"And the name of the man was Elimelech [My God is king], and the name of his wife Naomi, and the name of his two sons Mahlon and Chilion, Ephrathites of Beth-lehem-judah." ~Ruth 1:2

Now Elimelech and Naomi had two sons. Mahlon is listed first in the book of Ruth and presumed to be the eldest. Chilion is the presumed second son of Elimelech and Naomi. Mahlon clearly and simplely is the recorded first husband of Ruth as the book of Ruth clearly states that Ruth was the wife of Mahlon in Ruth chapter 4 verse 10. But there is a question of whether Ruth may have also later become the wife of Chilion after the death of Mahlon if Mahlon died first. At any rate, Boaz assumes, for the benefit of the heir of his marriage with Ruth, all that was Elimelech's, all that was Chilion's and all that was Mahlon's of the hand of Naomi (see Ruth 4:9).

Now Chilion was as much the son of Elimelech and Naomi as was Mahlon. And all members of the family as pointed out in item number 13 were reported to be Ephrathites. The point being that the recognized ancestry of Chilion, Mahlon, and Elimelech should indeed be one and the same ancestry. If one is said to be of a certain tribe then the others would be of that tribe also. In this respect the Hebrew Lexicon stated to be in the public domain at 'Crosswalk.com' states the following about Chilion.

"1. an Ephraimite and son of Elimelech by Naomi and the deceased husband of Ruth (or maybe deceased husband of Orpah)" ~ (The Hebrew lexicon is Brown, Driver, Briggs, Gesenius Lexicon; that is keyed to the "Theological Word Book of the Old Testament." These files are found on the Internet and considered public domain.)

At the right is a copy of the information which 'The KJV Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon' presents where Chilion is identified as being an Ephraimite, meaning of the tribe of Ehraim. That same Lexicon identifies Mahlon as Ruth's first husband. But if Mahlon died before Chilion, then Chilion would have taken Ruth to wife as his brother's widow. Thus Chilion would have also been Ruth's deceased husband. The only presetence found for this is that Boaz when taking Ruth to wife in order to raise up seed to the dead, assumed both the land inheritences for Chilion and Mahlon. Thus all the birthright and inheritences of the House of Elimelech was assumed by Boaz in behalf of his first son by Ruth who was Obed, the ancestor to King David and the Christ.

The significant fact is that Boaz took Ruth to wife to raise up seed to the dead according to the Law of Moses. Obed was therefore the legal representative of the House of Elimelech and by that assumed criteria, Obed was also legally an Ephraimite or Ephrathite. Thus while being of the blood of Judah, the House of Obed was legally the House of Ephraim and Jospeh of Egypt. This is pointed out by Jesse being an Ephrathite or Ephraimite of Bethlehem as stated in the scriptures. Thus Christ was legally the inheriting descendent of the House of Joseph, Ephraim, Elimelech, Obed, Jesse, David and so forth. They all being the 'legal' House of Joseph though of the blood of Boaz the vicarious performing Jew.

Upon the Internet one can find others who speak of the family of Elimelech as being Ephriamites. Just do a search on 'Elimelech ephraimite' and some such sites should appear. Also a growing number of various Bible version translations are actually placing into the Old Testament of Ruth 1:2, that 'Elimelech, his wife Naomi, and their sons Mahlon and Chilion were Ephraimites' (Modern Spelling Tyndale-Coverdale), and as will be seen below the single same Hebrew word is both translated Ephrathite and Ephraimite variously (see below). Now some these do not understanding that 'brother/cousin' relationships such as Jacob and Laban, Mary and Elisabeth and even Elimelech and Boaz very well are but 'maternal' marriage relationships. Thus some who recognize Elimelech as Ephraimite want to make Boaz Ephraimite also, and will attempt to make of Elimelech and Boaz as of the same Israelite tribe. Of course that is not so. John the Baptist was a Levite and Jesus was of the house of David, a 'Jew' according to his blood line and they were 'cousins' as were their mothers. Boaz was of the blood line of Judah as recorded in both the Old Testament and New Testament. Some Rabbis on the other hand force Elimelech to being a Jew due to his being a 'kinsman' of Boaz. They say that Elimelech was the son of Salmon, that Naomi was his niece and that Mahlon and Chilion were the same as Joash and Saraph named in 1 Chronicles 4:22. So while the scriptures will never place the family of Elimelech as being Jewish, the Rabbis in their Midrash will. Thus it is important to keep the dual ancestry of Jesus straight to establish that he is both Messiah ben Joseph/Ephraim and Messiah ben David. Thus some of these other sites, while being somewhat supportive of the concept of this text, they can also draw one down some strange conceptual paths is one is not careful, and because of that strangeness actual push one back to the traditional Jewish stance which happens to be by 'Rabbi default' most traditional Christian's position also.

Then some who understand that Jesus was both of Ephraim and of Judah also understand that the covenant right of the birthright and priesthood of Melchizedek as High Priest comes from that line from Joseph under the covenant and that the rulership of Israel comes from King David and of Judah. But the fail to depict that so also was David of that dual descended as well. And though King David chose Judah above Israel, that did not stop the right of the covenant of Abraham through such as Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Ephraim, Nun, Joshua, Elimelech, and Mahlon; and thence on through Obed, Jesse, David and on down to be the covenant anscestors of Jesus Christ the Son of God. And this as by the Law of God, Obed was raised up as the seed of the dead that the descent of the family of Elimelech might not end and have heir in the first born of Ruth by the surogate Boaz. So while I am not alone in some of these views, some of the others will trail off into various directions and not stay the course to identifying Jesus Christ as both Messiah ben Joseph as well as Messiah ben David.

From the LDS Church's Scriptural resource disk, it is found in Strong's Dictionary that Ehraphite is defined as being the same in meaning as Ephraimite. And though it also states that it is from the word ephrath, there is the question, which from the Jewish Bible perspective is not answered but left to be found, that Ephraim as well as Benjamin had a stake in the town of their mother Rachel's tomb.

Consider these facts. 1) The name Ephraim is the same name and meaning as the word Ephrath. Where Ephraim was born first in the land of Egypt, it is a question as to who was named after who if indeed there is a connection. Since the Bible IS NOT in a pure original form but a compiled and edited form with later commentary such as statements which state 'until this day' meaning a later date, likely during the Babylonian captivity when it was compiled, edited and produced; it is quite likely that the land of Ephrath was actually called after the name of Ephraim, than that Ephraim in that distance land of Egypt was called after a place named Ephrath. This is considering the distinct likelihood that such reference to Ephrath was added after the fact by the compilers and was not a part of the original texts. 2) In 1^st Samuel it is actually recorded that the site name of the location of Rachel's tomb was Zelzah and not Bethlehem at all. And there is indicates that Zelzah's land was was in fact a part of the inheritance of Benjamin and NOT of Judah at all (1 Samuel 10:2). Only later, after the taking of Jerusalem by King David and even likely after the scattering of Israel and removal of Ephraim, does Judah lay exclusive claim upon Bethlehem, likely ascribing the new name of Bethlehem to it. And Judah would have so easily made claim to the land because by then there was no longer any other tribe to claim it but Judah. 3) From the location of Rachel's death and burial the actual land of Ephrath or Ephraim was still a distance to travel. Not right at the location of Zelzah, the tomb and Bethlehem as is the case today. 4) The association of Ephrath to be the same as Bethlehem is but an added post scattering of both Israel and even Judah feature, as Judah is in their Babylonian captivity when in fact the Bible is being compiled and written from its various sources original sources. 5) Such editorial 'asides' and 'clarifications' as Bethlehem being the same as Ephrath are of Bible Babylonian composition date and from the very exclusive Jewish perspective. They were not contained in the original texts. 6) All other claims and items as here in presented in the whole of this text are but confirming evidences that Christ and even his place of birth were that of the house of Rachel, being at the site of Rachel's tomb and of the house of Joseph or Ephraim which it the same as Epthrath. That is, where Rachel was buried, Jesus Christ her Messiah descendant, Messiah ben Ephraim/Messiah ben Joseph, was born.

As stated above, Ephraim is a 'dual' of a masculine form of the same word as Ephrath. They are the same word. That Ephraim was made plural or 'dual' does but indicate the increased fruitfulness of Ephraim over Manasseh as it speaks of Manasseh and his thousands and Ephraim and his ten thousands. Also it is that Joseph was a fruitful bough running over the wall (Genesis 49:22). Ephraim was the fruitful son of the covenant, in who the covenant would be fulfilled in the fulness of time in the latter days. That the 'territory' of Ephraim which is the same as Ephrath, it must be considered that like Benjamin, Ephraim also had a territorial claim by the name of Ephrath which the Jewish Bible no longer proclaimed or recognized after the scattering removal of the tribes of Israel. That is Judah claimed Zelzah of Benjamin and Ephrath of Ephraim and called them by the name of Bethlehem in the editorialized compilation of the Bible in the days of their Babylonian captivity after 600 B.C. What was the point of perspective of the whole of Israel prior to that date is NOT preserved nor given in the Jewish produced Old Testament Bible record. It has to be discerned out.

The meaning(s) given for Ephrath in the Strong's Dictionary contains a vage phrase of 'once perhaps for Ephraim'. This vage application of stating that the name of Ephrath and Ephraim were once used as but the same name is clarified in the meaning of Ephraim, that they ARE but the same word. One is the place name of the firstborn son of Jacob by his chosen wife Rachel and the other is the actual name of the firstborn son of Jacob by his wife Rachel. [Note: The firstborn son of Jacob being Ephraim is a Biblical fact. Ephraim was indeed placed in the stead of Reuben as the firstborn son and thus heir of Jacob. Also Ephraim is the son of Rachel's firstborn Joseph and is further clearly stated by the voice of the Lord to be the firstborn of Israel (Jeremiah 31:9). Thus Ephraim is the firstborn of Jacob by his wife Rachel.] And in Book of Mormon consideration, it was the habit that the land be given its name after he who first dwelled and lived in it. From that perspective Ephrath would have indeed been named after Ephraim. And it is totally logical that from a house of Rachel perspective that both Benjamin and Ephraim be given a claim of land about the tomb where their mother was buried. Just bearely is Benjamin's claim still contained in the Jewish Old Testament. But neither is it surprising that the Jewish perspective Old Testiment has basically wiped any direct application to this fact in respect to Ephraim, though it be the same logic for both her sons, Benjamin as well as Ephraim the son of Joseph.

[Note: One final note of interest can be made here. Sarah is the female form of the same word of Sarim. The one being in meaing princess and the other meaning prince or princes. So it is also that Ephrathah is the female form of the word of Ephraim. And just as clearly, Ephrath and Ephraim are the same word, one applied to a land location and the other to a person. The 'plural' form of Ephrath as Ephraim is enhancing the meaning making it more so just as El, Elo or Eloh and Elohim are the same name of God, Elohim being the more or increased in glory form of the same word God, though it can in various contexts also mean a plurality of Gods. Unlike Enlish where an added 's' makes many words plural in form and the added 'est' makes them increased or greatest, in the Hebrew there is but 'im' or 'him' which makes either or both 'greatest' or 'plural' in terms of increase, intensity and multiplication of a word.]