When Israel saw the sons of Joseph, he asked, “Who are these?”

9“They are the sons God has given me here,” Joseph said to his father. Then Israel said, “Bring them to me so I may bless them.”10Now Israel’s eyes were failing because of old age, and he could hardly see. So Joseph brought his sons close to him, and his father kissed them and embraced them.11Israel said to Joseph, “I never expected to see your face again, and now God has allowed me to see your children too.”

12Then Joseph removed them from Israel’s knees and bowed down with his face to the ground. 13And Joseph took both of them, Ephraim on his right toward Israel’s left hand and Manasseh on his left toward Israel’s right hand, and brought them close to him. 14But Israel reached out his right hand and put it on Ephraim’s head, though he was the younger, and crossing his arms, he put his left hand on Manasseh’s head, even though Manasseh was the firstborn.

… 17When Joseph saw his father placing his right hand on Ephraim’s head he was displeased; so he took hold of his father’s hand to move it from Ephraim’s head to Manasseh’s head. 18Joseph said to him, “No, my father, this one is the firstborn; put your right hand on his head.”19But his father refused and said, “I know, my son, I know. He too will become a people, and he too will become great. Nevertheless, his younger brother will be greater than he, and his descendants will become a group of nations.”

Here we have a problem. As far as we can tell, through verifiable and respected sources, the descendants of the Jews of Ephraim never gave birth to another nation as we know it, much less a multitude, or even “group” (NIV) of nations. Later I can share how the NIV and a couple others had the audacity to go to another Hebrew word altogether here. The Hebrew word that is translated “multitude” can be “assembly” and such like, but nothing so small as a “group”, for which the Hebrew uses a different word altogether.

Tracing the idea of “assembly” in Genesis and elsewhere, it most often refers to the multitudes of people within the nation Israel, so we have gained little by using that word. Every major and most minor translations use “multitude” as their word of choice.

So we are in a bind. Ephraim’s descendants were not nation-makers. I quote from Wikipedia here:

“As part of the Kingdom of Israel, the territory of Ephraim was conquered by the Assyrians,

[that’s in the Bible, several times] and the tribe exiled ; the manner of their exile led to their further history being lost. [Hence the “10 lost tribes” that everyone wants to claim as their own].

“However, several modern day groups claim descent [only several, not a multitude], with varying levels of academic and rabbinical support. The Samaritans claim that some of their adherents are descended from this tribe, and many Persian Jews claim to be descendants of Ephraim. Further afield, in India the Telugu Jews claim descent from Ephraim, and call themselves Bene Ephraim, relating similar traditions to those of the Mizo Jews, whom the modern state of Israel regards as descendants of Manasseh.^[23]

Several western Christian groups, in particular those of the Church of God in Christ, claim that the whole UK is the direct descendant of Ephraim, and that the whole USA is the direct descendant of Manasseh, based on the interpretation that Jacob had said these two tribes would become the most supreme nations in the world…”

So, when Ephraim, with all Israel, was overrun by Assyria, did the resultant intermarriage with the nations produce Jewish-blooded peoples all over the known world?

No help there. Let’s go back to Scripture. Maybe Joshua? When he conquered Canaan, he and his people became lord over, but mostly extinguisher of, many nations. Joshua was from Ephraim! But could the Canaanite nations be considered his and Ephraim’s “descendants”? Were the Canaanites now Israelites, Ephraimites? And was Joshua not co-heir of Canaan with all the people of Israel?

Jeroboam the soon to be evil Ephraimite likewise ruled over the ten “tribes” of Israel. Are the ten tribes really ten nations? But does Jeroboam force them all to be Ephraimites so that now the prophecy is fulfilled?

Some have messed with the text a little more by changing the word “multitude” to “fullness” and making nations singular. Ephraim is to be the “fullness of the nation” whatever that means.

Ephraim was always a significant part of Israel, even if significant in a negative way most of the time. They were larger, (then smaller), than Manasseh, which would fulfill the first part of the prophecy. But “fullness” does not seem to be quantifiable and therefore not easy to see when it is fulfilled.

We’re running out of options. I don’t think we should accept a bad option if there seem to be no good ones. We can relegate this whole thing to the future, and talk of a time when the lost tribes will be found, and populate nations and fulfill this prophecy directly…