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 ch.9
Amnon Goldberg: Who is "Moshiach ben Menashe"?
3. Stephen
Spykerman: "No taxation without representation!"


Discussion Group
Contents by Subject Research

Site Map
Contents in Alphabetical Order
This Site

 1. David Jackson: The Point of Isaiah ch.9
From: David Jackson <>
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 fought. 
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.
David Jackson
Keller, TX

2. Amnon Goldberg: Who is "Moshiach ben Menashe"?

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 Menashe".
Who is this "Moshiach ben Menashe"?

Brit-Am Answer:
"Brit-Am Now"-66
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", this is Eliyahu who dwelt in Gilead.
"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 decisions.
The Midrash says there will be four Moshichim or Messiahs.
By "Moshiach" (also pronounced "Mashiah") may be understood four anointed leaders.
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.

3. Stephen Spykerman: "No taxation without representation!"

From: Stephen Spykerman <>
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 God."

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?

Stephen Spykerman

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.'
  George Washington

Brit-Am is the "still small voice" that contains the truth.