121. Shiloh, Adoption and the Covenant

Here in this scripture Shilo or Shiloh is clearly stated to be the Messiah, the Christ, that is Jesus Christ. And all else that is said whether agreeing of not need not be considered other than for personal interest. It is here that we can state with the utmost assurance that the person Shiloh in the blessin of Judah is Jesus Christ the Messiah. We will continue upon this line of thought of the blessing of Judah in a moment, but there is one item to clearify first.

When Joseph of Egypt thought to clarify that the prophet to deliever Israel out of Egypt, namely Moses, was not the Messiah, many have jumped upon this to surmise that the Messiah was not to be of the tribe of Joseph, that is Messiah ben Joseph, alias Messiah ben Ephraim. Usually they do this in an attempt to associate Messiah ben Joseph/Ephraim with Joseph Smith. This they ought not do to begin with for the Book of Mormon states:

Unfortunitly, even with the good intentions of promoting Joseph Smith, when any so attempt to align him with being 'Messiah', whether it be the Jewish contrived separate 'Messiah ben Joseph' or not, they are in violation of this Book of Mormon scripture upon the matter. And they are placing Joseph Smith before the world as Messiah, which this scripture means they are painting him to therefore be a 'false Messiah', for there should not be any Messiah but Jesus Christ. And when they further attempt to hedge there position by so stating the Messiah ben Joseph is a Jewish contrivance and they only associate Joseph Smith with such scriptures those Jews do associate with that Messiah ben Joseph, not meaning that Joseph Smith is 'The Messiah' but merely that person the Jews have so labeled as Messiah ben Joseph, they have but mudded the waters even further. For many of the scriptures which the Jews do attribute to Messiah ben Joseph are those of the suffering Messiah from such as Isaiah 53, which are particularly Messianic and do suredly reference only Jesus Christ. Thus therein they are but mixing Joseph Smith and Jesus Christ in a manner that they ought not before the world.

And finally there is the very matter upon which this text speaks, and that is that Messiah ben Joseph is not merely a Jewish contrived second Messiah, but that Messiah ben Joseph is very much a legitimate name desination of the very Messiah Jesus Christ. And therefore it ought not be prescribed upon any other but Jesus Christ, and him alone. Now that we have again cleared up that matter, as we have also done so before. Let us now turn to that patriarhcal blessing of Judah and review exactly what it does and does not say.

What is meant by 'from between his feet' is that the male heir to the throne of Judah or Israel would always be a male, paternal descendant' of Judah, that is particularly of the House of David. This is bloodline geneaology of the passage of the male line DNA. The Kings of the ruling House of David would all be male bloodline heirs from David 'until' the coming of Shiloh, the Messiah, even Jesus Christ. This also implies that Jesus was NOT a bloodline male descendant by DNA of the House of David. And this ought to be readily agreed to by any true believing Christian. For indeed Jesus was not the begotten son of Joseph, he was the Only Begotten Son of God the Father in the flesh. God was his Father and not any one of the House of Judah. Yet because of the adoptive processes of the Jewish laws, Jesus became the adopted son of Joseph, his firstborn and heir, as Joseph raised him as his own, teaching him his trade as a carpenter. Thus by Jewish law Jesus was of the House of David and the son of Joseph the Carpenter. And in another particular manner did Jesus possess similar DNA to Joseph, for Joseph and Mary, Jesus' mother, were closely related cousins of the House of David.

Yet there is another adoptive matter to consider concerning Shiloh. But here to develop that we will return to the Old Testament era and establish the matter concerning Shiloh, 'by whose right it was' to be the city of the LORD. Joshua, the heir of Moses, established the town or city of Shiloh in the heart of the tribal land of Ephraim to be that city of the tabernacle of the LORD. The Old Testament scriptures of Moses prescribed that once that such a site had been establish, that the tabernacle and ark ought not to again be removed from that location. That location was the 'City of the LORD'.

Concerning the particular 'place' Deuteronomy 12:5 states, " ... the place which the LORD your God shall choose out of all your tribes to put his name there, even unto his habitation shall ye seek, and thirther thou shalt come:" This is but a small preview to the nature of that place, but already it was stated that the was to 'put his name there'. That name was Shiloh. That was the name of the LORD which he did place upon that place which the LORD did choose. It ought to be noted here that the LORD did not particularly choose Jerusalem. He chose Shiloh. King David determined to select Judah over Israel, though Israel/Ephraim had the greater right in David. And it was David who did bring those things pertaining to the tabernacle into Jerusalem. It was the mind and the will of David. The LORD had chosen Shiloh. Here is a more detailed account of Moses' instruction concerning the place which the LORD would chose.

It is clear that the LORD intended that there be a central place, a place located in the land of one particular tribe, Ephraim, that he would place his name upon it, Shiloh, and that the tabernacle type performances and ordinances were not to be performed anywhere but at Shiloh in Ephraim who was by the nameing of Jacob the same as Israel. For the duration of the Judges, from the time that such a place was secured even down until the last Judge Samuel, Shiloh was the place of the LORD and even Samuel did minister out of Shiloh. It was not until the days of the Kings, paricularly King David, and after he had sinned his great sin, that King David chose Judah and Jerusalem over Israel. And it was David who commenced in moving the things of the tabernacle thence into Jerusalem as his own city of preference.

In defence of King David, it was true that the tabernacle of the Lord was in disaray, and the ark was parted from it. And it was in the city of David, in Jerusalem, where David could begin to reassemble the tabernacle in preparation for building the LORD a house in Jerusalem. But it also ought to be noted that Jerusalem was not that place chosen by the LORD to place his name upon it which was particularly associated with and in the heart of the land of Ephraim at Shiloh. And whether consciencously or not, David has chosen his bloodliage over the covenant linage of the Lord which was of Israel of Ephraim. And he had moved the temple or rather the tabernacle therefrom.

At this point one might ask, is it necessary to first build the 'Temple' at Jerusalem which is to be built by the Jews? Or is it of important significance, particularly to those of Ephraim and his companions to first build a House of the LORD again at Shiloh? I would think it totally appropriate to so procede to move toward the possiblity of building a latter day Temple at Shiloh, most appropriately, even before ever worrying about the Doom of the Rock and the temple site in Jerusalem. Our temple building in Israel need not wait upon the Jews at Jerusalem. We may well be correct to so develop ourselves at the LORD's selected temple site of Shiloh.

Now with this tight association of the LORD with Shiloh and the tribe of Ephraim, does it not seem and appear that the LORD did so clearly associate himself with Ephraim rather that Judah? And is it not just as clear that it was King David, who after his great sin, did chose to disassociate himself with Israel/Ephraim and to chose his blood ancestory over the covenant ancestry? In the linage of the covenant, it is a matter of the righteous members of the linage to stand in that linage and bridge the gaps of the wicked or unrighteous members who have lost thier position because of their wickedness.

Elimelch and Mahlon were Ephrathites, as so did Jasher state of Num the father of Joshua that he was an Ephrathite. And that even before the entering into the land of promise of the Children of Israel. Nun never did enter into the promised and to ever so be distinguished as and Ephrathite of Ephrath. That is not what the term Ephrathite means. It means one who is of the tribe of Ephraim and perhaps even one of the covenant linage. Jesse, David's father, was referred to as 'that Ephrathite of Bethlehem Judah'. It would be correct to refer to David as an Ephrathite in terms of his 'heirship' linage of the properties of Elimelech, Mahlon which surely came to the family through Obed who was called the son of Naomi rather than the son of Boaz and Ruth.