The Two-House Theory

The Anglo-Israelists’ commentary begins with Abraham, who received several promises from God. ​Anglo-Israelists believe that these promises were divided before the death of Abraham’s grandson, Jacob.[1]

 

Two of Jacob’s sons were Joseph and Judah. First Chronicles 5:1–2 explains that Judah was given the kingship line [2] while the birthright was Joseph’s for his two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh. The birthright would have contained a double portion of a father's material possessions. The son who received this birthright, typically the firstborn, would also have been given leadership and authority.

 

Joseph gained this birthright for his sons because Reuben, the actual firstborn, had sinned as 1 Chronicles 5:1 records. Joseph’s sons were also promised many descendants, according to Genesis 48:16.

 

Generally, most Christians agree with this.

​

Where Anglo-Israelists take a wrong turn begins with their premise that the term “Jew” has not come to equate to every other tribe of Israel. Due to this, they believe that the people called “Jews” (line of Judah) today never received the material possessions of Joseph’s sons or the promise of many descendants. Instead, God only provided the Jews with the kingship line.

 

This stark division between Joseph and Judah allowed the early writers of Anglo-Israelism to equate Joseph’s inheritance of material possessions and having many descendants with the prosperity and population of the British Empire.

​

This idea is disproved when we recognize that another son of Jacob had a king come from it, even though Judah was promised, “the sceptre shall not depart from Judah.”[3] Obviously, this promise to Judah was given for a very particular reason: the coming of Christ as King. Nevertheless, this assurance is not as black and white as Anglo-Israelists want it to be since Saul, the first king of Israel, was from the tribe of Benjamin, not Judah. When Joseph was told his line through Ephraim[4] would be “a fruitful bough,”[5] it did not mean that the other tribes would find their wives to be barren. It just meant Joseph’s son Ephraim would be especially fruitful.

​

​​Body Language and Seating Arrangements

Anglo-Israelists focus on the promises Jacob provided to Joseph’s two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim, particularly those given to Joseph’s son Ephraim. Genesis 48:19 tells us that Manasseh would be great, but Ephraim would be even greater.

 

Early writers of Anglo-Israelism asserted that the only way to explain the greatness they were experiencing within the British Empire was to conclude that Anglo-Saxons were the lost descendants of Joseph’s son, Ephraim, due to the promise of greatness. Things became awkward, however, when the United States grew more prominent than Britain, causing Anglo-Israelists to scramble for an answer.

​

The general explanation they provided was to ascribe the identity of Manasseh to the United States since, after all, most of the United States was comprised of Anglo-Saxons anyway. They claimed the United States’ promise for greatness had been delayed until Ephraim (Britain) received its blessing.

​

To find some biblical authority for this belated promise, some modern Anglo-Israelists utilize rabbinical commentary. This commentary focuses on Jacob’s hand gestures as well as Ephraim and Manasseh’s seating positions as they received their blessing. When Jacob proclaimed his blessing, he crossed his arms and allowed Manasseh, the firstborn, to remain to his right. Some Anglo-Israelists claim this meant God would give Manasseh’s blessing after Ephraim received his.[6]

​

The biblical text, however, does not support this commentary of a tardy blessing. Genesis 48:13 makes it clear why this crossing of the arms was even pointed out in the first place. Standing before Jacob to receive their blessing, Joseph placed Manasseh, the firstborn, at the right-hand side of Jacob, where he traditionally would have been positioned. Ephraim was situated to Jacob’s left. Jacob crossed his arms and put his right hand on Ephraim’s head. This was completely unexpected since Manasseh was the firstborn and should have had Jacob’s right hand on his head.

​

Joseph even reminded Jacob of this. In fact, the text informs us that Joseph got upset at what Jacob was doing. Joseph would not have bothered reminding his father that Manasseh was the firstborn if he knew that remaining to the right meant Manasseh would eventually receive greatness as much as or surpassing Ephraim’s.[7] Joseph knew Jacob was giving Ephraim the greater blessing.

​

In addition, Jacob was near death at this point. The easiest way to give this greater blessing to Ephraim, who was to his left, was to cross his arms and place his right hand on Ephraim’s head. This crossing of arms revealed Jacob’s condition and the fact that he completely disregarded Joseph’s expectation that Manasseh, the firstborn, would receive the greater blessing. Due to this, there was no indication of a postponed blessing to Manasseh. The Bible only tells us Ephraim would be greater than Manasseh. There was no secret body language or seating arrangements going on that indicated a delay.

​​

Ephraim Surpasses Manasseh

At the heart of Anglo-Israelism is a misreading of the promise Ephraim was given. Supporters believe Ephraim would be greater than everyone in the world. Therefore, to them, this would provide a link to the British Empire. However, this promise to Ephraim was never about the tribe being greater than all other people groups. It only promised that Ephraim would be great and would be greater than Manasseh.

​

To show that the tribe of Ephraim did rise to greatness over its older sibling, a summary of the history concerning the tribe of Ephraim—a history that Anglo-Israelists conveniently ignore—needs to be provided. The greatness of Ephraim begins with Joshua, who is also called Oshea or Hoshea, son of Nun, Jehoshua, or Jehoshuah.[8] Joshua was a descendant of the tribe of Ephraim as Numbers 13:8 records. After God denied Moses entry into the promised land, Joshua was appointed the leader of the Israelites, according to Numbers 27:12–23. This gave great prominence to this tribe. The tribe of Ephraim then went on to be described as one with “mighty men of valour, famous throughout the house of their fathers.”[9]

​

Ephraim remained under the rule of the house of Saul until after the murder of Saul’s son, Ishbosheth, as 2 Samuel 4–5:1–3 tells us. Along with the rest of the tribes, Ephraim joined with David, who was ruling over Judah. Things did not remain peaceful, however, under this unified kingdom. Second Samuel 15 and 20 give an account of a few rebellions that take place against the House of David. Then, during Solomon’s reign, a prophetic utterance from Solomon’s servant, Jeroboam, a member of the tribe of Ephraim, told how Jeroboam would rule over the ten northern tribes. This prophecy set into motion once again a division between north and south.[10]

​

This split occurred after Solomon’s death when Rehoboam became king over the still consolidated tribes. Solomon’s servant, Jeroboam, who was in Egypt after Solomon attempted to assassinate him, returned. When he did, he demanded a lighter tax for the citizens of Israel. Rehoboam refused to lighten the burden and, in fact, threatened to make it even heavier, along with the expectation of cruel punishment. Jeroboam, along with the other ten northern tribes, broke from the house of David. Jeroboam became king over the northern tribes of Israel.[11] This is yet another indication of Ephraim’s greatness over Manasseh. Unfortunately, Jeroboam did evil, which brought about the prophecy of the northern tribes being scattered “beyond the river,”[12] meaning the Euphrates River, which occurred with the Assyrian Deportation.[13] Once Jeroboam died, his son, Nadab, reigned.[14] A succession of kings followed until the last king of the Northern Kingdom, Hoshea, ruled.[15]

​

Throughout its existence, the tribe of Ephraim’s population grew to such an extent that by the time of the final Assyrian deportation of the North Kingdom around 722 BC, the prophet Hosea refers to the entire Northern Kingdom of Israel as Ephraim (see the book of Hosea). This same renaming of all the tribes under a single tribe’s name would eventually happen with Judah. This history concerning Ephraim demonstrates how his greatness over Manasseh has already occurred. Therefore, we do not need the British Empire to prove that God’s promise to Ephraim was fulfilled.

 

You Judah—Me Israel

Those who are caught in the system of Anglo-Israelism make another wrong turn. Not only do they claim that the term “Jew” should only be taken to mean Judah, but supporters also assert that Judah/Jews should not be technically viewed as Israel. John Wilson explains this central belief of Anglo-Israelism, which Herbert Armstrong later repeats:

 

“In speaking of the chosen people of God, it is proper that we discriminate clearly between the two houses, generally distinguished by the names Ephraim, or Israel, or the house of Isaac, for the ten tribes; and Judah, or the Jews.” [16]

 

To make a case for this two-house theory, supporters once again look to the promises that Jacob (Israel) provided on his deathbed. To Joseph’s two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, Jacob proclaimed, “Bless the lads; and let my name be named on them.”[9] Never guilty of being inconsistent, Armstrong and those who support his notions, once again rely on their idea of stark divisional promises to say that from this moment on, only Ephraim and Manasseh would be referred to as Israel, or more specifically, the House of Israel.[17] Judah and those associated with the tribe of Judah would be called the House of Judah. To an Anglo-Israelist, Ephraim, as well as Manasseh, are the heads of this Israel house, so, to them, the other tribes can also be called the House of Israel as well. However, Ephraim and Manasseh would be especially pronounced. Jews, however, as asserted by Armstrong, were and are never referred to as the House of Israel.[18]

​

Just a small amount of background information is necessary to discount this theory altogether and to understand why Jacob (Israel) took the extra step of placing his name on Ephraim and Manasseh. These two boys were Jacob’s grandsons, not his sons. Due to this, Jacob essentially adopted the sons of Joseph as his own and stated that they would be called by his name, Israel. This assurance, however, did not exclude Judah or the tribes associated with Judah from being called Israel, or the House of Israel as well. One only needs to read a little before this blessing to gain this understanding. In Genesis 48, Jacob says to Joseph:

 

“And now thy two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, which were born unto thee in the land of Egypt before I came unto thee into Egypt, are mine; as Reuben and Simeon, they shall be mine. And thy issue, which thou begettest after them, shall be thine, and shall be called after the name of their brethren in their inheritance.” [19]

 

Ephraim and Manasseh were placed under the designation of Israel or House of Israel. However, this did not mean the other tribes, including Judah, were not to be called by their father Jacob’s name, Israel. Anglo-Israelists misuse this promise as a kind of prophecy whereby they can imply Jacob was setting up two houses: Israel and Judah.

​

To add credence to the two-house theory, Armstrong claimed that the House of Israel never included the specific term “Jew.” Again, this is a bit of trickery on Armstrong’s part. The particular word “Jew” came into use well after Judah’s birth to refer to someone from the Southern Kingdom or someone specifically from Judah. Later, its definition expanded to include all the tribes. Even if you are an Anglo-Israelist who thinks the designation “Jew” only involves the tribe of Judah, then you have to disagree with Armstrong’s conclusion that the House of Israel never references Jews when you read such verses as Exodus 16:1-31, 40:38, Leviticus 10:6, 17:1-4, 22:18, Numbers 20:29, and Joshua 21. It would be ridiculous to believe Judah (i.e., Jews) was excluded from the conversations and events recorded in these verses.

​

It is true, however, that the phrase “House of Israel” was used exclusively to mean the northern tribes, particularly when the kingdom was divided and in the case of Hebrews 8:8, where there was a clear division. However, there were times when this phrase included all the tribes, as in the cases described already and in Acts 2:14–36. Context helps to determine which should be understood. Again, this is not as clear-cut as Armstrong wanted it to be.

​

This premise of division helps to build the Anglo-Israelists’ foundation for what they are about to claim next, which is that the House of Israel wandered off to Germany and then England to become Anglo-Saxons. This is the main reason Anglo-Israelists cannot accept the notion that the northern tribes came to be called Jews, or that Judah was included within the House of Israel. They need this division to be clear-cut and even God-ordained so that the House of Israel could separate entirely from Judah.