121. Shiloh, Adoption and the Covenant
"And Joseph said unto his brethren, I die, and go unto my
fathers; and I go down to my grave with joy. The God of my father Jacob be
with you, to deliver you out of affliction in the days of your bondage; for
the Lord hath visited me, and I have obtained a promise of the Lord, that out
of the fruit of my loins, the Lord God will raise up a righteous branch out of
my loins; and unto thee, who my father Jacob hath named Israel, a prophet;
(not the Messiah who is called Shilo;) and this prophet shall deliver my
people out of Egypt in the days of thy bondage." ~ JST Genesis 50:24
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:
"Wherefore, he [God] shall bring forth his words unto them [the Jews and
Gentiles], which words shall judge them at the last day, for they shall be
given them for the purpose of convincing them of the true Messiah, who was rejected by them; and
unto the convincing of them that they need not look
forward any more for a Messiah to come, for there should not any
come, save it should be a false Messiah which
should deceive the people; for there is save
one Messiah spoken of by the prophets, and that
Messiah is he who should be rejected of the Jews.
"For according to the words of the prophets, the Messiah
cometh in six hundred years from the time that my father left Jerusalem; and
according to the words of the prophets, and also the word of the angel of
God, his name shall be Jesus Christ, the Son of God."
~ 2 Nephi 25:18-19
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.
"The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from
between his feet, until Shilon come; and unto him shall the gathering
of the people be." ~ Genesis 49:10
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.
"But when ye go over Jordan, and dwell in the land which the
LORD your God giveth you to inherit, and when he giveth you rest from all
your enemies round about, so they dwell in safety; Then there shall be a
place which the LORD your God shall choose to cause his name [Shiloh] to
dwell there; thither shall ye bring all that I command you; your burnt
offerings, and your sacrifices, your tithes, and the heave offering of your
hand, and all your choice vows which ye vow unto the LORD: And ye shall
rejoice before the LORD your God, ye and your sons, and your daughters, and
your menservants, and your maidservants, and the LEvite that is within your
gates; forasmuch as he hath no part nor inheritance with you. Take heed to
thyself that thou offer not thy burnt offerings in every place that thou
seest: But in the place which the LORD shall choose in one of the tribes,
there thous shalt offer thy burnt offerings, and there thou shalt do all that
I command thee." ~ Deuteronomy 12:10-14
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.