24. Enigma of a Jewish Prepared Old Testament

When events happen through time it is best to obtain more than one perspective of the events and histories. Every one, every group, has their distinct perspective of bias. For example from a Christian perspective, the Jews killed and cruxified the Savior, Jesus Christ. The Jews from their perspective as a people, they do not recognize Jesus Christ as the Son of God and have chosen much of their own records in defense that Christ was not the promised Messiah for various lines of logic and reason according to Jewish interpretation of the records of the Old Testament which they have kept and recognize.

Understandably, any records which may have clearly stated the facts of a Christ who is the Son of God, have been edited, ignored, left out and lost to the Jews as it does not support their particular biased perspective. But such was once there as may been seen in the book of Moses (JST Genesis) of the Pearl of Great Price, the revealed scriptures of the Book of Mormon and such ancient records at it refers to, and also the book of Abraham. And yet even still with the Jewish Bible alone, from a Christian perspective a work such as Handel's Messiah can be developed out of the scripture of the Jewish Old Testament which does indeed support the concept of Jesus Christ the Son of God and the Savior of the world.

Now just as a Jewish perspective would tend to so bias the Jewish works against any such Christian perspective, so is a Jewish perspective going to so diminish an Ephriamite or House of Joseph perspective. Even still we do know from the Jewish Old Testament Bible that Ephraim recieved the firstborn birthright blessings of the Covenant of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, having been bestowed by Jacob that in the positional place of his firstborn son, instead of the unworthy Rueben, the birthright came to Joseph and Joseph's sons, particularly Ephraim (JST Genesis 48). And what is more interesting, is that Rueben was at least honest enough to recognize his unworthiness and did not persue to thwart either Joseph or Joseph's son Ephraim in the matter and to the extent to which Judah did.

It was Rueben who settled his brothers to cast Joseph in a pit for a while instead of instantly murdering him in the heat of emotion. And it was Rueben who had full intent to returning to retrieve Joseph from the pit once the emotions of his brothers had settled down. However, it was Judah who then persuaded his other brothers into selling Joseph to the passing caravan. While some argue that this may have saved Joseph's life, it would seem that Rueben had already done that, and what Judah had done was to rid himself of Joseph forever, that if he would not be allowed to be rid of him by murder he would be rid of him by selling him into slavery into a far away land.

This Jewish perspective comes fully into light, not only in that they record events in a manner favorable to Judah and unfavorable towards Ephraim in that Ephraim was to be the head of Israel and Judah never did so recognize Ephraim as such in the details of their record. Thus much about the genealogy happening in Ephraim and Israel are not always well presented in the Jewish record. Indeed, Judah becomes center stage, and the House of Joseph, Ephraim and Israel become the sideline.

Even the ancestry of King David is presented with a very Jewish slant. That is while the Law of Moses as the letter of the law should have prevailed and the ancestral lines of Obed through Mahlon and Elimelech should have been more rightly presented as the ancestors than that of Boaz as the vicarious means of performing the task of raising up seed to the dead. Obed and therefore Jesse and the whole of the House of David should have by law, counted the ancestral line of Mahlon and Elimelech as their legal and rightful line rather than Boaz's Jewish family line.

Some say that Elimelech's and Boaz's line must be the same. But that does not hold. The lines of my sister's children through their male heir is that of my brothers-in-law. And they are not necessarily anywhere never to being closing related to me. In fact it is preferred if they are not. Likewise, Boaz was not the nearest next of kin as 'Such a One' was. And it may be that 'Such a One' could have been of a similar ancestral line as Elimelech being more closely related. But Boaz stated himself that he was not the 'next of kin' in the matter, he was just kin as the next level.

And in many of these items there is direct evidence that supports that the House of David was in fact legally and rightfully of the House of Ephraim through some source tieing back to Rachel and her son Joseph. And it is quite clear that the family is both strategically positioned and very much potentially that very link. And after a trip through these some 100+ items through out this text, which in varying degrees support and substantiate that conclusion, certainly the matter is most feasible.

But you would not expect a Jewish perspective to so subtantiate it to be the case. First, from a Jewish perspective Jesus Christ was not the Messiah. Second, many Jews do not even accept that there is to be a Son of God at all, just some person who will be the deliverer, but not of a divine nature. Thrid, the Jews have set their records to lay their own claims to the House of David as being Jewish through Boaz's son Obed raised to the dead and the House of Elimelech and Mahlon even though there is much evidence which says it is more rightly of Ephraim. Fourth, betwix the envy and and vexation of Judah for Ephraim, Joseph, and Israel, one can hardly expect the Jewish world to promote 'their' King(s) as being of the house of Joseph. Fifth, the Jews have their own perspectives about thier feast days and ordinances. They do not interpret the Law of Moses as being symbolic of the Lamb of God and the coming Christ, they are settled into their very limited perspectives of what their own 'religion' and faith in God is all about, which does not include a 'God son' Jesus Christ. They are the 'old jars' into which the 'new wine' of Christ's Gospel doth not fit though it is and has been all fulfilled in Christ.

And there are likely other reasons why a Jewish bias in the preparation of the Old Testament is quite a stumbling block rather than the most benefical steppingstone to Christ that it could otherwise have been. This bias in the compilation and editing of the Old Testament Bible must certainly be considered. And while Christians and the rightful House of Ephraim may finds many answers there, it must also be considered that the Jewish perspective has clouded, distorted, hidden, changed, and even lost and destoryed much to which Christian and those of the House of Ephraim would like to be privilleged to.

This is what makes the reocrds of Joseph and the stick of Joseph so much of interest. That would be another perspective and light upon a matter so narrowly administered and brought to the world by the biased hand of the Jews. The brass plates of Laban may one day open that perspective wide to the concepts of Christ and of Ephraim and the seed and role of Joseph in the world. Yet we know much already and learn more daily. We have the Book of Mormon, We have other modern revelations. We have a portion of the record of Abraham. We have an additional portion to the record of Moses. And we have much in an Inspired Version of many of the Bible scriptures. And one day we will have access to the prophets Zenos, Zenock, Ezias and others which are upon the plates of brass. Until then we are somewhat confined with an Old Testament prepared from a limited Jeish perspective. Yet for now, with a grain of salt as far as it is translated correctly, it does supply much.

In Particular Chronicles

When considering the enigma of the Jewish prepared Bible one aspect stands out particularly concerning the record of the two books of Chronicles. While the historical books of Samuel are thought to have been originally written by Samuel and perhaps edited a bit in transcription and Kings is likely taken from such records of the Kings; the record of Chronicles seems to be unmistakably written in whole from a post Babylonian Exile era, perhaps about 450 B.C. The first clue is that the Jewish genealogies in Chronicles run past Zerubbabel and the author is at least contempory with him. Further the very name by which it is referred to 'Paraleipomena' - "things omitted" or "supplements" speak from a historically past perspective of post Samuel and Kings, by adding to the record. And what in particular is added? If it is post Babylon, then whatever is added or adjusted is diffinately from the one sided skewed Jewish perspective. And this is key as to whose genealogies and just who is being favored and emphasized in Chronicles. Consider the very 'Jewish Perspective' of what is stated in 1 Chronicles 5:1-2:

Now inquire, 'Who's Genealogy' is being spoken of here? It merely states "The Genealogy". There is but 'One Genealogy' which is of prime interest and that is the one so reckoned through whom the Messiah shall come for 'Blessed is he through whose seed Messiah shall come' (Moses 7:53). And if there needs to be such a qualification as to after 'which' genealogical line 'The Genealogy is to be Reckoned After', there logically seems to be competeing lines. And who are the two major competitors to the linage of Messiah so stipulated in verses 1 & 2? Of all of Judah's brethren, who is being specifically denoted in verses 1 & 2 that 'his was the birthright' but NOT the genealogy because 'Judah had prevailed'? It is the lingage of the birthright. It is the linage of Joseph and the sons of Joseph whose genealogy is being stipulated that Judah's has prevailed above? And just what genealogical claim did Joseph and his sons have in the Messiah that the Jews from their post Babylon perspective would desire to argue and contend against that 'the genealogy is not to be reckoned after the birthright'?

This graphic at the right illustrates the 'Covenant Blessings' from Abraham (Abraham 1:4) to the 'Seed' and of the fathers so promised to Enoch (Moses 7:53) flowing down to through Isaac and Jacob. And thence per Judah's blessing under the hand of Jacob (Genesis 49:10) concerning the 'sceptre' from between his feet 'UNTIL' Shiloh come. And also thence per the 'birthright' (1 Chronicles 5:1-2) through Joseph. Now that the blessings of the fathers did remain in Joseph there is D&C 27:10 to consider, that through and by Joseph did those promises remain, and NOT trough Judah. And that Shiloh, who is Jesus Christ, would remove the sceptre from Judah is so stated, though the Jews claim Shiloh to be through them per their Jewish perspective that 'the genealogy is not to be reckoned according to the birthright' of the covenant but according to the bloodline of Judah (1 Chronicles 5:1-2).

Clearly the competing entities as per Judah's usurption is Judah against Joseph and Joseph's sons particularly Ephraim who is Israel, so named by Jacob's blessing of bestowal upon him (JST Genesis 48). And even in the days of King David did Judah and Ephraim contended over who held the greater right in David (2 Samuel 19:43). And in the fourth chapter of the book of Ruth, even against the right of the Law of Moses of Levirate marriage did the Jews insert their prefered genealogy above that of Elimelech, Mahlon and Naomi the true legal and rightful ancestors (Ruth 4:18-22), Obed being the considered son of Naomi by all the people and by Boaz himself. And it was the properties of the House of Elimelech (God is King), which did descend to Obed, Jesse and David, those Ephrathites or Ephraimites of Bethlehem in Ephratah (Micah 5:2).

But despite Judah's usurption to the Covenant and ancestry of the Messiah the fact remains that in Joseph is the birthright and the genealogy by right of the Law of Moses. Messiah ben Joseph is Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ as Shiloh will remove the sceptre from Judah and reveal that it is in Joseph through Ephraim that the blessings of the Lord of the Second Coming do come unto all of Israel. Even the blessings of the Messiah through that birthright were preserved in and throuh Ephraim. Thus as this graphic at the left illustrates, Judah does have a genealogical bloodline connection to Jesus Christ. But in that Boaz did but 'raise up seed to the dead', the 'Covenantline' and the right to the blessings of the fathers, the covenant of birth, did come unto Jesus Christ by way of Ephraim through the line of Nun, Joshua and thence to Elimelech and Mahlon by right of being Ruths first husband and the Law of Levirate marriage as stated in Deuteronomy 25:5-10 and by Boaz himself in Ruth 4:5 & 10, and also as stated by the community in Ruth 4:16-17. And likely most purposefully, it is the blood of the bloodline of Judah, that blood of the world, which is shed for the sins of the world, while it is the covenant blessing of the right of the birthright by which Christ does redeem his people though Joseph and his companions in the latter-days. And while Judah does have a 'bloodline' stake in Jesus Christ by virtue of Boaz, it is only their ignoring the Law of God, which puts Christ of the House of Elimelech and Mahlon, that they do solely claim the genealogy to the Messiah, but by that Law of God, Obed was the seed of the dead Mahlon and Obed as was Jesse, David and even down to Jesus, whom the Pharisee did site as a Samaritan, are they all Ephraimites/Ephrathites of the tribe of Ephraim by the legal law and right of God's Law.

Now one final note ought to be mentioned here. The Chronicler or the writer of the Chronicles does but assume the role of historian and not prophet. His view, thought perhaps that of the Jewish perspective, is not that of a prophet of God as stated by God. And just whom does a prophet of God state as who has and does prevail? Even in Jeremiah's day he states that that 'God is father to Israel, and Ephraim is his firstborn' (Jeremiah 31:9). Through the prophet Joseph Smith the Lord states that the 'richer blessing is upon Ephraim and his fellows' (D&C 133:34) and that the covenant blessings of the fathers did remain through Joseph (D&C 27:10). And in Jacob's blessing of Joseph it states that Joseph's blessings have prevailed ... unto the utmost bound of the everlasting hills (and these 'everlasting hills' have a particular meaning to LDS members, just listen to the Tabernacle Choir broadcast to hear it): they shall be on the head of Joseph' (Genesis 49:26) and even clearly does Jacob state of Joseph 'from thence is the shepherd, the stone of Israel' (Genesis 49:24). Here is God's word through his prophets and patriarchs, Jacob, Jeremiah and Joseph Smith. What is the Jewish historical perspective of Judah as stated in Chronicles having remained in the land (prevailed) when compared to the voice of God and his servants concerning the everlasting covenant? Has not God power to yet have Ephraim and his companions prevail over Judah? Yes!

It is important to understand that Jesus was the son and heir of the 'brithright' of Israel and not just merely the heir to the sceptre of David through the 'bloodline' of Judah. That the bloodline should take a presitence over the 'covenant line' of the birthright is merely a Jewish perspective presented post the Babylon exile and certainly is not that eternal perspective of God. It is a part of this text to so restore that birthright of Israel heirship to Jesus Christ, to state that Jesus is the son and heir of the covenant. And while the Melchizedek Priesthood itself is without patriarchal or parentage inheritance, certainly the blessings of the covenant are and they ought to come in and through and by the rightful covenant birthright even in the case of Jesus Christ. And they do as so put forth here. Jesus Christ is the Son of the Covenant, the Firstborn of the Father in the Spirit, the Only Begotten Son of the Father in the flesh and the birthright Son and Heir of the Covenant in Israel. He is Messiah ben Joseph as well as Messiah ben David. And we ought to retore to him his covenant right of that birthright in Israel, as being they who have prevailed in the Lord.