But like many other Anglo-Israel "proofs" it has no basis in philology or in fact. The word שַׁעַר—Sha'ar ("gate") is used hundreds of times in the Hebrew Bible, but never once either literally or figuratively of a maritime "strait" or "port." The "gate" as being not only the entrance to, but as giving control or possession of the oriental (walled) city, often stands for the city itself. It was, moreover, the most public place of the city, where causes were tried and justice administered (Deut. xxi. 19; xxii. 15; Prov. xxii. 22; Amos v. 10-15); and where elders and judges, kings and princes "sat" officially for counsel or often to exercise authority and rule (Dan. ii. 49; Jer. xvii. 19; xxxviii. 7).
The promise that Abraham's seed should possess the gate of his enemies is idiomatic figurative language, equivalent to saying that they shall be victorious over their enemies, and take possession of their cities. This was fulfilled when at the conquest of Canaan the Israelites took possession of the land and thus assumed the position of lordship over the doomed nations who are spoken of as their "enemies."
We may notice, by way of contrast, that in Jer. i. 14-16 God threatens that as a punishment on Israel for their sin He would call all the families of the kingdoms of the north, and "they shall set every one his throne at the entrance of the gates of Jerusalem," which is equivalent to saying that the Gentiles would possess "the gate" of Israel—which as a matter of fact, they are now permitted to do by treading down Jerusalem and scattering the people until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.
FOOTNOTES:
[23] See 2 Chron. xx. 1-13.
[24] "The Lost Ten Tribes," by Joseph Wild. The Eighteenth Discourse.
[25] See "The Interregnum and After"—the first chapter of my book, "The Ancient Scriptures and the Modern Jew."
[26] One fundamental of the Anglo-Israel theory is that the destinies of Israel and Judah are distinct and separate. Most inconsistent, therefore, is their appropriation of David, the King of Judah, with the promises applying to his royal house for ever; their endeavour should rather be to claim, if they can find in Scripture promises made to descendants of Jeroboam's line, or some other King of Israel—with David they can have nothing to do.
[27] "Palestine into Britain," by Rev. L. G. A. Roberts, Secretary of the "Imperial British Israel Association."