27. Other Traditional Items in History

When a religion fails and wanes into corruption, the truth of matters are no longer to be found in the appostate structure that remains and may only be found in part by sifting through the lesser and more remote traditions of the common people rather then in the recorded tenents of belief or disbelief as found upon the formalized pages of the remaining strutured faith. Such is the case of Judism today. From modern revealed scripture and revelation we understand that Adam was well versed in the Gospel Principles of Christ the Redeeming Messiah. We know that Moses and others of the prophets did teach of Christ the Messiah. And we know that many of the faithful Jewish disciples and appostles of Christ in Christ's own day did understand much about the Messiah which the Judism of that day and today denies.

When such corruption existed amoung the Pharisees, Saducees, scribes, rabbis, and priests, as it did before and during Christ's own day, it falls further into decay as compiling editors of the scriptural texts and the very esteemed teachers of the religion input their own corrupt understandings and interpretations before the eyes and hears of the people. What then results is small threads of truth mingled with the philosophies and contrivances of men. Yet with some care and guided by the fact that there is much revealed truth modern revelation and scripture to be used as a guide, some of these 'threads of truth' may be retrieved in part by a review of the 'traditions' and 'legends' and writings of the Jews. Even some inadvertantly, as the Jewish leader's proclamation recorded by John, wherein the stated, 'Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan?' Now for part of this section we will look directly at some of these 'threads of tradition' and then for the other part, we will look at what the New Testament indicates was still understood at the time of Christ.

Threads of Truth in the Jewish Traditions

While it should be understood that such 'traditions' are to be written from a 'Jewish' perspective and thus having a 'Jewish skewed bias, what are the chances that such traditions would show threads of truth reflecting that the Messiah, the 'true Messiah', should be legally and rightfully of the seed and house of Joseph? Remember, the premise of this presentation is that Boaz, of the tribe of Judah, is indeed the bloodline ancestor of Christ, but that since Boaz was raising up seed to the dead, the legal and rightful line of inheritance and seed of the birthright covenant is through Mahlon and Elimelech, Ephrathites or Ephraimites of the seed of Joseph of Egypt. Now what are the chances that a 'Jewish' held traditional view would reflect just such a circumstance? Let's read one:

Now from a 'Jewish perspective' it would be understandable that the 'bloodline' of Boaz would take on a more prominant role as stated by Hayyim Vital, that the Messiah's 'bodily asspect' was of the blood line or from between the feet of the tribe of Judah. This is as we have been pointing out in this text. Yet it is fully conceded that from the 'aspect of his soul he is a descendant of Joseph'. How else might a Jew report such a fact that Boaz the Jew was the father by blood, but Ephraim and Joseph were the rightful and legal ancestry of the Messiah under the Laws of God as given in the Law of Moses? Remember, we are pulling threads of truth out of Jewish tradition, which does not accept the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but does recognize the Messiah. In this respect their Jewish understanding ought to be expected to be somewhat corrupted in their understanding. As to the matter of Reuben being the firstborn, it is clearly stated that Joseph/Ephraim replaced Reuben because Reuben was not worthy, and Jacob so blessed Ephraim above Manasseh (Genesis 48, JST Genesis 48, 1 Chronicals 5:1-2). A Jew might just express it as though 'Joseph took it' from Rueben though more correctly it was Reuben's own actions which lost it, just as was the same consideration in how Jacob 'took it' or received it when Esau lost that same birthright blessing. For Judah did resent that Joseph was to be Jacob's and the Lord's 'firstborn' (Jeremiah 31:9) and received the blessings of the covenant as that was the birthright (1 Chronicals 5:1-2). All considered, this is quite a remarkable statement for a Jew of Judism to make. Remember most Jews reject that the Messiah was to be the Son of God the Father, thus the direct fatherhood of Judah is given in this statement. Yet it does come as close to the truth of the matter as one would expect such a Jew to state.

In an age where many Jews of Judism has divided the Messiah into two, it is not easy to find the threads of truth which will state that the Messiah is of the house of Joseph through his son Ephraim. Yet some among Judism do understand that the right of the firstborn and the birthright does come through Ephraim to the Messiah, and that though Judah hold a bloodline to him through Boaz, by right it is Ephraim who is the rightful ancestor. Here is another such statement from the Rabbinical writings which so testify. Note: it is often that God the Father is referenced as the 'Holy One'.

It is extrodinary that it is Ephraim to which this tradition points as being the 'True Messiah'. Yet it should be very understandable. For Abraham sought and received the blessings of the promises of the fathers which included the gospel plan of salvation including the ancestry of the Messiah who would bring it about. Isaac inherited it from his father. Jacob inherited it from his father. And Joseph was the chosen of Jacob who inherited it next. And then Ephraim was placed before Manasseh under the hand of Jacob. And Ephraim was placed as Jacob's firstborn of the birthright, Rueben having not been worthy. And the Lord himself proclaims Ephraim to be his firstborn. Ephraim was to whom the fulfilling of the Abrahamic Covenant was intrusted. This not only included bring the gospel to the nations of the earth in the latter-days, but by right, the birthright of the firstborn. And that included the ancestry to the Messiah. And that right of birth of the covenant was fulfilled in righteousness according to the Law of Moses as Boaz raised up seed to the dead house of Ephraim, which Mahlon and Elimelech were. Of course even in the case of Joseph, Mary's husband, even he was but the 'adoptive father' of this earth, as the true father of the Messiah was God the Father of Spirits, Christ being the literal Son of God. So when the Messiah is promised to be the 'seed' of the covenant, adoption is that legitimate avenue as God was Jesus' actual father, Jesus being the 'Only Begotten of the Father in the flesh. And all other earthly ancestral fathers may one be so deemed 'adoptive' in their way of the Messiah being of thier ancestral 'seed'.

From that chapter are additional quotes which can be stated, but in interest of length, only the critical phrases are here further cited.

And there is one more which seems to reflect such a conversation between God the Father and 'Ephraim, The True Messiah' who we know to be Jesus Christ, the same as Jehovah, which is quite remarkable to be listed appart by its self.

While not all can be considered 'gospel' the stiking imagery is very clear. The 'Fathers of the World' are none other than those of Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, and Ephraim from whom the 'True Messiah' is come. That the 'True Messiah' suffers for those children of Israel of the Covenant, and all those who by covenant ordinance do bind themself to Israel, by whom the blessing of God the Father, the 'Holy One' has sent to redeem them is quite clear. And that it is the one 'True Messiah' who does perform this is quite remarkable to find so clearly preserved in the Rabbinical writings.

Now there are many references in the Rabbinical writings to Messiah Ben Joseph. But they are so entrenched in the concepts of the 'split' or 'divided' Messiahs, which separate out the two major roles and comings of the Messiah into two segments. And they have further confused the issue with mixing the 'suffering Messiah' with later latter-day prophets whose role are separate from the Messiah, that further reference to such would seem only to confuse rather than to enlighten. And we have addressed this division and later addressed the manner and means by which such division of the one Messiah into two can be resolved through a process of reuniting Him through the true understanding of Jesus Christ and coming to know just who it is that He Is ~ I AM.

I AM of Ephraim

Though having often be backed out of the 'dual' Messiah, the Messiah being of Ephraim is very much a part of the traditions writings. And they further tie him being he that will bring about the resurrection from the dead. When removed from any contrived time stipulation consider the following in describing the Messiah and his missiion. Remember the 'Holy One' would be God the Father. I've take a liberty of adding in brackets notes of considered correlation to what we know of him.

Perhaps and likely at one time ancient scripture did once pronouce Ephraim to be God's chosen 'darling son' but such is today only found in Rabbinical writings. Yet Ephraim is clearly stated to be the 'firstborn' and rightful heir to the birthright. Now this particular reference continues on to describe the resurrection from the grave as presided over by Messiah Ephraim from a Jewish Rabbinical perspective calling first Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob [noted missing is Ephraim's immediate father Joseph who was also a father of the firstborn birthright, but this is after all a Jewish perspective] forth from the grave. And in the Jewish imagery, when they ask who it is that has raised them, the answer is given, "I am the Messiah of the Lord. Salvation is near, the hour is near."(ibid)

And there are a number of such references associating the seed of Rachel, Joseph, and Ephraim with that of the Messiah. But many of these are so convoluted and entrenched into the division of the Messiah into the two elements of the 'suffering Messiah' and the 'conquering triumphant and glorious Messiah', stipulated as Messiah Ben Joseph and Messiah Ben David, separately and detailed by the contrived details of the supposed and imaged latter-day events, that other than to refer to them would seem but too much of a confusion to be of use in this presentation.

New Testament Indicators

It is quite obvious from the pages of the New Testament as written by the hand of the converted Jews of Jesus' day, that many of the Jews did still well understand the Messiah to be considered to be the Son of God. Today's Judism commonly denies that any is to be the 'Son of God.' And they hold that there is but one God and he never is to come among us. True they may look for prohecied delivers, but they consider them to be but men and not the actual Son of God. Thus the traditions and understandings of may of the Jews in the day of Christ were much different from those of the Jewish faith today. Even many 'Christian' faiths tend to remove Christ from the divine, and make him but a man and mere prophet of God, and not the literal Son of God. But such has always been the case.

Adam taught his children well, but through disbelief they fell into a state of wickedness, no longer understanding and knowing the things of God. And God did, in his mercy, destroy them to save them from their 'fallen' state. Then once again with Noah, the true principles would have been taught to his sons and the children of men. But in the Sumerian Babel and Egyptian Arena, and other such evolving cultures, the truth again became lost, corrupted by the teachings of the philosophies and preferences of men seeking not the things of God but the things of this earth. And Babel was destroyed. Even Moses would have well instructed all of Israel in his day in the true meanings of things and in Christ. But agian, dispite all the prophets and their teachings, the people did but mock and even murder the prophets of God and their religion did become an appostate corruption though often mixed with the Laws of Moses. Such is also the tales of the Book of Mormon cultures of the Jaredites and the descendants of Lehi, Ishmael, and Mulek. What was once true religion did fail and fall in to corruption.

And even so, much of what did happen to remain unto the day of Christ, is as evidenced by the New Testament perpsectives of the Jews of that day toward Christ, and have since been lost in false traditons and rewriting the records by the interpretaions of uninspired men. But it is often still of worth to so sift trough traditional belief, though false as much of it is, to find some last and lasting perspective of truth which do tie the present corruption to its true and correct previous beginnings.

Thoughout this work, such a process has been undertaken. It is seen that Philip when first reports his discovery of the true Messiah come, states, 'Moses and other prophets did write that Jesus was to be of Nazareth and that they had also writen that Jesus was to be the son of Joseph or Messiah Ben Joseph.' And this is Philip of Bethsaida who knew not Christ personally prior to his discovery as being the sought after Christ, reporting to Nathanael that the 'Messiah Ben Joseph' of Nazareth as prophesied by Moses and the prophets had been found. Philip was not pointing out in his declaration that Christ was the son of Joseph the carpenter. He was pointing out that Jesus was the promised descendant of Joseph of Egypt, the 'shepherd' even the very 'stone and rock of Israel' as prophecied in the sciptures.

The fact that this and many other prophecies of Christ as referenced by the New Testament writers can no longer be found in the Jewish cannon of the Old Testament Bible is but proof that the once true religion of the Jews does continue to deterorate into corruption. It does seem that even the Pharisees of Jesus' day well understood that Jesus was to be rightfully of the tribe of Ephraim as they did state, 'Say we not well that thou are a Samaritan?' Of course their design was to catch Jesus out in discussing that which would have been of some controversy even then. Even during the day of Jesus, many Jews, the Saducees, did not believe in a literal resurrection while other did. Such would be a topic of controversy where some Jews of Jesus day did believe in the ressurection and others did not. Today most do not believe in a literal resurrection of reuniting body and spirit into a imortal being of flesh and bone.

Many will schooled and knowledgable of the true of the matter would have well understood that Jesus was to be both Messiah Ben David who many considered Jewish by the blood of Boaz and also Messiah Ben Joseph by right of vicarious parenthood where by Boaz did raise up in Obed and the house of David, seed unto the house of that Ephraimite, Mahlon and the house of Elimelech. Is such a context Christ was indeed much like the Samaritans being of Ephraim and of Ruth of Moab. This is but another example that such traditons of truth where had but have been lost.

With all the cross conjecture between Christ and the Pharisees and scribes, it can well be seen that they understood about the coming of the Son of God during that time. They knew that the promised Messiah was held by many to be God's Son. Now whether they did at the time so believe themselves that the promised Messiah was to be God's Son or not is not always decernable. But certainly the later Jews of time have almost entirely given up this truth to the falsehood that God was not to have His Son, the Messiah, come to earth.

It is shameful that many such truths about Jesus Christ, his true identity, the intent of his mission, who he was in terms of ancestry and the such information has been lost through time, and only can be decerned through picking through the pieces as it were. But such is the nature of the corruption of true religion. God does not remove himself from man, man removes himself from God through his own disbelief. As the Savior stated during his reflection over the times of the Old Testament as recored by Matthew:

This was Jesus Christ reflecting upon all the days of the Old Testament when he as God Jehovah would have gathered wellingly his people, but his chosen people of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob would not be so intreated. Rather they did play the whore and seek after other Gods of false religion and did corrupt the understanding of the true teachings and words of God leaving the Jews of Christ's day and even today but with an empty shell of false understanding and lacking in comprehension the things of the very God they proclaimed to worship.

A Sincere Caution

Perhaps in respect to those who tend to mix Messiah Ben Joseph erroneously with Joseph, the applicable caution of the great promises of Joseph of Eygpt should be repeated. When Joseph began to teach of his great promises, he related that Moses would be raised up to deliever Israel from the Epgptian slavery. Joseph knew that the Israelites would perhaps view this great deliver, Moses to be the very Messiah of the world. They would confuse Moses with the Messiah who had been promised to be of the seed of Joseph of Egypt. Thus Joseph of Egypt clearly deliniated, explained and qualified that this Moses this deliver was NOT the Messiah who was to come from Joseph of Egypt. Joseph stated that Moses was 'not the Messiah who is called Shilo' who was promised to come thence from Joseph. Joseph was just making sure that this Moses, who was raised in a house of Joseph as the seed of Joseph, would not be confused with the Messiah ben Joseph who had been promised to come from Joseph in the blessings of Jacob upon Ephraim and upon Joseph in Genesis 48 and 49.

Now the fact of Moses being considered of the house and branch of Joseph though a Levite is discussed in item number 8 so will not be discussed here. The fact is that Moses was a definiate threat to be so considered as the delivering Messiah from the seed of Joseph as prophesied in Joseph's patriarchal blessing under the hand of Jacob (Genesis 49:22-26), And Joseph of Egypt here in the references just quoted did make certain that the two would not be mixed up, that Moses would NOT be made out to be the Messiah also prophecied of the seed of Joseph of Egypt.

Joseph of Egypt well might have so warned those of us of the latter-day not to so mix the promised latter-day prophet from the seed of Joseph with the Messiah as well. For in those same verses, Joseph of Egypt did so prophecy of Joseph Smith's coming forth in the latter days. A prophet named Joseph after his father Joseph and after Joseph of Egypt. And Joseph of Egypt well would have warned that, 'This latter-day prophet of Joseph was NOT the Messiah, the Messiah Ben Joseph, the suffering Messiah. Joseph Smith was NOT this Messiah or any such Messiah, for there is only one Messiah.' It would have been well if Joseph had so warned us for there are many who erroneously make him out to be so, and not just the promised latter-day promised prophet of the restoration.

Now, from various internet websites and textual material, some interesting questions are raised about a Messiah/Prophet who had power over death who was to descend from Joseph of Egypt through Ephraim. First the Samaritans, the only ones who could possibly represent the side of Ephraim and Joseph in this position beyond having the Brass Plates of Laban to refer to, did and do believe in such a Messianic figure who is to descend through Joseph. And they did tend to mix the Messiah with the latter-day prophet. I will cover this more in the next item concerning 'The Samaritan Messiah.'

Then also the Jews did mix the traditions and understandings of Messiah Ben Joseph with the promises of a latter day prophet of the seed of Joseph. This will be covered more in item number 33 thus not cover here. As to the various 'Traditional Christian' view upon the matter, they are much taken from these same Jewish and Samaritan positions and will not for the spirit of deminishing contention, not be covered here.

This leaves the LDS authors who have ventured into the realm of confusing Messiah Ben Joseph with Joseph Smith. Here I do refrain from mentioning particular names in the spirit to avoid any direct contention. But the names range from the very elite of gosepl scholarship to those who have followed into this venture as novices. It is not them nor their testimony of Christ and the true Gospel which is of concern here. It is merely the concern of mixing before the world the concept that Joseph Smith was the 'suffering Messiah', the Messiah Ben Joseph, which he is not. Thus I prefer to not parade their works before the world. I am not a proponant of them and I prefer to avoid contenting directly against them and offending their deciples who have any alliegence to them, for no good can be seen to come of it. But rather I only precede to build this case that Messiah Ben Joseph and Messiah Ben David are one and the same, even Jesus Christ, the one and only Messiah of God's eternal gospel plan for the redemption of the world. And I would ask that any who so have been exposed, consider, or adhere to this other view that Joseph Smith be Messiah Ben Joseph, do reconsider their position in this matter.

The Latter-Day End of Envy and Jealousy

Judah's unpreceived reliance upon the strong arm of Ephraim

Christ's Second Coming and removal of such strife and rivalry

The love of brothers will prevail. Just as when Joseph was found still alive and ruling in Egypt, and he forgave his brethern, even Judah, so will Christ accept and forgive his brethern, all of Israel, even Judah. And brothers will be bothers with no envy and covetous jealousy among them. Etc.