the fact that, in speaking of the Balkan War period, Prince Lichnowsky says, that “two possibilities for settling the question remained.” Either Germany left the Near-Eastern problem to the peoples themselves or she supported her allies “and carried out a Triple Alliance policy in the East, thereby giving up the rôle of mediator.” Once more, in the words of the Prince himself, “The German Foreign Office very much preferred the latter,” and as a result supported Austria . . .’ (ibid. pp. 312-313).

And from the same chapter concerning the “attention with which the Germans have developed their plans for conquest in the East”, H Charles Woods quotes the following:

‘ “Their objective,” as President Wilson said in his address delivered at Baltimore on April 6, 1918, “is undoubtedly to make all the Slavic peoples, all the free and ambitious nations of the Balkan Peninsula, all the lands that Turkey has dominated and misruled, subject to their will and ambition and build upon that dominion an empire of force upon which they fancy that they can erect an empire of gain and commercial supremacy, — an empire as hostile to the Americas as to the Europe which it will overawe, — an empire which will ultimately master Persia, India, and the peoples of the Far East.” ’ (ibid. p. 320).

* * * * * * *

Envoi:

‘The war has been forced upon us, and yet we must look upon it as a stroke of good fortune that the sacrificial death of Archduke Francis Ferdinand led to the premature outbreak of the great anti-German conspiracy. Two years later the war would have been far more difficult, its victims more numerous, and its outcome less certain.’

(Paul Rohrbach, Professor of Colonial Economy in the Commercial Academy of Berlin, writing in the Author’s Preface to his Germany’s Isolation: An Exposition of the Economic Causes of the Great War, 1915).

And again:

‘Must [we] not fight for two hundred fifty million pounds of commerce.’ (Paul Rohrbach, quoting from the Saturday Review article ‘England and Germany’ (September, 1897) in his German World Policies, (p. 181), as cited in The Anglo-German Commercial and Colonial Rivalry as a Cause of The Great War; by Oscar Albert Marti, M.A.; The Stratford Company, Publishers, 1917; p. xiii).

The battle lines were joined:

‘[T]he merchants of Tarshish, with all the young lions thereof, shall say unto thee, Art thou come to take a spoil? hast thou gathered thy company to take a prey? to carry away silver and gold, to take away cattle and goods, to take a great spoil?’ Ezekiel 38:13

(For other posts on the “Kings of the East” click on the link in the Index below).

The Kings of the Earth v The Kings of the East

In his Lectures on the Apocalypse: Critical, Expository, and Practical (1849) Canon Wordsworth (later the Anglican Bishop of Lincoln), writes, after first stating that in his opinion, the term ‘Kings of the East’ was ‘figurative, and [was] to be understood spiritually’, that:

‘[T]he Kings from the East, or Sun-rising, whose Way is prepared, are the faithful soldiers of Christ. Their Kingdom is to serve Christ’; and ‘[The] Kings of the Earth are opposed to [the] Kings of the East . . . Such, then, is the Plague which St. John announces to the World in the Sixth Vial.’ (pp. 434, 436-437, 440).

As can be seen by the title-pages of the two books heading this post: the rivalry between the German Empire and its jealousy of the Imperial splendour and vastness of the British Empire, was one of the factors (taking place under the drying up of the Turkish Empire under the Sixth Vial) that contributed to the destructive passions let loose in the outbreak of the First Word War.

In a recent work concentrating on this aspect of the First World War its author Sean McMeekin remarks:

‘[Kaiser] Wilhelm [viewed himself] strutting across the world stage as a true modern Alexander, taking in Anatolia, Mesopotamia and Persia and toppling the British Raj. . . . Whereas Hitler was willing to concede the British their global, sea-based empire in exchange for recognition of his own domination of the Eurasian landmass, Wilhelm wanted the British Empire too, including its crown jewels of Egypt and India.’ (The Berlin-Baghdad Express: The Ottoman Empire and Germany’s Bid for World Power 1898-1918; Allen Lane/Penguin Books, 2010; pp. 2-3).

And in the chapter entitled “A Gift from Mars: German Holy War Fever” Sean McMeekin writes:

‘We may never know for sure what was said behind closed doors in Berlin as the European diplomatic crisis heated up in July 1914. The key German policy-makers, including Chancellor Theobald von Bethmann Hollweg and Helmuth von Moltke, Chief of the General Staff, all burned their private papers from the period. Although there is clear evidence that Bethmann Hollweg (on Kaiser Wilhelm’s instructions) issued a ‘blank cheque’ inviting Vienna to retaliate against Serbia on 5 July, the extent to which the Germans deliberately sought to provoke a general European war remains controversial. . . .

‘If the evidence of premeditation in July is inconclusive, however, the extraordinary war fever which overcame the German government in August can be documented without a shadow of doubt. Audacious plans for world conquest were openly bandied about in once-conservative government ministries. The ‘gift from Mars’ meant that the gloves were finally off in Germany’s battle with Britain for global supremacy.’ (ibid. pp. 85-86)

And goes on later to state, that:

‘Because of the central role [that] the Kaiser’s jihad stratagem plays in Fritz Fischer’s controversial indictment, Germany’s Aims in the First World War, it has become customary for Fischer’s critics to dismiss these plans as peripheral to Germany’s overall war strategy. In a work still considered the gold standard, Germany and the Ottoman Empire, 1914-1918, Ulrich Trumpener writes that, although the anti-British holy war idea was a ‘recurring theme of the Kaiser’s famous marginalia, there is no evidence that Berlin had any coherent action plans on hand when World War I broke out’. Any measures the Germans did take to launch jihad-style uprisings against the Entente powers in August 1914, Trumpener writes, ‘bore all the hallmarks of hasty improvisation’. Those who have followed Trumpener’s analysis, such as David Fromkin, have likewise dismissed the importance of the jihad campaign, arguing that it had little bearing on either Turkey’s entry into the war or on the way the war was really fought.

‘To dismiss the importance of pan-Islam in Germany’s wartime plans, however, is to fall victim to hindsight. In 1914, if not when they were writing post-war memoirs, Germany’s leaders saw in Islam the secret weapon which would decide the world war.’ (ibid.pp. 86-87).

The quotes that follow below are taken from the two works whose title-pages are reproduced in the heading to this post - both of which were written whilst the First World War was still raging. First, from the uppermost work:

‘Backed as the [Baghdad Railway] project was by the German government, steadily growing in power and aggressiveness since the establishment of the united German Empire, it added to the already complicated Eastern Question an aggravating factor that contributed largely to the outbreak of the great war. The present struggle for supremacy among European powers resolves itself in its ultimate analysis into a rivalry for the control of the East as an adjunct to commercial expansion. The “trend towards the East” did not originate with modern Germany. It began with Greece, was taken up by ancient Rome and has actuated every Western power with ambitions to extend its commerce and its sphere of influence — Spain, Holland, England and France, and in days nearer to us Russia and Germany, Austria and Italy. Through a curious combination of circumstances, superinduced by the gradual weakening of the once dominant Turkish Empire, the struggle has shaped itself into its present aspect for a control of the great highway that is the key to the East — the nearer and the farther East.

‘A survey of the history of Asia Minor, as a resultant of the geographical contour of the region, furnishes the illustration to the thesis that the most recent events are merely the repetition on a larger scale of such as took place thousands of years ago, and at frequent intervals since. The weapons have changed, new contestants have arisen to take the place of civilizations that after serving their day faded out of sight, but the issue has ever remained the same. We are confronted by that issue to-day — the control of the highway that leads to the East. Through the war archaeological investigations and historical researches have been removed from their academic isolation to furnish the explanation for the political import of the Bagdad Railway project. The study of the remote past, so energetically pursued by European and American scholars during the past decades, is brought into the foreground through the stirring events of our days to illumine the bearings of the historic highway of Asia Minor on the issues at stake in the present world conflict. The decisive battlefields for the triumph of democracy are in the West, but the decision for supremacy among European nations lies in the East.’

(From: The War and the Bagdad Railway: The Story of Asia Minor and Its Relation to the Present Conflict; by Morris Jastrow, Jr., Ph.D., LL.D.,; published J. B. Lippcott Company, Philadelphia and London, 1917; pp. 29-30).

And from the second work:

'[T]here is a very serious and a real cause for this great world battle. That cause above all others was the colonial and commercial rivalries of the several nations of Europe as they center, in their interests, around England and Germany[1] who stand at the head of the Triple Entente, and the Triple Alliance respectively. “It has long been evident to students of world politics that there is only one international situation which threatens the peace of the civilized world. That is the rivalry between England and Germany. There is no other rivalry, dispute, or misunderstanding between nations that could not be settled peacefully and quickly if this Anglo-German problem did not, directly or indirectly, retard such a settlement. German and British policies on four continents are determined or conditioned by the mutual enmity and fear of these two powers. Because British policies and interests clash with German policies and interests, Europe is divided into two great groupings of nations, which during the past half decade have almost evenly balanced the military strength of the continent, and it has been the fear of disturbing this balance that has prevented the settlement of more than one grave political and economic and social question.”[2]'

(From the Introduction to The Anglo-German Commercial and Colonial Rivalry as a Cause of The Great War; by Oscar Albert Marti, M.A.; The Stratford Company, Publishers, 1917; pp. xiii-xiv).

From footnotes:

[1] “England with her long history of successful aggression, with her marvelous conviction that in persuing her interests she is spreading light among nations dwelling in darkness, and Germany, bone of the same bone, blood of the same blood, with a lesser force but perhaps a keener intelligence, compete in every corner of the globe. In the Transvaal, at the Cape, in Central Africa, in India and the East, in the islands of the South Sea, and in the far Northwest, wherever — and where has it not? — the flag has followed the Bible, there the German bagman is struggling with the English pedlar. Is there a mine to exploit, a railroad to build, a native to convert, from breadfruit to tinned meat, from temperance to trade gin, the German and the Englishman is struggling to be first. A million petty disputes build up the greatest cause of war the world has ever seen. If Germany were extinguished tomorrow there is not an Englishman in the world who would not be richer. Nations have fought for years over a city or right of succession. Must they not fight for two hundred fifty million pounds of commerce.” — Rohrbach, “German World Policies,” p. 180. Quoted from the “Saturday Review,” September, 1897.

[2] “Review of Reviews,” XLV, p. 281.

And from Chapter I of the same work (entitled, “The Colonial Ascendancy of Great Britain”):

'The tendency of the political development of the English People according to her own historians, and Anglophiles in general, has been one steady trend towards liberty and democracy. The English speaking people have regarded themselves as the torchbearers of that civilization which the world, at the first decade of the twentieth century, realized it had attained. From the standpoint of the Germans, however, England is viewed as the great robber state that, having taken advantage of the misfortunes of the other nations, gobbled up one-fifth of the land area of the habitable world and insists on holding possession, not by virtue of her power to defend, but by reason of her ability to bluff. Germany, also, regards herself as the heir presumptive to the colonial kingdom of the world. To her, England is a colossus with feet of iron mixed with miry clay; while Germany is the stone destined to smite the image on the feet, to its utter destruction, and eventually to become the great mountain that will fill the whole earth.' (ibid. p. 1).

(For other posts on the “Kings of the East” click on the link in the Index below).

“Observations on the Unfulfilled Prophecies of Scripture” (1835)

Ensign of the Honourable East India Company, 1801

'It is a very general impression among the students of prophecy, as we have before noted, that we see at this present hour, in the decay of the Turkish power, that “drying up” of “the waters of the Euphrates,” which was to mark the pouring out of the sixth vial. The effect predicted is, “that the way of the kings from the east,” or “from the sun-risings,” may be prepared. Many conjectures are abroad respecting the “kings from the east.” Some imagine the restored Israelites are signified. There seems no analogy afforded by prophetical language, indeed, to fix the epithet directly and absolutely upon them; though, as the time is evidently drawing nigh, a way must be made for that first restoration, and even for that second, of which we have been treating.

'On this supposition, however, we cannot determine, whether the Israelites themselves are designated, or some powerful sovereigns of the eastern part of the world, who are to become the instruments of their restoration; and for whom, by the decay of the Turkish and Mahomedan powers, access to the Holy Land in this direction is to be afforded.

'And in this point of view, that extraordinary extension of the British empire in that part of Asia, in connection with what has been said respecting the “merchants of Tarshish and the lions thereof,” cannot but awaken many conjectures, as to what may be the designs of Providence in the raising up of this novel power in the east, through whose protection we see the foundations of an Apostolic Church already laid on the banks of the Ganges. However this may be in the secret counsels of God, the eyes of all expectants must be intensely fixed on this quarter of the globe, to mark for what future changes in the political state of the eastern nations, the way may have been prepared, by the present minishing and decay of the Turkish and Mahomedan powers.

'Others have supposed that by the kings of the east, or the kings that are from the risings of the sun, Christ and his risen saints – “The word of God and the armies of heaven which follow him,” are denoted. To this it has been objected, indeed, that the minishing or decay of an earthly power can remove no obstacle that stood in the way of these. And the weight of this objection we must acknowledge. But we cannot exactly determine with what latitude the prophetic language, “that the way of the kings from the east may be prepared,” is to be understood. It is not impossible, that “the way prepared” may denote an opening to the production of such an arrangement of affairs, and of such a relative position of the nations upon earth, that the Son of Man, with the saints of the Most High, may come and take the kingdom, in the way and circumstances which have been ordained and predestinated of God.

'Respecting the approach of Zion's Deliverer, there does, indeed, seem to be some allusion in Scripture to a progress from the east. I cannot think that prophecy in the forty-first of Isaiah, respects either Abraham or Cyrus:

“Who hath raised up the just one from the east, Hath called him to his feet?

Hath given up nations before him, Hath subdued kings?

Hath rendered his sword as a column of dust, And as the driven stubble his bow?

He pursued them, he went on prosperously, He touched not the road with his feet.”*

[Footnote: * '“The road with his feet he seemed not to measure.” — Bp. Stock. Compare Jeremiah xxxii. 24.']

'And again, verse the twenty-fifth:

“I have raised him up from the north, and he shall come, From the rising of the sun shall he invoke my name;

And he shall trample princes like mortar, And as the potter treadeth the clay.”

'If this, however, is the true application of the prophecy, we must look for the fulfilment, not at the first restoration of the Jews, but at the great day of the Lord, which we shall come afterwards to consider: and we must say, “the way,” indeed, is being “prepared,” by the drying up of the waters of the Euphrates, but those, who walk in the way, appear not as yet. Nor is it impossible, that, as in other prophecies, there may be observed in this, first an inceptive, and afterwards an ultimate and more full accomplishment. In the predicted scenes of that great day, we may be able to trace, perhaps, not only the Mighty God “riding upon the heavens” “as of old,” or “from the east,” to the help of his people; but some parts of Israel miraculously conducted by the Divine presence in the same direction towards restored and rescued Jerusalem. This must be the subject of future inquiry.'

From: Observations on the Unfulfilled Prophecies of Scripture, which are yet to have their Accomplishment before the coming of the Lord in Glory, or at the Establishment of His Everlasting Kingdom; by the Rev. John Fry, B.A., Rector of Desford, in Leicestershire; published, London: James Duncan, Paternoster Row, 1835; pp. 37-40.

“The Kings of the East” . . . & Armageddon

(The title-page above is that of the second and enlarged edition of The Kings of the East published in 1849; the quotes below - from a post originaly submitted on the Mail on Sunday journalist Peter Hitchens' blog - are taken from the first edition of The Kings of the East, published 1842).

In a post on this [Peter Hitchens'] blog (15 April 2008 at 12:15 AM) on the thread, 'The Gathering Storm' (in the Archives for April 2008), I wrote that I thought that the British Empire was the power that was symbolically prefigured under the symbol of the 'kings of the east' (or, to give another translation: 'the kings from the rising of the sun'); as the 'sun' in the Revelation is used to indicate a power in the ascendancy – in this instance the 'sun' of the British Imperial interest rising over the long-held Turkish lands.

Since then I've come into possession of a most remarkable book written three-quarters of a century before the so-called, 'Balfour Declaration' of November 1917. From its title page I reproduce the following:

“THE KINGS OF THE EAST;”

AN

EXPOSITION OF THE PROPHECIES

DETERMINING,

FROM SCRIPTURE AND FROM HISTORY,

THE POWER

FOR WHOM THE MYSTICAL EUPHRATES

IS BEING “DRIED UP;”

WITH AN EXPLANATION

OF CERTAIN OTHER PROPHECIES CONCERNING

THE RESTORATION OF ISRAEL.

[By Edward Heycock, Esq., Bombay]

PUBLISHED BY R.B. SEELEY AND W. BURNSIDE

AND SOLD BY L. AND G. SEELEY,

FLEET STREET, LONDON.

MDCCCXLII

[1842]

After first determining from biblical prophecy that, 'the Mahommedans were to possess the East'; and from history that, 'India [was] the most eastern Mahammedan empire'; the Author of the work went on to exposit from Scripture that Britain was foreordained to rule over India – the eastern-most part of the 'Mahommedan empire'; and concerning the then status of Turkey, he writes: 'The way is [at the moment] only being prepared; the Turkish empire is not yet dried up.' But looking forwards in time towards Britain's future destiny as a latter-day Cyrus, as revealed in the ancient prophecies – he wrote: 'How, or when, the British will issue this proclamation for the restoration of Israel is uncertain.'

Before returning back again later to Edward Heycock's work, to see the pivotal role that he envisioned Britain would fulfil in the great conflict to arise, it seems necessary to remark, that – like the prophecies concerning the Messiah in His two roles: First as the suffering servant, 'The Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world' (John 1:29); and Second in His Glory as, 'the Lion of the tribe of Juda' (Revelation 5:5) – that the differing Messianic prophecies have been compared to two peaks of the same great mountain separated by the gulf of time. And so in a sense 'Armageddon' (which some term, 'mountain of destruction'. Hebrew Har (Ar) = mountain) should not be seen as a single great conflict at the end of time.

Or as Peter Hitchens remarked on the thread, 'Was World War Two just as pointless and self-defeating as Iraq . . .' (Again, in the Archives for April 2008) :

'The First and Second World Wars, as [Patrick] Buchanan says [in his book, Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War], are really one [great] conflict.'

The following is taken from a book that was written whilst the First World War was still raging – but prior to the October Revolution of 1917 – that would first shake Russia before sending its shock waves throughout the world:

'In Rev. xvi. 18, the seventh angel . . . [pours] out his vial [into the air], which is followed by “voices, and thunders, and lightnings, and there was a great earthquake such as was not since men were upon the earth.” That earthquake is here shown to be unprecedented. It refers to an unprecedented time of trouble. An earthquake in the book of Revelation always means some great political, or religious, upheaval. . . . 'Have we not an instance in the present war? It is the greatest in history. It has characteristics which cannot possibly have been experienced in the past. In the passions let loose, the spirit of hatred which is at work, we have repetitions of former wars, but the instruments used for slaughter, the millions employed in mortal combat, the present war is absolutely unprecedented, so that already we have a political earthquake such as was not since man was upon the earth. But we are only at the beginning, and we may expect that what is yet to be will be far greater than anything that has yet happened. “A time of trouble,” says Daniel, “such as never was.” “Great tribulation,” says our Lord, “such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.” But the present is only the preliminary shock of that which is to come, The worst is yet future, and will eclipse in horror all the trouble of to-day. . . . [pp. 219-220]

'In the last lecture I referred to the interpretation given by some exponents that the “king of the north” refers to Russia and “the king of the south” to Egypt, or rather to the Power that controls Egypt, namely, England, and at the “time of the end,” or the closing epoch of this dispensation, these two powers – Russia and the British Empire – will be in conflict regarding the “glorious land,” or Palestine. If this interpretation proves to be correct, there must come a temporary peace in the present war in order to enable events so to adjust themselves to turn Russia, our present ally, into our chief foe . . . Some, however, hold that Germany is the NORTHERN POWER signified. If that be so, the present war may merge without interruption into the final great conflict . . .' [Emphasis added.]

(Taken from: Light from the Book of Daniel: On History Past, Present, and Future. A Course of Twelve Lectures delivered in the Central Hall, Westminster, 1915-16. By Augusta Cook; London: Robert Banks & Son, Racquet Court, Fleet Street, E.C., 1916).

On the previously mentioned thread from 2008, Peter Hitchens wrote: 'It makes me feel like a traitor to write this ['Was World War Two just as pointless and self-defeating as Iraq . . .']. [For] the Second World War was my religion for most of my life. Brave, alone, bombed, defiant, we, the British, had won it on our own against the most evil and powerful enemy imaginable [those were my former thoughts].'

From the dark days of the 1940s back to the 1840s, and (as I previously mentioned) a return to Edward Heycock's aforementioned work – to see what he saw as Britain's destined role in that coming great conflict:

'Can any description be imagined more awfully sublime than this which the pen of inspiration has given this dreadful conflict? All nature, animate and inanimate, is represented as trembling . . . whilst every feathered fowl, and every beast of prey, is summoned to assemble at the ensanguined battlefield . . .

'This is the day for which Britain is strengthened, and prepared as an instrument to be employed by the hands of the Almighty. Not only is she being prepared with physical means, but also with moral courage to undertake, if needful, single-handed the defence . . . against this powerful coalition. Of the British it is said, “The isles shall WAIT UPON ME, AND ON MINE ARM SHALL THEY TRUST.” Isaiah li. 5. And it is promised that, “They THAT WAIT UPON THE LORD shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run and not weary, and they shall walk and not faint.” Isaiah xl. 31.' (The Kings of the East, 1842 [pp. 294]).

General Sir William Dobbie, Governor of Malta during the dark days of that Island's great Second World War siege, would later write the following on that great conflict:

'The summer of 1940 was a time of crisis for the British Empire, and indeed for the whole world. Disaster had come to our expeditionary force in France, and although most of the personnel were saved, we lost nearly all our equipment, and our Army ceased to exist (for the time being) as an effective instrument of war. The French nation, our ally at that time, was brought to its knees, and forced out of the war. The British Empire then stood entirely alone, and faced the victorious might of Germany and her satellites. The heart of the Empire, Great Britain, was exposed to a full-scale attack by sea and air from the near-by bases in France and Belgium, recently acquired by the Germans, and the forces available for the defence of the country were ludicrously inadequate. It was at this time that Italy, the chief satellite of Germany, and till then theoretically neutral, or at any rate nonbelligerent, decided to throw in her lot unreservedly with Germany, and declared war against us. . . .

'The situation in Malta, moreover, was a replica, in miniature, of the general situation in Great Britain. The isolation, the formidable strength of the enemy's forces, the proximity of bases from which his attacks could be launched, the unbelievable paucity of our defensive resources, the great civilian population exposed to a ruthless enemy, the dependence on seaborne supplies and the expectation of attack in overwhelming strength – all these things and many others went to make up the defence problem of Malta, as they did the similar problem in Great Britain on a vaster scale. . . . [pp. 9-11]

'[It was] obvious to us that our human resources were woefully inadequate, and many of us were constrained to turn our eyes to “the hills, from whence cometh my help.” . . . God's Word was a great stand-by to me, and doubtless to many others, too, at this time. In it I read how God had helped His people in old times when they were faced with situations similar to that confronting us. And God reminded us that although outward circumstances have changed since those days in many ways, and although the problem might be enunciated in different words, yet God, the solver of problems, does not change. He is the same today as He has ever been, and “His hand is not shortened, that it cannot save.” The difficulty is likely to rest with us, either that we do not exercise the simple faith which lays hold on that power or that our iniquities separate between us and God, so that He cannot use it on our behalf. Many persons in Malta, both in responsible and other positions, did, I think, realize our need of His help, and were prepared to ask Him to give it us. By no other means could we be sure of holding this vital outpost of the Empire, and so we turned to Him who alone is the Giver of victory. . . .

'I humbly believe that God, in His mercy, answered the prayers offered to Him in this way, and in the two years and more of the siege which followed His help was very obvious and very real.

'At about the same time, I was greatly encouraged by a telegram I received from the chief of the Imperial General Staff, General Sir Edmund Ironside (later, Field-Marshal Lord Ironside). It showed me that others in high places at home were thinking along the same lines as we were in Malta. The telegram, which was addressed to me personally, contained the reference “Deuteronomy, chapter 3, verse 22.” I looked up the reference in my Bible, and I read: “Ye shall not fear them: for the Lord your God he shall fight for you”. This was a very welcome and timely reminder of a great and well-proved truth, and, coming as it did from a person in his position, and being addressed to one in mine, in view of the special circumstances of the time, it meant much to us.

'I have said that the help which God gave was very obvious and real. The same help was noticed at the time of the withdrawal from Dunkirk, and during the “Battle of Britain.” It certainly was so in the “Battle of Malta.” During the two years which followed the declaration of war by Italy, God's protecting hand was so much in evidence that people were noticing it and remarking about it. On a number of occasions officers have come to me and said quite spontaneously: “Do you know, sir, I think that Someone up there (pointing upwards) has been helping us today.” I no doubt replied, “Yes, I think so, too,” and I may have added, “You may remember we asked Him to help us, and today we have been watching Him doing it.” Such a conversation took place not once nor twice, but a number of times.' [pp. 107-109]

(From: A Very Present Help: A Testimony to the Faithfulness of God, By Lt-General Sir William Dobbie, GCMG, KCB, DSO; Third Edition, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan; circa 1946).

Nigel Jones in a review of the historian Andrew Roberts' latest book, The Storm of War: A New History of the Second World War, (Sunday Telegraph, 'Seven' magazine, 26/07/09) writes:

'But in the end, as even the super patriotic Roberts recognises, it was not British sang-froid, or evacuations like Dunkirk – no matter how miraculous – that turned the tables of Hitler's war, but the vast manpower, limitless resources and dogged determination of Soviet Russia.'

The quote I give below is taken from the Daily Telegraph, February 25th, 1942:

'By all military logic, the stripped B.E.F. should have been destroyed on the Dunkirk beaches. Then a Britain without defences should, in July 1940, have been occupied by overwhelming German numbers from land and sea if Hitler had not been mysteriously blind to his unparalleled opportunity of ending the war. . . .[Again], we could never have hoped (as we now realize) to cope with the German Juggernaut if it had not been gratuitously thrown into the melting-pot of Russia. . . . The Power behind events . . . has “covered us in the day of battle.”'

'But I will remove far off from you the NORTHERN ARMY, and will drive him into a land barren and desolate, with his face toward the east sea, and his hinder part toward the utmost sea, and his stink shall come up, and his ill savour shall come up, because he hath done great things.' (Joel 2:20).

______________________

ADDENDUM:

From The Kings of the East, 1842

'Britain has been raised up to her present powerful state for the purpose of executing God's righteous judgments upon his enemies, we cannot escape from the conviction “that the hour of His judgment is come,” and that our nation will speedily be involved in wars, which shall terminate to the glory of God, and the overthrow of his enemies.' (pp. 72)

'As Britain is expressly prepared for . . . [this] work, and receives her commission from the Almighty to march under the banner of the Most High, whilst executing together with Him his righteous judgments, we of this highly-favoured land may rejoice in our privileges, and contemplate the coming contest, the gathering storm and mighty conflict, not only without fear, but with full assurance of victory. Let us only wait upon God, and trust on his arm, as it is promised: “The isles shall wait upon me, and on mine arm shall they trust.” Isaiah li. 5. Then shall it be seen in the hour of trial that “they that have waited upon the Lord, shall have renewed their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; they shall walk, and not faint.” Isa. xl. 31.' (pp. 339-340)

________

ENVOI

'How consolatory this view of the prophecies, supported as it is by the word of God. The British Christian may hear of wars and rumours of wars, rejoicing when he beholds the rising storm, for the Saviour is with him in the ship and will speedily rebuke the winds, and there shall be a great calm.' (ibid. pp. 340)

- DUNKIRK 1940 -

Empire of the Sun

(Above: colour plate displaying flags of the British Empire – taken from Our Flags and Their Significance; by K. C. Byrde; Bristol British-Israel Association, 1920).

From The London Express of February, 1902:

A BRITISH EMPIRE FLAG

_________

A Design Is Preparing for a New Ensign

to Give the Colonies

Representation.

An empire flag!

At last an ensign which shall adequately represent Great Britain both at home and beyond seas seems assured.

The Express is able to announce that the King has received with favour the suggestion that a new flag was needed to keep pace with the growing empire, and that a finished design for the same will be submitted to his Majesty next week.

Mr. C. D. Bennett, the cousin of a distinguished Colonial Governor, and himself well known in several of the colonies, has been intrusted with the responsibility of preparing this design.

Mr. Bennett has had many difficulties to contend with in evolving a harmonious and artistic design, which should fittingly express British sovereignty.

He has succeeded, however, in giving our colonial possessions full representation, without sacrificing the chief feature of the old flag – the Cross of St. George – which is in itself a familiar emblem of England's power in every quarter of the globe.

The following is a description of the new empire flag, as given officially to The Express:

On an absolutely white ground is embroidered a golden sun – typical of a race on whose dominions the sun never sets – shining on a large red Cross of St. George, representing, of course, the empire at home. In the left-hand corner is an imperial crown, the sign of one great empire, embracing all creeds, tolerating all beliefs, but under one great imperial idea.

Underneath the crown, on a blue scroll is inscribed the Latin rendering of the motto, “The empire on which the sun never sets,” which is the proudest boast of every Englishman:

“Imperium cui nullus Solis occasus.”

In the right-hand top corner of the flag will be placed the particular device representative of the empire beyond the sea. For instance, the flag to be used in India will contain the Star of India in the right-hand top corner.

The flag as used in Australia will contain instead the device of the new Commonwealth, while the Canadian and other Colonial Governments will add to the design their own badge, for use on all “empire flags” in that particular part of the world.

This design has been warmly commended by several persons high in authority to whom it has been exhibited. It now remains for his Majesty to place the final seal of approval.

Mr. Bennett has notified the King that the design awaits his Majesty's pleasure, and it will probably be exhibited to him next week. Should it be approved by his Majesty, the new design will become “official” without delay.

To the King himself is due this idea. His Majesty has realized that the present national emblem does not fully express the dignity and importance of the empire.

When the Prince and Princess of Wales started on their tour, nearly a year ago, they were especially instructed to carefully note every shade of colonial opinion on the subject – whether a new flag was desired and what each colony expected.

Everywhere the answer was the same: “Give us a new flag.” When the popular verdict was reported to the King, his Majesty at once signified a desire to have a proper design prepared.

After weeks of toil the design is ready, which many people believe will eventually be flying at the mastheads of our warships and over British possessions at home and abroad.