body style="margin-left: 70px;margin-right: 70px;margin-top: 70pt;margin-bottom: 70pt;">
Brit-Am Now no. 1355 Ten Tribes
June 22 2009, 14 Sivan 5769
1. David Jackson: The Point of Isaiah
Goldberg: Who is "Moshiach
3. Stephen Spykerman:
"No taxation without representation!"
1. David Jackson: The Point of Isaiah
From: David Jackson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
RE: Brit-Am Now no. 1354 Ten Tribes
#1. Edward Anderson: were there THREE separate Israelite Kingdoms?
Hello Mr. Anderson,
Thank you for the note on the book about the Hebrew kings.
I'm not sure if you understood the point of my posting. I think it was
clear that I was expressing an opinion and not trying to sound authoritative
in disseminating some untruth.
In any case, I wasn't commenting on whether Israel/Ephraim/Manasseh were
one, two or three kingdoms aligned against Judah. My point was that the
original posting seemed overly definite in interpreting Isaiah 9 19-21 as
referring to the US War of Independence, the War of 1812, and the Civil War.
To make a statement like: "The plain fact is that there are no two other
nations on the earth that fit the prophecy so absolutely" from the verses at
hand is possibly a little too enthusiastic. Haven't other nations had civil
wars? Great Britain, France and Denmark are all 'brother' Israelite nations
who fought each other more ferociously than Great Britain and the US ever
Verse 19 says no man shall spare his brother. The reference to E and M
seems to me to essentially be a poetic parallelism to illustrate the
previous statement. And again, to the extent that it is concrete, I believe
it implies that their animosity toward each other was a merely a chaotic
backdrop for the northern ten tribes' unified dis-allegiance to Judah. That
to me is the thrust of the latter half of the chapter. By contrast the
first half of the chapter looks forward to the day when the Messiah will sit
on the throne of David and the tribes will be unified in deed.
Goldberg: Who is "Moshiach
The Midrash Rabba Bamidbar 14:1 (Naso), talks about Moshiach ben David, Moshiach
ben Efrayim and Eliyahu.
On the verse "Gilead is mine and Menashe is Mine" (Tehillim 60), the Midrash
says that this is referring to the "Moshiach who will spring from the Bnei
Who is this "Moshiach ben Menashe"?
In this issue the Midrash you are referring to is quoted by David Sykes.
We also quote it in our reply to him:
Midrash (Numbers) Naso 14;1:
##... "GILEAD IS MINE, AND MANASSEH IS MINE; EPHRAIM ALSO IS THE STRENGTH
OF MINE HEAD; JUDAH IS MY LAWGIVER" [Psalms 60:7].
"GILEAD IS MINE", this is Eliyahu who dwelt in Gilead.
"MANASSEH IS MINE", this is the Messiah who comes from the descendants of
Manassah as it says, ["GIVE EAR, O SHEPHERD OF ISRAEL, THOU THAT LEADEST
JOSEPH LIKE A FLOCK; THOU THAT DWELLEST BETWEEN THE CHERUBIMS, SHINE
FORTH.] "BEFORE EPHRAIM AND BENJAMIN AND MANASSEH STIR UP THY STRENGTH, AND
COME AND SAVE US" [Psalms 80:1-2].
"EPHRAIM ALSO IS THE STRENGTH OF MINE HEAD;" [Psalms 60:7]. This is the
Annoited One [Messiah] for War who comes from Ephraim as it says, "HIS
GLORY IS LIKE THE FIRSTLING OF HIS BULLOCK" [Deuteronomy 33:17].
JUDAH IS MY LAWGIVER" [Psalms 60:7]. This is the Final Deliverer (Redeemer)
who comes from the descendants of David. ##
A Midrash is usually a saying or interpretation by one of the Sages of the
Talmud not quoted in the Talmud.
Midrashim are based on Biblical verses but usually do not correspond with the
literal meaning of Scripture.
They may have symbolic or mystical meaning. They are not necessarily to be taken
literally and may well
contradict each other.
Belief in Midrshim is not obligatory since they do not involve legal halachic
The Midrash says there will be four Moshichim or Messiahs.
By "Moshiach" (also pronounced "Mashiah") may be understood four anointed
Messiah son of Manasseh
Messiah son of Ephraim
Messiah son of David
Other sources speak of Messiah son of David and Messiah son of Joseph.
Most sources say that Messiah son of Joseph will come from Ephraim but at least
one says Manasseh.
There will also be a future leader from Dan.
In Jewish Teaching only believe in a future Messiah son of David is necessary.
May we live and see or God willing our children and their children may.
"No taxation without representation!"
From: Stephen Spykerman <email@example.com>
Subject: American War of Independence and the american Civil War were
prophesied by Isaiah
Shalom Yair, I just would like to reply to the comment by David Jackson in Brit
Am Now 1353 when he gave his views on my previous piece entitled: AMERICAN WAR
OF INDEPENDENCE AND THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR WERE PROPHESIED BY ISAIAH.
As you know my premise is based upon the prophecy in Isaiah 9:20b-21 which
states: "The land is burned up, and the people shall be as fuel for the fire; no
man shall spare his brother . . . . Every man shall eat the flesh of his own
arm. Manasseh shall devour Ephraim, and Ephraim Manasseh".
David Jackson states that in his view the scripture is simply a warning of civil
war between the tribes of ancient Israel, with an emphasis on Ephraim and
Manasseh leading a revolt against Judah. The problem with this premise is that
the Bible nowhere records the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh being at war with
each other, and yet it is this very thing which Isaiah so lyrically emphasizes
when he states that, Manasseh shall devour Ephraim and Ephraim shall devour
Manasseh! The fact is that these two brother tribes and sons of Joseph have
never been at war with each other in all the history of Israel. Isaiah therefore
is clearly speaking about a yet future time.
David Jackson's further points out that other nations have had equally or even
more destructive civil wars, such as the hundred years war in Germany, or the
overthrow of the Czars in Russia. With all due respect this is irrelevant simply
because we are focusing on Manasseh and Ephraim, the two tribal sons of Joseph.
Brit Am has proved beyond all doubt that Great Britain and her Commonwealth
daughters such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand, as well as part of South
Africa are dominated by Ephraim, whereas in the United States of America the
tribe of Manasseh predominates. It is therefore no good looking at the histories
of other nations.
By way of further proofs that Isaiah could only have been speaking about America
and Great Britain, I would like to provide some further remarkable evidence.
The catalyst for rebellion
The British exchequer, after Britain's victory over the French in the Seven
Years War (1756-63), had become heavily depleted and was in sore need of funds.
The Parliament at Westminster was looking for ways to raise the extra revenue
needed to replenish its coffers. Some in the British government reasoned that,
as much of the war effort had been for the benefit of her American colonists, it
would be only fair to have some of those rich colonials bear some of the burden.
Thus the decision was made to levy a special stamp tax on the Americas. The
Stamp Act of 1765 was the first direct tax imposed by Parliament on their
American brothers. In reality the Americans were only being asked to pay a share
of their own defence. As it was, the new tax, even though it effectively doubled
the low local taxes the American colonists had to pay, still only came to a flat
rate of two shillings per person. Furthermore, the colonial Americans enjoyed a
higher level of prosperity than the people back in the mother country. The
British on average paid ten times the amount in tax the colonists were being
asked to pay. However, the English colonists did not see it that way. They felt
strongly that the British parliament had no right to pass laws on Englishmen in
the Americas who did not have elected representation in that government! Very
soon the cry went up: "No taxation without representation!" This then became the
popular war cry throughout the thirteen Colonies.
History repeats itself
Here we see history repeating itself in the most remarkable way, as in ancient
times the division of Israel was over exactly the same issue. It is interesting
to note that when the Ten Tribes of Israel rebelled against the rule of the
Royal House of David and split away from Judah, the cause for the division was
the onerous taxation plans of King Rehoboam, the son of Solomon. It was the
king's introduction of higher taxation that drove the Ten Tribes of Israel to
rebel against their duly constituted monarch. This same Rehoboam was a very
stubborn king who simply would not budge or compromise. Thus in ancient Israel
the same cry had gone up: ?No taxation without representation!? Although, the
Bible expresses the same sentiment somewhat differently, nevertheless it
amounted to the same thing. The Scriptures record the incident as follows:
Now when all Israel saw that the king did not listen to them, the people
answered the king, saying: "What share have we in David? We have no inheritance
in the son of Jesse. To your tents, O Israel! Now, see to your own house, O
David!" (1Kings 12:16)
With wisdom, and certain willingness to compromise, conflict could quite easily
have been averted in both cases but, primarily through the stubborn folly of
King George III, who without knowing it was walking in the footsteps of King
Rehoboam, the whole situation got completely out of hand. It was all so
unnecessary, as the Colonists looked upon Britain as their mother-country; they
talked of her as "home", and now, for want of a little "give and take" on both
sides in a spirit of compromise, both mother-England and her own Colonial
children were fighting each other. Thus, just as Isaiah had prophesied in
(Isaiah 9:21), Manasseh was devouring Ephraim!
The founding fathers of America clearly recognised the Biblical connection
between the Israelite experience of coming out from Egyptian bondage and their
own battle against the colonial bondage under the "tyranny" of an English king.
For example, Thomas Jefferson originally proposed that the reverse side of the
American Seal portray the liberated "children of Israel" in the wilderness being
led by a divine pillar of cloud during the day and a pillar of fire by night.
Jefferson's own motto engraved on his personal seal was borrowed from Oliver
Cromwell's famous words of justification: "Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to
Another War of Rebellion
The American Civil War can also be referred to as the "War of Rebellion" as in
effect the Southern States rebelled against the North and the Union. In this
respect we see yet another parallel with ancient Israel. When the great
rebellion occurred in ancient Israel, it was the tribe of Ephraim which led the
rebellion resulting in the breakaway of the ten tribes of Israel to set up their
own independent kingdom to the north of Judah. What we witness in the Civil War
is a kind of replay. Here again we see the tribe of Ephraim leading the
secessionist rebellion of the Confederate States of America. In the first
rebellion in ancient Israel it was the tribes of the North led by Ephraim that
seceded from the South. In the second rebellion the reverse was the case as the
tribes of the South, once again led by Ephraim, seceded from the North.
A fascinating point is that the symbols associated with the very first battle in
the conflict pointed directly to Manasseh and Ephraim. The first battle of the
American Civil War took place at Manassas, Virginia! Furthermore, the Northern
forces (the Yankees), referred to this first battle as "Bull Run". "Bull Run"
was named after a creek that was in the vicinity of the town of Manassas. The
paramount symbol of Ephraim is the bull, and the English characteristically
refer to themselves as "John Bull". The Southern Confederate forces on the other
hand called the battle "Manassas" after the nearby town. When you place these
statements side by side we see a subliminal acknowledgement to the battle by the
two brother tribes of Israel by both the North and the South. The North were
fighting Ephraim the ?Bull,? whereas the South were fighting Manasseh at a place
called Manassas. As a point of interest, even the nickname ?Yankee? itself is
derived from a Hebrew form of Jacob.
In the American Civil War, Jefferson Davis, the President of the Confederation,
led the South. The meaning of the name Davis is "Son of David", and thus by his
very name we see here a reference to King David of Israel. At the same time, a
man of Jewish birth named Judah Philip Benjamin was the Secretary of State for
the Confederate States of America (1862-1865). There is a high degree of irony
in this, as in the first division in ancient Israel, the northern tribes led by
Ephraim split away from Judah and Benjamin under the House of David. In the
second division, i.e. in the American Civil War, Ephraim under Davis with Judah
Benjamin attempted to split away but was prevented from doing so by Abraham
Lincoln, a man named after Abraham, the first Patriarch of Israel. Can we not
see the Hand of HaShem at work in this amazing irony?
Mount Ephraim Publishing
Pleased with what you read?
The Brit-Am enterprise is a Biblical work.
God willing, they who assist Brit-Am will be blessed.
Brit-Am depends on contributions alongside purchases of our publications
Click Here to make an offering.
Click Here to view our publications.
'It is impossible to rightly govern the
world without God or the Bible.'
Brit-Am is the "still small voice" that contains the truth.
[1-Kings 19:12] AND AFTER THE EARTHQUAKE A FIRE; BUT THE LORD WAS NOT IN THE
FIRE: AND AFTER THE FIRE A STILL SMALL VOICE.