134. The Unicorn Motif
"Who is the unicorn but
the only begotten Son of God."
~ *St Ambrose of Milan (340-397 A.D.)

'A Greek Mythological/Philosphical False Translation'

The original Hebrew word is re'em which was translated in the Greek Septuagint as monokeros and then as unicornis in the Latin Vulgate. Thus the mythical creature was born in the bible through 'gentile' mistranslation. Later versions translated the word/phrase as "wild ox", which happens to be the symbolic representation for the tribe of Ephraim. But in the Kings James Verson of the Bible it reverted back to 'unicorn' in such as Numbers 23:22, 24:8; Deuteronomy 33:17; Job 39:9-10; Psalm 22:21, 29:6; and Isaiah 34:7. In the Hebrew in Numbers 23:22 the word 'tow'apaha' refers to more than one horn and the Greek translators must have used their 'creative license' to infer their own mythical wild and powerful beast, the 'Unicorn'.

Today, the re'em is believed to refer to such as an aurochs or urus and/or such as a large cattle which freely roamed wild in Europe and Asia in ancient times. Even the famed ancient Minoan Bull is a likely fair representation of that animal as well. In the Bible the 'wild ox' or bullock of Ephraim refers to one of great power and in Numbers 23:22 and 24:8, God compares His own strength to that of the 'wild ox'. Since the 'bovine'/bull is refered to as a deity of Baal, Moloch, in India, Iran (Persia) and that of the Egyptiam Apis, these must be considered as a corruption of the 'true religion' and as a corruption of God in Paganistis worship of the graven image rather than relating to the personal God Jehovah.

The Egyptians, with whom Joseph of Egypt and the Israelites did so closely associate, particularly are said to have fashioned their beliefs after those of God and his priesthood orders, though they did not have the proper sources of the truths (Abraham 1:25-27). Even the Israelites, in making the golden calf to worship, were but corrupting that which was known to have been a religious tenent of the religion of Jehovah of the sacrificial bullock's symbolic atonement from the times of Adam as related to the Messiah. And they but failed when they actually had made 'him' into a graven image symbol of gold to worship the symbolic image and not just as a foreshadowing reminder as to the redeeming savior and Lord. This is what the other false corruptions had also done and gone astray in doing, having missed the mark as not seeing the 'forest' for the 'trees'.

Sadly many modern corrupters of pure religion continue the Greek and Roman mythological false interpretation fantasy of the 'unicorn', the horse-with-one-horn creature of their fairy tales and fantasy literature. And even in medieval times such was also carried through and it is obvious that the KJV translators also kept up with retaining the mythological unicorn rather than to do their tranlations properly. Perhaps that was because by then the Bitish Royalty, the head of the state religion, had also adopted the mythological symbol of the unicorn as being one of its armoral creatures of royalty and used the Latin term that described a 'beast with a horn'—unicornis. And certainly the Royal House Coat of Arms is much more attractive with the lovely one horned majestic Horse than an Oxen bull of Ephraim opposite the rampant Lion of Judah. But therein much is 'hiden' and much is also lost to understanding, which must be attempt to be sorted back out of this 'mythological entanglment'.

And though spoken of in greater detail in another 'item', it ought to be remembered here that the two Olive Trees to the sides of the Menorah has been considered to be that of the tribe of Israel being Ephraim as the 'firstborn' and the tribe of Judah as being the genealogical 'bloodline' of the Messiah (1 Chronicles 5:1-2). And thus symbolically does the Royal Coat of Great Britian contain vast Biblical significants. And the two sorce ancestory of the Messiah as Messiah ben David and Messiah ben Joseph/Ephraim has been seen again.

Christ Hide in the Unicorn Motif

     The 'Unicorn Motif' is an unfortunate one. It is a mistranslation and misrepensentation of that mythical beast thought of as the one horned horse. The proper 'motif' or actual creature was the two horned 'wild ox' or 're'em' thought to be that of Bosprimigenius that is now extinct. And as such, the 'wild ox-unicorn' was that symbol of the tribe of Ephraim of the twelve tribes. In the coat of arms of England, the Unicorn Horse is actually the symbol for the tribe of Ephraim and of course the lion is that of the tribe of Judah.

Of interest, in the early Christian Church, 'The early Christians likened the unicorn [wild ox] to a figure of Christ. (Dynasty of the Holy Grail: Mormonism's Sacred Bloodline, by Vern G. Swanson, page 139.) St. Ambrose, bishop of Milan, noted as early [or late] as the fourth century, "Who is the unicorn but the only begotton Son of God ... Christ." (Patrologia Latina / http://castlelyons7.blogspot.com/2008/09/christ-unicorn.html). From this page is taken:

The points concerning the 'unicorn' or wild ox and Ephraim and Jesus Christ are well enough taken but the concept of such as the 'holy grail' and the 'Sacred Bloodline' as being of 'Mormonism' is a bit speculative and not well support from my own point of reference. Thus I must leave that text to itself on such as those points. But the truth is that as put forth in serveral places in this text concerning Messiah ben Joseph/Ephraim and Messiah ben David that Christ legal ancestry is of the leanage of Joseph and Ephraim was quite logically known in Old Testament times, New Testament times, as well as in the early Christian Church into Medieval times. And that is which, among a number of other truths, have been lost to the Christian truth during the great apostasy under the influence of the Catholic or self proclaimed 'Universal Church'. Again, even Philip anounce to Nathaniel that Jesus was the son of Joseph, meaning Joseph of Egypt, as stated by the ancient prophets including Moses.

As for the concept of 'The Hunt of the Unicorn Tapestries' being a reputation of Jesus Christ, there are varied accounts. The various related themes are at best a corruption of Jesus Christ, which though are fanciful and well considered to be further historically based in further Christian themes dating back into the early Christian religion which did so associate the Unicorn with Jesus Christ. The Hunt of the Unicorn Tapestries are a series of seven tapestries dating from between 1495 and 1505, which atests the late medieval date of the perception of Christ being the Unicorn still persisting. Various Christian writings interpret the unicorn and its death as the Passion of Christ with a number of Christian symbolisms envolved. Perhaps a modern parallel would be the series of seven children's books The Chronicles of Narnia written by C. S. Lewis where the Lion is highly representative of Jesus Christ in lore associated with the various Narnia stories. In fact the Narnia Books and the Unicorn Tapestries form an interesting picture of the two creatures representing Jesus Christ so found on the Britism Royal Coat of Arms.

Variously detailed accounts of the British coat of arms, whether with the Lion and the unicorn either left and right or right and left are found on the internet which so associate the two creatures of the Lion 'rampant' being the representative emblem of the 'House of Judah' and the Unicorn or white Wild-Ox 'rampant' being representative of the 'House of Israel' [the House of Ephraim], and that they collectively make up the full and total 12 tribed "Kingdom of Israel" which futher coorelates with the Ezekiel chapter 37 perspectives of the two stick of Judah and of Joseph/Ephraim. In fact the word 'British' in Hebrew means 'the People of the Covenant' or in other words 'the People Israel'. A number of such British associations with Israel, like those of the United States, are being lose today including the significants of so swearing on Israel's Book, the Bible, to tell the Truth so help us God.

The Biblical history of Joseph, Ephraim and even Manasseh is tied up in the Bible. Moses pronounced Joseph's blessing in Deuteronomy 33:13-17:

This blessing of Moses ought not go without its association with the blessings of Ephraim and Manasseh and the blessing of Joseph under the very hand of Jacob:

There is some import to note. Respecting the multitude of nations that would be blessed through Ephraim assisted by Manasseh, he further states 'in thee shall Israel bless' and also said 'make thess as Ephraim and as Manasseh'. There has been some wonder why in the LDS Church, though it has begun to establish itself through out the world why the majority of the patriarchal blessings are still being given in the names of Ephraim primarily and Manasseh secondary and not in many if any of the rest of the names of the various tribes of Israel. Here in seems to be the answer given that as Ephraim assisted by Manasseh doeth gather together from the nation unto the House of Israel, all Israel will be bless and 'made to be as Ephraim and Manasseh'. This seems to be a needful solution for indeed the tribal bloodlines would have been mixed amongst the nations with not many remaining pure and very often blended even in and amonst themselves. So of which tribe be than but to be 'made even as Ephraim and Manasseh upon whom the collective name of 'Israel' was give?

Now this is not all that is important to know and understand for Jacob did also next bless Joseph as well as Judah when he blessed each of his other sons in Genesis chapter 49 as follows for Judah and for Joseph respectively:

~ J U D A H ~

~ J O S E P H ~

From these blessing of Judah and Joseph few things ought to be noted which relate to each other. Judah is blessed that the 'scephre' will remain in his 'blood line descendants' UNTIL Shiloh comes. And then there are two perspectives of the gathering. The first is that the gathering of the people is unto Judah, but that can be taken in another respect which is elsewhere further established in scripture that is is unto 'Shiloh' that the gahtering of the people shall be. Since Ephraim and Manasseh are also said to be those who 'round up' or gather the people with their horns, etc., it does seem that Ephraim will play a roll in that gathering as well unto Shiloh (Deuteronomy 33:17 & Ezekiel 37:All, & v15-28). Shiloh is known to be Jesus Christ (JST Genesis 50:24 'not the Messiah who is called Shilo'). And in the blessing of Joseph it does state that from 'thence is the shepherd, the stone of Israel' who is in fact Jesus Christ, which gives reason why the Messiah in JST Genesis 50:24 and 2 Nephi 3:5 needed to be stipulated that the prophet(s) of Joseph's blessings were not to be considered as the 'Messiah' who was also known to have his descent from Joseph. Therein Jesus Christ is he, who while being of the blood of Judah, he was actually raised up as the seed of the dead Mahlon (Ruth 4:5, 9-10; Deut. 25:5-10) as stated and of Elimelech as being noted as Naomi's son (Ruth 4:13-17), who was Ephrathite/Ephraimite and of the house of Joseph via Joseph's son Ephraim. They were Ephraimites. And therein are the two houses of Israel united in Jesus Christ, Messiah ben David and Messiah ben Joseph/Ephraim.

Now these blessings are futher discussed in their own item, but they are repeated here as each item in truth does not stand entirely alone, but the whole of the truth does but blend in together and supports and confirms the 'rest of the story' as it continues to be further developed. Thus there is a needed degree of redunancy as the threads to the tapestry are so woven in together. And so it is also with the Day of Atonement which also is discussed in its own item, but it does also further relation to the topic lf the Messiah as the Unicorn or the Wild-Ox of Ephraim and that iconic representaton of Jesus through the ages.

The Day of Atonement Bullock Sin Offering

Perhaps a anotated rendering of the 'Day of Atonement Sin Offering' would be insightful at this point. On the annual 'Day of Atonement' knows as Yom Kippur, the presiding High Priest as the Son of the Father, acting in the stead of the Father in all things, who was 'bathed' to fulfil all righteousness, put on the special garments and then sacrifices a bull for a sin offering for himself and his family. It is important to note just who each of these are in position of being. The officiating High Priest is the son standing in the stead of the father (Lev. 16:32), that is he is acting as Jesus Christ the Son acting in the stead of the Father, having been conserated by the Father. The 'bull' offering is also a 'shaddow symboling' of the atonement of the Messiah, Jesus Christ, for the sins of that portion of mankind who is said to be 'himself and his family'. The family of Jesus Christ are his sons and daughters who have taken upon them his name and are his followers and may be said to be those who have 'prevailed in/with God'—and that is ISRAEL or the repentant and accepted members of the Church of Jesus Christ—his family so married and sealed to him by the ordinances of the gospel of Jesus Christ, he being as it were their Father unto them in the gospel. This symbolism is somewhat lost and obscured when one does not consider beyond the immediate temple priest and his family. In its full symbolic form the 'temple priest' is not just being the 'local priest', he is acting as the Son of the Father, Jesus Christ, and symbolically in the bullock offering himself as an atoning sacrifice for the sins of all his lawful followers who have complied with the gospel in becoming his extended gospel family—Israel in its broadest and most extensive sense to include all the so qualifying sons and daughters of God.

Certainly each of the various 'sin' offerings do represent variously the sacrifice of Jesus Christ for the sins of the world. The outward animal sacrifices were performed often to remind Israel, God's people of that sacrifice of Jesus Christ to come. And the once a year 'Day of Atonement' offering was particulary mindful in relation to Christ, our Ministering God and His People, Lawfully of His Church. I cannot present all of the various facets of each of these. I do not know all of that myself. But I do see Christ and his people, his family, in the Day of Atonement sacrifice of the Bullock of Ephraim as the rightful heir of the firstborn of Israel who is Ephraim to fulfill all righteousness in that capacity. One who was solely of the 'blood line of Judah' could not so qualify based on that alone without also being the legal and rightful heir of the firstborn of Isreal who Jacob blessed as being the second son of Joseph named Ephraim, his seed and his posterity. And though it was but by the Law of God that Boaz acted as surrogate husband of Ruth in raising up seed unto the dead house of Mahlon and Elimelech who were Ephraimites, it was Obed and his son Jesse and Jesse's son David by whom the rights of the 'firstborn' of Israel were carried on down through to Jesus that he might so qualify to fulfill all righteousness in that matter as well. So when Joseph Smith speak in answer as the Lord to what is the 'root of Jesse' spoken of in the 10th verse of the 11th chapter of Isaiah and states, "Behold, thus saith the Lord, it is a descenant of Jesse, as well as of Joseph unto whom rightly belongs the priesthood, and the keys of the kingdom, for an ensign, and for the gathering of my peole in the last days; It is NOT speaking of two separated genealogical lines but one that goes through Jesse to Obed to Mahlon to Elimelech to such as Joshua, to Nun, to such as Ephraim and his father Joseph of Egypt, a full and complete 100% ancestral linage of the priesthood and not the priesthood coming through two different sources but through that ONE ancestral line as just recited here which is the 'birthright' line of the 'firstborn' of the covenant—WHOSE PRIESTHOOD RIGHT IT IS! That is who Jesus Christ is, the rightful heir and firstborn son of the covenanted priesthood both by the laws of Heaven and earth. And may he no longer be hid. .

* [It ought to be pointed out that, while St. Ambrose did very much doubt that 'unicorns' every existed, he did argue for the importance of the unicorn as a religious symbol. And he favored the 'one horn image' as depicting the oneness of God. The qoute from St. Ambrose of, "Who is the unicorn but the only begotten Son of God?", was spoken in reference to the text of Psalms. Other early Christian fathers also wrote of the relationship of Jesus Christ being the unicorn of scripture. Saint Basil (330-379) wrote that Jesus "will be called the son of unicorns, for as we have learned in [the biblical book of] Job, the unicorn is irresistible in might and unsubjected to man. ... Christ is the power of God, therefore he is called the unicorn on the ground that He has one horn, that is, one common power with the Father." Such leading statements making the unicorn the symbol of Jesus Christ inspired church sermons in the early Christian era and are the likely basis for the many unicorn religious art depictions in various stained-glass window, wood carvings, book illustrations and even tapestries during the Middle Ages as the understanding and knowledge of Christ being the Unicorn continued to be popular. Thus we can see and accept that Christ being taught as being the 'unicorn' of the Bible and in the writings of the early church fathers is solidly based in Christian belief.

Of course, there is the irony in some views, but also in other's view the abidding truth that Jesus Christ was being identified as the 're'em' or wild ox, which was certainly the same as the symbolistic depiction of the Tribe of Ephraim. The great and powerful wild-ox of Europe, the aurochs, have been from fossil remains estimated to be as large as 2 meters or 7 feet tall and up to 3.7 meters or about 12 feet long and with a large set of a pair of two horns.

Aurochs from Ishtar Gate at Babylon, constructed about 575 BC by order of King Nebuchadnezzar II.

One representation is this Asian Gaur bull Photoshopped as found on the internet. At over 6 feet tall at the shoulders and 10 feet long, a full sized man would look like this next to an ancient 'wild-ox' of 're'em'. Or also relative in size as depicted in the Minoan bull jump illustration below. 
 
Just why the Alexandrian scholars (those with the close 'scholarly' ties to Bishop Alexander of Alexandria), removed from the pastoral roots of the Biblical 're'em' and quite likely more aware of the writings of Aristotle and Ctesias, settled on the Greek word 'monoceros' (one horn) must be left to speculation. All cloven hoof creatures have two horns. The one horned rhino's foot has three 'toes'. Only the mythical 'unicorn' has the 'one-horn' and cloven hoof combination. And that appears to have been the creature of choice which just happens to correlate with the three-in-one Greek/pagan godhead as well. And this would seem to be the early evidences of such a 'Greek' and then 'Roman' corruption of the Biblical godhead by making of the 'wild-ox' tribe of Ephraim symbol of the 're'em' into that mythical creature with 'one-horn' to represent their concept of the three-in-one foriegn conception of god. If so then it is a corruption with a sinister motive to conform the Biblical conception of God into that of being like unto the Greek pagan concept of god.