by
CGG Weekly, December 23, 2011


"America's future depends upon her accepting and demonstrating God's government."
Peter Marshall


While this world's scholars fail to recognize the British and American peoples to be descendants of Israel's adopted sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, they do recognize the deeply rooted nexus between the British and American nations. One writer, decrying the artificial nature of the European Union as an agglomeration of nations that really have little (or nothing) in common, suggests that the most successful course of action for America and Britain is to forge ever-deepening relationships. "If we seek something better" than the "obsolete and premature" European Union, he asserts,

it seems sensible to turn to a grouping [of nations] that would be natural rather than artificial, going with the cultural grain rather than cutting across it. It hardly needs saying that what comes to mind is some form of unity between countries of the same legal and political—and linguistic and cultural—traditions; which is to say an Association of the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. . . . For within the West, it is above all the English-speaking community that has over the centuries pioneered and then maintained the middle way between anarchy and despotism. (Robert Conquest, "Toward an English-Speaking Union," The National Interest, Fall 1999, p. 64.)

Simon Jenkins, writing in the op-ed section of the Times of London, November 19, 2003, recognizes this connection between America and Britain, at the same time stressing the differences between England and continental Europe. His comment is worth extended quotation:

The French economist, Michel Albert, was right when he drew the great capitalist divide not down the Atlantic but down the English Channel, between the "neo-Americans" and the "Rhine model." Though his divide was between the collectivist corporatism of Continental Europe and the individualism of Anglo-America, it was also cultural. [Former British Prime Minister Tony] Blair's ambition to be "the bridge between Europe and America" is absurd. He is an "American," leading a country which may not be a 51st state but which has always been part of a centuries-old confederacy. . . .

Britons still comprise the largest category of legal immigrants into America each year. There are 35,000 Americans living in London and 35,000 Britons living in New York. These two most dynamic world cities are Siamese twins. Their economies depend on the same industries of finance and leisure, rising and falling in unison and largely independent of their hinterlands. They are both global people-magnets. New York's greed is London's greed; London's art is New York's art.

I cannot turn on a radio station and not hear an American voice. Britain and America enjoy a shared cadre of novelists, playwrights, architects and musicians. . . . Today's most dynamic art form, cinema, depends on a single transatlantic talent pool, as does most popular entertainment. . . . Continental Europe, rich though it is, might be on another planet.

James Bennett has coined the word Anglosphere to denote what he sees as a "civilizational network" of English-speaking nations, led primarily by the United States and Britain. He reports that a survey by the pro-EU periodical, the Economist, "showed that more Britons felt represented by the American flag than by the EU one, and far more of them identified with the United States than Europe as Britain's most likely source of help ("Networking Nation-States: The Coming Info-National Order," The National Interest, Winter 2003/04, p. 17.)

Bennett believes that this network of English-speaking nations is far from declining, but contrariwise, is "emerging." If this is true, the phenomenon should have readily visible implications for students of prophecy. For, unrecognized by Bennett, the Anglosphere is made up of the Joseph nations: Britain, America, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand (with a few others).

Historically, Joseph was betrayed by his jealous brothers (see Genesis 37:12-36); it was a family feud. Both Jacob's and Moses' prophecies concerning Joseph in the last days emphasize the distinctive difference between him and his brothers: "Let the blessing come on the head of Joseph, and on the crown of the head of him who was separate from his brothers" (Deuteronomy 33:16; see Genesis 49:26). The prophet Micah speaks of "the remnant of Joseph" as separate from "the remnant of Jacob" (Micah 5:7-8), and Amos 5:15 prophesies of God perhaps extending grace to "the remnant of Joseph," never mentioning the other tribes. The clear biblical division between the sons of Joseph and Jacob's other sons seems to carry through to this present age.

It may be that the non-Joseph (and non-English-speaking) Israelite nations of Europe, such as France (principally) and Belgium, will—repeating history—sell the English-speaking Israelite nations into slavery out of sheer jealousy. Many non-English-speaking Israelite nations in continental Europe feel far closer to the EU than to their brothers, Ephraim and Manasseh. Some, such as France and the Netherlands, are often just plain hostile to America.

Watch for an increasingly acrimonious division between Israelite nations along the fault-line of language: English-speaking Israelite nations in opposition to non-English-speaking ones. A divided Israel will not long stand!