As recored in Ruth 1:2, the family of Elimelech is said to be Ephrathites of Bethlehem-Judah. The Book of Jasher records that Nun, the father of Joshua, was also an 'Ephrathite' (see Jasher 81:54). This is discussed fully in item number 10 and elsewhere. But the implication is that Nun who was born in Egypt of the house of Ephraim and never lived in the promised land where Bethlehem and Ephrath were located, is called an 'Ephrathite' meaning Ephraimite or of the tribe of Ephraim and not meaning a citizen of Ephrath for he most likely never did live there having died either in Egypt or in the wilderness as Joshua he son only made it to the promised land where Ephrath the place was. And what is now considered to be significant, is that the son of Obed is also called an Ephrathite of Bethlehem-Judah as quoted below.

¶ Now David was the son of that Ephrathite of Beth-lehem-judah, whose name was Jesse; and he had eight sons: and the man went among men for an old man in the days of Saul. ~ 1 Samuel 17:12

Just as the book of Ruth establishes all of the house of Elimelech as being Ephrathites, the record just qouted establishes that Jesse, the father of David did inherit the linage of being 'that Ephrathite' as that was the rightful descent being the legal seed of the House of Elimelech through Obed the son of Ruth as raised to her dead husband Mahlon, the first born son of Elimelech. But this is not all which Jesse did inherit from the House of Elimelech.

Remember that the blessing of Jacob upon the head of Joseph of Egypt did state that from 'thence is the shepherd, the stone of Israel' (Genesis 49;24). It was in Joseph's blessing and that right of blessing had decended upon the house of Elimelech. Thus through the line of Mahlon, Obed, and Jesse did David achieve the right as the chosen and worthy son of Jesse to be the ancestor of the promised Christ the Messiah, the Good Shepherd, the very stone or rock of Israel's salvation.

Judah was not the worthy son of Jacob, Joseph was. It was not Judah to whom the blessing of the firstborn son went. And with those rights and blessings was included the promises as sought and obtained by Abraham as part of that great covenant of the Fathers, that Christ, 'the promised seed' would come of their descendants and that redemption would be granted through such seed of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and thence through Joseph and Joseph's son Ephraim. Yes Ephraim obtained the birthright as Jacob placed him in the place of Reuben, Jacob's first born, as Reuben had proven unworthy. Thus the blessing of the Messiah to the world came rightfully through the tribe of Ephriam.

There is no dicotomy between Judah and Ephraim, one providing the Messiah and the other the salvation of the world in the latter-days. It is but one and the same blessing as the House of David was rightfully of the House of Ephraim by legal right in the performance of the Law of Moses in raising seed to the dead which Boaz took upon himself to do.

But the envy of Judah was satisfied, in that the Messiah would be of the bloodline of Judah through Boaz's performance. But the rights and covenants did come through the rightful legal line of the House of Elimelech. And Christ, though born of Boaz and Ruth, was rightfully and legally of the House of Elimelech and Naomi. He was of the tribe of Ephraim, son of Joseph of Egypt. And therein lies the rights to the Messiahship as brought down by the House o David, legally of Ephraim, rightfully of Ephraim, and the true descendant of Ephraim by the vicarious proxy of the Law of Moses.

Bethlehem - Ephratah and the House of David

The New Testament confirms that the seed of David/Jesse/Obed/Mahlon/Elimelech and so forth, were of the land and 'city' of Bethlehem, as that is where Joseph and Mary had to go to be taxed at the time of JESUS' birth (Luke 2:1-5). Being a 'herdsman' or shepherd, as David would tend the sheep, it is not likely that Jesse's lands and household lived right in the little town of Bethlehem, but in the 'hill' land of those Ephraimites so by right were so inherited. That land was of his ancestrial inheritance as stated in Ruth 4:5, to be from Mahlon and the ancestrial estate of the family of Elimelech, for the intent of the redeeming kinsman marriage of Boaz and Ruth had been to that end 'to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance.'

Now not only the New Testament and the Book or Ruth so established that the house of David, and therefore Jesus, was that of the Ephrathites of Ephratah, Elimelech, Mahlon, Chilion and Naomi (Ruth 1:2), but also does the book of Micah the prophet so indicate the same. Jesus the Messiah was to be not just born of Behtlehem, but he was to be born of Bethlehem Ephratah.

"But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, thou be little among the thousands of Judah, out of thee shall he come forth unto me to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth from of old, from everlasting." Micah 5:2

I prefer here to leave out the italicized 'clarifying words' put in according to the King James Version of the Bible. Here it does seem clearer to leave it as it was to be for it to me more precisesly denotes that house of David was but a little remnant of Ephraim among the thousands of Judah, apart from Judah and of Ephraim. It ought to be remembered that Judah's blessing was to have a ruler from between his feet 'until' Shiloh would come (Genesis 49:10). Jesus was NOT a son of Judah in that respect, for he was the SON OF GOD. Yet the tribal bloodline was that of Judah and the right to being the King of Isreal was according to being that Son of David who Jesus was and who both Matthew and Luke had given him to be. And still yet, being legally and lawfully by the Law of God, he being raised up to the dead Mahlon of the house of Elimelech, Jesus was also heir of the everlasting covenant, and rightful heir to that higher priesthood of Melchizedek and to that position in righteousness, 'in order to fulfill all righteousness', meeting all earthly as well as heavenly requirements.

And almost as fittingly, as the meek and lowly lamb of God, Jesus of the shepherd king David, was so born in a manger, perhaps not even in the city/town proper, but likely of that land of Ephratah, his own family land, so associated with the little Jewish town of Bethlehem, and near to the tomb of mother Rachel as well.