11. Ephrath and Bethlehem

This is the first time that the name Ephrath appears in the Bible. Jacob was on the last leg of his journey returning from the house of Laban in Haran. He had already had his encounter and reconciliation with his brother Esau and with his herds he was coming down into the lands of Hebron to establish his home in a land which could so seasonaly graze his animals. Rachel had been expecting for most of the journey and was near her time. Ephrath perhaps marked the beginning of the hill grazing lands of Hebron, and Jacob's party was just a little distance from that place so named Ephrath. Ephrath is given to us to mean 'fruitful' or 'fruitfulness' and in some cases also 'ash heap'. The two meanings seem to have the uniting concept of 'volcanic soil', 'ash soil', which is most productive in 'fruitfully growing of plants'.

To make a long story short, Joseph had been commanded in his visitation from the Lord with that instruction, as was also Ezekiel, to write or keep a record (see JST Genesis 50:31 & Ezekiel 37:16). The record of Joseph had been kept, that is the plates of brass, and it was made available to the capital seat of Israel, Jerusalem, up until and near to that last great destruction of Jerusalem in the days of King Zedekiah. That record of Joseph had been kept by those of the house of Joseph (1 Nephi 5:16) and was made available to the princes, rulers and elders of Israel, the Sarim or Sanhedrin, the judges established by Moses; in the days of Zedekiah as explained in the Book of Mormon through the Chief Captain of the Sarim, the Sanhedrin's 'police chief', Laban as he would as occassion dictated made them available to the 'elders of the church' (1 Nephi 4:20-27) whenever they wished to reference a matter of the Law of Moses. Now the record of Joseph had been taken by Nephi and Lehi to their land of promised in the Americas.

And as the record of Joseph had been taken away, during the Babylonian captivity the Lord gave to the prophet Ezekiel the commandment that he should so prepare a 'Record of the Jews' from those various records and writings of the Jews into one records of Judah. Scholars readily agree that it was not until the Babylonian captivity that the Old Testament record was so compiled. This would mean that the various records would be transcribed and made into a consistant form. During that transcription, whether as I belive, primarily by the hand of Ezekiel or others, these Jewish scholars took it upon themselves to edit, select, clarify, annotate and add such 'commentary' to the record as they deemed appropriate. One such added annotation of clarification which one transcriber took upon himself was to and what such as Ephrath was. And thus in the following second use of the word Ehrath in the Old tesament we such a more modern explanitory notation made by the Babylonian contempory scribe in respect to Ephrath.

Now Ephrath was the name of the place in the days of Jacob and since that time the 'more modern' name of Bethlehem had been introduced to the area of Ephrath, likely to distinguish it from the name of Ephrath's ties to the name of Ephraim. Now in Northern Utah we do a similar of parallel thing. I might state to someone that some such place as 'Sandy' or even 'Magna' is the same as Salt Lake City, when in reality such commuities or cities in their own right are but a part of the greater Salt Lake Ciy metropolitan area. Yet they are not technically the same place as was the relationship to Bethlehem and Ephrath as later uses of the name Ephrath will point out.

The third scriptural occurrence of the term Ephrath ought to quite such as who suggest such things as Ephrath being named after the second wife of Caleb who was named Ephrath. Caleb and his wife Ephrath lived after the Egyptian enslavement while Jacob obviously lived before it. The following is as close to a direct quote of someone's statement as you find in the scriptures. This is Jacob speaking in the first person as so transcribed by a later Jewish scriptural scholar. Jacob is speaking to Joseph during that meeting with Joseph and his two son and Jacobs blessing of Mansseh and Ephraim. He is telling them a part of the story of his journey from Padan, Haran and of Rachel's death. Jacob is speaking in first person:

Now long before Caleb's second wife lived did Jacob speaking in the first person. So there is no real possiblity that Ephrath was named after Caleb's wife, as she wasn't even born in the days that Jacob lived in. Notice here that the here again the scribe of transcription takes it upon himself clarify to the reader that, like Sandy being the same as Salt Lake City, that Ephrath was in at least one perspective 'the same [as] is Bethlehem.

Now one point of relavent interest to the topic of this text, I make mention here relative to Ephrath and Ephraim though it will be discussed in more detail in another item. Joseph as a lad had lost his mother at the birth of his brother Benjamin near Ephrath, so that name and its meaning would have stuck with him. And by inspiration, Joseph named his second son Ephraim after that location and its meaning, 'fruitfulness'. In Joseph's 'pariarchal blessing' unto the hand of Jacob recorded in Genesis 49, Joseph was told that his or one of his branches and bough would be a fruitful branch running over the wall. And that has been fulfilled in both those of Ephraim and Manasseh both reaching over the wall of the ocean to come to and inhabit the lands of America. And as Moses would further so state, between Manasseh and Ephraim it would comparedly be Manasseh and his thousands and Ephraim and his ten thousands (Deuteronomy 33:17). It is important to grasp this direct relationship between the term Ephrath 'fruitful' and Epharim 'fruitful multiplied' as the plural form of the name Ephra-(im) denotes. For though Ephra-th and Ephra-im are of the same word, name and meaning, Ephraim is the plural or multiplied form of the singular for of just being 'fruitful'. And that though Ephraim is magnified fruitfulness compared to the singular fruitfulness of Ephrath, they are essentially of the same word and meaning.

Understanding the significance of the fourth use of the word Ephrath in the scriptures is based upon this now present and important relationship between Ephraim and Ephrath, that they are he same. This reference is from the Book of Ruth and it is speaking of Ruth's son Obed and his noted 'duel ancestry' as pointed out in this text.

Here the elders and the people are particularly noting Obed's dual ancestry of being of Rachel and of Leah. And they through some degree of understanding and inspiration are accounting that his house and seed need be worthy and do worthily in that ever lasting covenant of the fathers through Obed's inheritance in, through and of Ephraim/Ephratah and Rachel; and also to be of great fame and notorietry as being of Judah, that is of Bethlehem so aligned with Leah. To the Jewish scribe's perspective, it is important that Judah be included, as by Boaz the Jew, was the surogate parenting of the heir of the covenant accomplished.

Now, it has been well established that the name and usage of the term Ephrath was existant well before that of the second wife of Caleb. Yet the next four uses of the term Ephrath are in regard to this wife of Caleb and Caleb's being noted as 'the father of Bethlehem', by who likely the name of Bethlehem became existent in regard to the same land region as where Ephrath the place was already present.

Now this pertains to the genealogy of Caleb, his wife Ephrath and their son Hur. Nothing here effects anything relative to the prior status of the location of Ephrath and it being the relative source of the name of the second son of Joseph, Ephraim. That the separte site name of Bethlehem may have originated from the genealogy has likely more to do with Caleb's wife Ephrath, being of Ephrath, that is an Ephraimite herself, for it was common for a wife to be taken of another tribe. So it was that Jesus of David was a cousin of John who was of Levite priestly descent, that some maternal marriage between the house of David and the tribe of Levi. And so also it is and was that Boaz was 'near', though not closest, kinsman of Elimelech, a maternal cousin of Jewish descent to Elimelech the Ephrathite of descent from Ephraim.

Now again, what is of importance to be noted is that Joseph of Egypt had long since so named his second son Ephraim, after and in conjunction with that place of his mother Rachel's death and burial. That is long before there was a Caleb and his wife Ephrath and there being a site so named in relation to her descendants that Bethlehem of neighboring existence with that of Ephrath the place of Rachel's death and burial. And when one studies the use of Ephrath and Bethlehem together, such references become redundant in their nature except that they be two separate places of twin or next-door alignment.

And yet, due to the Jewish commentary added to Moses' book of Genesis about Bethlehem being Ephrath, these two place locations are confused as being one and the same though the scriptural reading in many cases does become quite noticably redundant and awkward if they are so forced into being so. In fact, Ephrath was the ancient site, which was associated with the death and burial site of Rachael the mother of Joseph and Benjamin. And the house of Rachael was the ruling house over Israel, not the house of Leah. And it was and is by that fact, that David was by the Law of Moses, of the house of Rachel, that is of Joseph, Ephraim, Elimelech and Mahlon, that David was rightful heir of the covenant to be the ancestor of the promise, even the very promised seed of the covenant, the Messiah.

Ephrath and Ephraim are forms of the same word, as are Ephratah and Ephrathite. They all mean 'fruitful' which the house of Joseph and then Ephraim were stated to be. Ephrath as the site of Rachael's burial is actually just outside the town or city of Bethlehem but within the same close land regions subburbian realm as Sandy or Sugar House is to Salt Lake. Thus if I was actually born in say Sugar House, Cotton Wood or Highland, I might still state the same is Salt Lake City. But just like they technically are really not the same, so was Ephrath not precisely the same as the formal city of Bethlehem. And Bethlehem was not the only or even perhaps the first name so associated with Ephrath as there was Zelzah (1 Samuel 10:2) and/or Zelah which did also border Ephrath and the tomb of Rachel mother of Benjamin, that is a Benjamite perspective upon Rachel's tomb.

In its most formal sense, Ephrath was separate from Bethlehem. Ephrath was without the city of Bethlehem though Behtlehem was the city it was near to just as Rachael's grave was without the city a distance from it. And the sight of the burial of the house of Joseph was properly land and inheritance of the house of Joseph despite the fact that Judah was given the city of Bethlehem. And just as Lehi and Ishmael held lands in that region, being of the house of Joseph, so did Elimelech and his family hold out lying lands from the city of Bethlehem as their inheritance.

Jesse was a raiser of flocks as was his ancestors before him. Jesse was father of David and he was that Ephrathite, that is Ephraimte of Ephrath, of or near to or even also a part of Bethlehem. And though he did not dwell right in the city or town of Bethlehem, Bethlehem was but the township near to where he lived and David did tend his father's sheep in the land of his fathers that being Ephrath, which was also that land where the sheperds did watch their sheep by night at the time of the birth of Jesus of Mary.

And so also was Lehi's lands of inheritance of Joseph located outside the city of Jerusalem though near in general vicinity to that city and perhaps of nearer distance to the tomb of Rachel and Ephrath also. And this is not to mention the likelihood that Ishmael's family which Lehi had his sons retrive for wives, so also likely of that vacinity of Jerusalem and Bethlehem and Ephrath. The land of Ramah, the hills of Ephraim which Ephraim held by right as an extention to his land, it being his right in have such a nearness of location to the tomb of his mother Rachel as well.

Now the ninth reference to Ephrath in the scriptures:

Interestingly, in building up the case for a separate Messiah ben Joseph, Jewish traditions often breach the gap right back into what is clearly that which pertains unto Messiah ben David. Here according to 'Zevechim 54b', this reference of Psalms 132:6 'refers to Joshua from the tribe of Efraim' [Ephraim]. Of course the whole of Psalms 132 is that song of David's promise that he would be the ancestor to the coming Messiah. But here the Jewish perspective is the 'Efrata' or Ephrath means the same as Ephraim. And they have so associated that with their point of there being a Messiah ben Joseph.

So that is nine references to Ephrath in the Old Testament. But yet there is a tenth reference also which is even more likely telling. And so it is also in Micah which states that the Messiah would come out of 'Bethlehem Ephratah' or that which is of Ephraim, Bethlehem being the 'town' site of Rachel's burial near to the pasture land of Ephrath as discussed also elsewhere.

First, when one considers that there was a 'remnant of Ephraim' within Judah as presented even in conjunction with the Book of Mormon, and that this remnant would be so associated with the place of Rachel's burial is to be understandable; it should not be far from coming to an understanding that the 'little among the thousands of Judah' is not of necessrily of Judah, but merely 'among the thousands of Judah' as were Lehi, Laban and Ishamael of their day being of instead descendants of of Ephraim and Manasseh though even as being thought of by themselves as being Jews of the civic realm of Jerusalem. 'Bethlehem Ephratah' was a villege of Ephraimites amid the Jews. So was the house of David of Bethlehem an island of descendants who rightfully and legally pertained unto Ephraim being Ephrathites of Bethlehem Ephratah. And thus when so understood, Micah 5:2 actually states that Christ comes out of that 'little' group of Ephraimites in Bethlehem of Ephraim and that he would be the 'ruler of Israel' NOT the ruler of Judah. Here Israel would mean that kingdom of Israel under the name of Israel as assigned to Ephraim by the mouth and hand of Jacob (Genesis 48 (JST)). And this is the Messiah 'of old', even he from 'everlasting' meaning he who was selected by the Father before the foundation of the world.