By Liaf
Some British-Israel fringe groups claim the United States is Ephraim and Britain is Manasseh because Ephraim was to become a multitude of nations and greater than Manasseh. First of all, I am NOT going to cause division over "who is what" because in essence, both are of the tribe of Joseph and as such inherited the birthright. Both our destinies are similar, and as such, I do not believe even if we were wrong would seriously discredit the fact that BOTH the British Empire and the United States were prophesied to receive great blessings as well as be a light to the rest of the world. However, the reasoning goes that the United States became greater than Britain ever was (although I'm not so sure--- relatively speaking, the British Empire was greater in their rule than the United States is now but they are now past their heyday). That being said, I still believe Great Britain is characteristic of Ephraim. Ephraim was to become a multitude of nations. Politically, that fits better than a "multitude of states" especially since the British Empire once had (and still has) more nations in the commonwealth than the United States has states (and to be politically correct, it's no longer called the "British Commonwealth" any longer. It's just referred to as the Commonwealth of Nations, but it had its origin with Britain.) Besides, the United States is "ONE nation under God", not "many states under God". Indeed, Britain politically fulfilled the many nations part of the prophecy better. However, the POPULATION of those many nations of Anglo Saxons may be lacking relative to the population of the United States. How do we reconcile this? First of all, WHO SAYS Ephraim may not dwell amongst Manasseh? Let's take the national state of Israel for example. Does the new state of Israel qualify for a nation? Of course it does. However, MOST JEWS still live OUTSIDE of the land of Israel. The same reasoning can apply to Great Britain and her colonies--- i.e., these people were the originators of the multitude of nations, but may not all live there necessarily. Likewise, the CORE of Manasseh started the United States, but we are a melting pot of peoples (quite obviously), and that includes Ephraim.
Now, let's take this one step further. A few months back we added an article by J. H. Allen that stated in effect that the multitude of nations were represented the "natural" first, and then the ONE nation was spiritual, similar to MANY people becoming ONE in Christ. Ephraim was to become greater in national blessings, but Manasseh was to become ONE great people symbolic of the (later) spiritual blessings. First comes the natural, then the spiritual. Likewise, first comes the MANY nations, then the ONE nation (Ezekiel 37) when ALL Israel is rejoined in the last days. Prophecy repeats itself.
I hope you get my point, because the United States represents ALL the people of Israel, started by Manasseh who represents the spiritual, including THOSE CALLED in EPHRAIM. On the other hand, the core of Ephraim started the multitude of nations. In all this, it matters NOT where INDIVIDUAL people of tribes actually settled, but only that EPHRAIM started the commonwealth of nations and Manasseh started the ONE nation regardless of the population distribution. Therefore, given that premise, since Ephraim may dwell in the political realm of Manasseh (as most Jews still dwell outside of Palestine even though they have their own nation), it can be stated that Ephraim still outnumbers Manasseh by at least 2:1 or better based on world population numbers I see (i.e. doubly fruitful). And keep this in mind. Since the natural came first, Ephraim is PAST their heyday and are waning--- something which Manasseh will one day do but has not begun yet.
There are those who think Ephraim should outnumber Manasseh by 10:1 based on the blessing in Deuteronomy 33:17. Actually, I do not believe that is what it means. First of all, Manasseh was numbered in the thousands and Ephraim in the ten thousands. How many is that? Do a million people qualify for ten thousands? Let's check. 1,000,000/10,000= 100. I would say 100 is definitely a large plural number, or 100 "ten thousands". Yet, both the United States and Britain attained MULTIPLE MILLIONS in people. The numbers are not literal, but are meant to signify a multitude. Secondly, the statement "thousands and ten thousands" is merely a way of expressing "mathematically" the same thing stated in Genesis 48:19, i.e., the great nation of Manasseh and the multitude of nations (expressed as "ten", also symbolic of the number of tribes in the house of Israel) of Ephraim. The people of that great nation, and the people who originated the commonwealth of nations were to be together pushing the people to the ends of the Earth. This happened two ways I am aware of. First of all, historically that happened with the British Empire along with the United States in her early years (and we are still allies). Secondly, if many of the people of Ephraim are here under Manasseh's political realm, we are operating as a single people also.
Now, let's talk about banners or flags. When Jacob crossed his arms to bless Ephraim and Manasseh, he in effect made "St Andrew's Cross", similar to the Union Jack. He gave the greater national blessings to Ephraim; it follows that the Union Jack cross is characteristic of Ephraim. Why then, pray tell, can one even conceive that the Union Jack and Britain are the people of Manasseh? Look at all the world flags. MANY have the Union Jack on them. ONLY A FEW have the star spangled banner on them in comparison because the United States sees itself as ONE NATION under God. So HOW can one possibly reverse the roles?
|
|
Let's take this one step further. What other flag OVER HERE in the United States has "St. Andrew's Cross?" How about the Confederate Battle flag? The South ALMOST broke away from the rest of the United States. HAD IT DONE SO, Then WHICH TRIBE of Israel would they have been? Since Manasseh was to become ONE people, then BOTH could not have been Manasseh (politically). One or the other would have been Manasseh and the other Ephraim---- we choose the South being Ephraim because of the nature of their flag and their character and history (the South wanted more power vested in each state--- sort of like a "many nations" idea). HAD THAT happened, then we would say that the south would have been likened unto another British colony and they definitely would have outnumbered Manasseh in the North if we include the British Empire. Why did GOD make us all stay as one people? We think it's because this LARGE part of Ephraim was to be included in the national representation of grace (the spiritual) as illustrated by Manasseh while the rest of Ephraim were the multitude of nations--- representative of the "natural". EVERYONE, including Ephraim, of the tribes of Israel and Gentiles were to be included in the nation of Manasseh (symbolic of many peoples becoming one in Christ, or, the spiritual). Had we separated, Ephraim would have been cut off from that--- at least a large portion whereas God no doubt wanted a large portion there. And here is one other thought. Had the south broken away, the demographics would not have been any different than it is now when they are part of the United States, and the critics would not even begin to question the fact that Ephraim is greater than the rest. The population of the south plus all the British Commonwealth would be greater than the North. So what is the difference? Only the political limits. The people are the same, but the end result is that many of these people are under the political realm of the Union States instead of the Confederate states as they once wanted to be. Again, that does not change the demographics one bit!
Then there are the evangelists who poke fun at BI teaching and may bring up another point (I can see it coming even though it was not openly stated yet that I am aware of). Why isn't Canada, or Australia or some other nation of the Commonwealth that one great nation? Why pick on the United States if we claim many from Ephraim live there? Why is the United States not part of Ephraim as in the other commonwealth nations? The reason is because only the United States had the guts to break away from Britain and say in effect, "No King but King Jesus." You see? One has a literal King (or Queen) while being under the Crown and the other the spiritual King--- and the spiritual part of Joseph would obviously fit the role of a single nation with one spiritual King (c.f. Ezek 37) rather than a multitude of nations that a literal Davidic King would reign over (c.f. Psalm 89:25)
In all this, I hope you noticed we did something here--- we compromised for once and saw both sides of the argument actually (blessed are the peace makers and problem solvers). We are saying that many in the United States ARE indeed from Ephraim as the non-conformist groups say, but we are asserting the political boundaries are that of Manasseh while the commonwealth of nations is that of Ephraim. Again, this is in spite of where the actual people themselves settled. I cannot say for sure if tomorrow 100,000,000 southerners will pack up and move to Australia or other such nations. The Ephraimites would then be in their nations again and the balance of the population would shift away from the United States. Do you see my point? And yet, there would still be the commonwealth of nations and the One Great Nation politically speaking. Nothing changed a bit.