There was always but One Messiah, the anoited Son of God who is Jehovah and is also he who came to earth as Jesus Christ. There is no other Messiah. Yet the Messiah was to be so many things, do so many things and over such various stages of time frames, it became a conundrum for the learned Jews and the Rabbis to totally reconcile, and this very particularly during the life time of Jesus Christ. So the Rabbinical concept and/or theory of two Messiahs was to be born.

Dividing the Child

When one enters the realm of traditional and Rabbianical writings beginning with the Talmud, one must realize that they have ventured from the safe solid foundation of prophet based scriptural truth and are in the area of the personal interpretation, legend, and non-prophet oriented writings of the learned minds of men. Such 'traditional' writings and 'folklore' do have some value as threads of truth may be found there, but such threads can only be considered if well 'couched' in and supported by God's scriptural and revealed truths and in a real historical perspective. Thus the journey through what must be considered as these 'corrupted' writings must be shifted by the salt of truth. As scholarly and sincere the learned and knowledgeable Rabbis may or may not have been, they were not the inspired directed prophets of God. They were but men and as such the prue truth of God's revealed word was not in them.

Historically it can be well shown that the 'Jews' did look to and consider the coming of the Messiah well before these 'latter-days'. In fact, during the maridian of time, when Jesus Christ did come, the Jews where very much looking for the Messiah to come right then. And scripturally, both from the Bible and the Book of Mormon and through our own latter-day prophets, we know that he did come and perform his mortal ministry of the atonment. This is the truth of the matter, and the later traditional writings of Rabbis must be consider in the light of that truth and not in a reference of such being the source of the truth.

It was not until the 2nd and 3rd centries A.D, the Rabbinical writers of the Talmud where beginning to interpret Jewish scripture and set out 'their' doctrines in a manner which would deny any connection of Jesus of Nazareth being the Messiah. Rather than the 'Suffering Messiah' already come, who would take upon him the sins of all Israel and the world, redeeming man from the fall of Adam and conquering death through the resurrection, they would 'imagine' a last-days 'war-hero' who would lead them in battle against their enemies,

Prior to these days of the Talmud writers of Judah who would 'divide the child', the Messiah had been considered but 'one' Messiah as we know him to be. And even when reading of the Rabbinical writings, the terms of 'dividing' and 'spliting' of Messiah into two are frequently used, and how can man after centuries of prophetic scripture and prophet based knowledge take it upon themselves to so divide the Messiah?

So it is of interest to note, that the 'Messiah', often referenced as 'King Messiah', was anciently and historically considered to be but one person prior to these later Rabbinical Talmud days beginning about 170 A.D. And when the two Messiahs are from thence spoken of as being Messiah Ben Joseph the 'suffering war-hero Messiah who is to die' and Messiah Ben David as the 'glorious conquering immortal Messiah' yet not necessarily the Son of God, such terms as 'dividing' and 'spliting' the Messiah into two Messiahs must be considered and backing out to any truth to be found in such writings.

Now let it clearly be stated. In order to 'split' or 'divide' something into 'two', it had to begin as 'one'. So in the very discussion and presentation of the topic, it is often revealed by the descriptive process of 'spliting' or 'dividing' which does indicate the reality and truth of the matter that the original 'True Messiah' was indeed but one Messiah prior to such contrivances of the Talmud Rebbinical interpretive writings which divided or split him in to two. This is very reminesent of the two mothers before King Solomon, and how the one was determined to have the child divided into two though it meant the death of the child.

Even during the time of Christ the doctrines of the Jews had began to vary greatly from Jewish sect to Jewish sect. The Saducees denied completely that there would be a resurrection. There was not total agreement whether the Messiah would be of divine Godly origin or raised up from mortal man, if indeed there even was to be a Messiah. Some would have highly emphasized his 'bodily' ancestry as being of the bloodline of the Jews, they being the predominate remaining tribe of Isreal. And they knew that he was to be descended from the line of King David whose bloodline ancestor was Boaz, a Jew. Others, as exampled by Philip, knew of the Messiah's rightful legal 'soul' ancestry under the Law of Moses as being 'the son of Joseph' through Ephraim, This is solidly supported in a few remaining threads of truth of even the Rabbinical writings, which would of necessity provide that just such a person as Messiah Ben Joseph was existant, when they tied him directly to the 'suffering Messiah' scriptures. They knew that 'a' Messiah, the Savior was to be the 'son of Joseph.' And they knew also that he was claimed by the house of David. But they clouded and muddled the isssue by divided his dual ancestry into two separate individauls.

To many the little book of Ruth is but a tell of a faithful women to God's ancient religion. To the Biblical scholars of the Jews, it is a statement regarding the ancestry of the promised Messiah Ben David. But also within those pages was how the rights of Ephraim, the firstborn in Israel by Jacob's voice, did come to the house of David. This would have been understood by many devoted Jews who well knew that it was indeed Joseph of Egypt and Ephraim his son who held the rights of the firstborn in Israel and all that pertained to the Coventant of the fathers, the Covenant of Abraham, which included ancestry to the Messiah. And even when the learned Rabbis did divide the Messiah into two, they provided for this son of Joseph as Messiah Ben Joseph and gave to him the role of the 'suffering Messiah' of the ancient scriptures.

What is important to understand is that the figure and creation of Messiah Ben Joseph was not just taken out of thin air some 150 to 200 years after the time of Christ. The Rabbis had solid reason to present to their Jewish paritioners some such definition to the figure of Messiah the son of Joseph, for they knew of him according to their long held traditions and understandings of the Jewish scriptures. And they knew him to be of the prophecied Messiah to come, to suffer for and redeem his chosen people. Thus they devised division of the Messiah was contrived some 200 years in the Rabbinical writings in order to deal with the two roles of the Messianic teachings and traditions. They were devised and contrived to deal with the dual ancestry of the Messiah. And they where designed to lay to rest any Jewish belief in Jesus Christ being that Messiah. Thus the times would be removed to the future, and the Messiahship of both the suffering and glorious Messiahs were so advanced into the latter-days. This thwarted any possible belief that the Messiah had come already and had been demanded to be crusified by the Jewish people under the leadership of the priests, Pharisees, scribes and Saducees.

Thus round about the 2nd century A.D. is when the doctine of the 'two' Messsiahs evolved. It was the learned Rabbis not the prophets of God who devised this cutting of the Messiah in two. They named the one Messiah Ben Joseph to placate those who understood Christ to be of the house of Joseph. And they named the other Messiah Ben David to accomodate those who knew him to be a descendant of David, who they stole from the house of Mahlon and Elimelch to make him son of Boaz, the vicariously performing Jew of Ruth's second marriage to raise up seed unto the dead.

Their evolved image of Messiah Ben Joseph took on the traits of the meek and mild 'suffering Messiah' as attested to in the Old Testament scriptures. Yet they further developed him into a latter-day conflicting figure as the 'warrior' who would fight and defeat Gog and Magog in the latter-days in the battle of Armagedon. This removed the 'suffering Messiah' safely to a time and place far distant from the time of Jesus Christ. And they also combined various other latter-day events of tradition in with this first divided figure which would confuse later LDS scholars into considering this 200 A.D. Rabbi built figure as being Joseph Smith, the latter-day prophet who was also to come of the house of Joseph of Egypt.

Psalm 2:7-8 is regarded as Messianic in Sukkah 52a. And further in the Sukkah reference, Messiah Ben Joseph is mentioned matter-of-factly thus tieing Messiah Ben Joseph decidedly to the Messianic message of Psalm 2. Psalm 2 beginning one verse earlier and continuing the thought to the end of the Psalm states:

"Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion. I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me. Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possesion. Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron, thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel. Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth. Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him." ~ Psalm 2:6-12

Understanding that the Lord Jehovah's LORD is God the Father and how the Son works under the direction and according to the will of the Father, it easy to disipher this Psalm to be speaking of Christ being the king given of God the Father. And the Father stating the decree that 'Thou art my Son, I have begotten thee.' And that the Father would give Christ, Jehovah the heathen gentile nations as that was part of the plan of scattering and sifting the seed of Israel throughout the world to do. The 'rod of iron' being the word of God has special meaning and understanding to LDS faithful who have read with understanding the Book of Mormon and know of Lehi's dream of the tree of life and the rod of iron which led to it. Furhter, we are the potter's vessel broken and scattered by the hand of the Lord. And it is wisdom that we serve GOD and pay homage to His Son the Anointed One, for it is the wrath and judgement of Christ which the wicked must fear. But blessed are all who do put their trust in the Lord, Jesus Christ.

Most certainly this is Messianic and the Rabbis knew it and the Jews knew it. It is of interest that the Rabbinical writings would clearly associate this Psalm which speaks of the Son of God, as being that which they relate to and associate with Messiah Ben Joseph. In 'The Messiah Texts' Raphael Patai points out that the Isaiah chapters 42, 49, 50, 52, and the 'Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53. All these concering the 'suffering Messiah', are clearly associated by the Rabbis with Messiah Ben Joseph including such as that of Zechariah 12, particularly verses 9-10 which speaks of him who is "pierced", is 'his only son' and the 'bitterness for his firstborn'. All these and more have the Rabbis considered to apply to the suffering Messiah ben Joseph as they have split and divided the Messiah into two. Yet we know and understand them to be Messianic and speaking of Jesus Christ Jehovah.

"The Aggada, the Talmudic legend, unhesitatingly identifies him with the Messiah, and understands especially the descriptions of his suffering as referring to Messiah ben Joseph"

Patai further states:

"It is quite probable that the concept of the suffering Messiah, fully developed in the Talmud, the Medrash, and the Zohar, has its origin in the biblical prophecies about the suffering servant."

Now all these scriptures have the Jews split to be attributable to their supposed Messiah ben Joseph. How LDS scholars can partake of this Messiah ben Joseph motif and associate Joseph Smith with it while clearly understanding these scriptures to be purely Messianic is of some question. Also and in addition to the stated Isaiah chapters, Patai considers Daniel 9:24-27 as being messianic which includes the 'death' of the Messiah. He also adds to the suffering Messiah list of scriptures, Isaiah 9:6-7, 11;1-12, Daniel 7:13-14, and Zech. 9:9-10. Other such references point out that the suffering Messiah Ben Joseph will be pierced, resurrected from the dead and this resurrected Messiah well be in the Messiah with the 'David-like' or of the Messiah Ben David motif having 'conquering characteristics'.

Now it is interesting that there is even one consideration of a single Messiah being 'like unto' Joseph of Egypt being the suffering servant as Joseph was in providing 'salvation' to his people. And at the same time this same Messiah is to be 'like unto' David, the conquering king. Thus, not exactly stating actual genealogy, this single Messiah is given the dual titles of Messiah Ben Joseph, being like unto Joseph of Egypt and Messiah Ben David, being like unto king David of Israel. Yet most Jews who still do favor a Messiah of some type, look to the divided Messiah being two separate persons. But this two person Messiah was not developed until the second century A.D. by the Rabbis. Patai states it this way:

"When the death of the Messiah became an established tenet in Talmudic times, this was felt to be irreconcilable with the belief in the Messiah as Redeemer who would usher in the blissful millennium of the Messianic Age. The dilemma was solved by spliting the person of the Messiah in two: one of them, called Messiah ben Joseph, was to raise the armies of Israel against their enemies, and, after many victories and miracles, would fall victim Gog and Magog. The other, Messiah ben David, will come after him (in some legends will bring him back to life, which psychologically hints at the identity of the two), and will lead Israel to the ultimate victory, the triumph, and the Messianic era of bliss." ~ The Messiah Texts, Raphael Patai, p. 166.

Prior to the Rabbianical writings of the 2nd century A.D., the Messiah was not divided. He was understood to be but one figure performing both roles as suffering Messiah resurrected and the conquering Messiah. And on various levels of understanding, he was known to be both Messiah Ben Joseph and Messiah Ben David. And while some could not desipher the dual ancestry of Christ to be of the bloodline of Judah via Boaz and also that David held the legal right of the seed of Joseph, they did consider him figuratively to be representative of an image of Messiah Ben Joseph and Messiah Ben David. There where also those who well understood that he was to be the Son of God in addition to being pf Joseph and of David.

Imaginings

Having prescribed the dual Messiahs, the Rabbis would then have to decide in mental exercises of decuction, determination and imagination just what applied and was attributed to each of their two split Messiahs. They not only divided the glorious immortal Messiah from the dying suffering Messiah but they further developed each with thier own inovation and imaginings.

"Messiah ben Joseph, also called Messiah ben Ephraim, referring to his ancestor Ephraim, the son of Joseph, is imagined as the first commander of the Army of Israel in the Messianic Wars. ... [etc.]" ~ The Messiah Texts, Raphael Patai, page 165.

It is sad but true that the Jewish religious scholars of the Rabbis did so confuse the issue further rather than solving it. It is also sad but true that some LDS scholars have attached themselves to the image of Messiah Ben Joseph as created by these Rabbis in the 2nd century A.D. to yield an unnecessary image of Joseph Smith being furth confused as being this contrived Messiah Ben Joseph. Certainly Joseph Smith was the promised prophet of the latter-days which Joseph of Egypt did speak, but as Joseph of Egypt did point out concerning Moses, he was NOT the Messiah. And neither is Joseph Smith, so it is also needful here to so state that Joseph Smith is NOT the Messiah. He is not Messiah Ben Joseph. Messiah Ben Joseph when properly understood is Jesus Christ and we ought to restore to Jesus all the 'divide' attributes of Messiah ben Joseph as the suffering Messiah back to the rightful One Messiah, Jesus Christ Jehovah. It sets out not only one of his rightful lines of ancestry, it sets him out as being the rightful heir of the firstborn of Israel as it was Joseph/Ephraim who did obtain the blessings and rights of the fathers, even including the right of ancestry to the Savior of the world (D&C 27:10; 1 Chronicles 5:1-2; Genesis 49:22-26) as 'from thence is the shepherd, the stone of Israel'.

The study of the writings of the Rabbis concering this matter could continue on endlessly. But in all cases it would just revert back to the truth of the matter and how the Rabbis have strayed from it by their selfserving corrupting interpretations designed to reconcile their own scholary preceived notion of the situation. What is most important is to recognize what it is that they did and then to accordingly recognize their work but revert back to the real truth of the matter of there being but one Messiah, Jesus Christ. Thus the matter is just about to left at this point but for one last matter.

There are many a Bible scholar who place great stock in knowing the language and customs of the ancient Jews. And I wish that I held such great talents. But with the blessing of such talents come the responsibility of using them wisely and with the scope of God's revealed truth. It is good to be learned of men as long as one subjects such loftiness of learning to the humble submission to the truth of God. This is to say, that there is a great temptation to allow one's education of the language, learning and customs of the Jews to over rule God's simple truths. When studying the things of the Jews, one studies but what the Jews do and do not. They study the customs of the Jewish people and not the ways of God. The Jews are in themselves a removed corruption of God's truth. Their Bible and traditional writings are very much according to their own imcomplete and often false perspectives. It is unwise to place a matter learned of the Jews above that of the pure understanding of truth as available in God direct word and spirit of inspiration. All the knowledge of the Jews and what they are about will not bring one to God and God's truth. It may bring understanding and light upon some matters. But what the Jewish Rabbis write is not God's scriptural truth, and the Jewish Bible is only true as far as it has been compiled, edited, and translated correctly. In short, the learning of the Jews does not pre-empt God's truth. And in fact, the Jews have errored greatly in their ways, and times and understanding. And they are currently as a people outside the truth Church of Jesus Christ, and only those who do so convert their ways, their understandings and their lives to the true Gospel of Christ will come to a true understanding of God. Judism is not where the truth of God is to found. It is to be found in the Church of Jesus Christ and in His Gospel. And one does error when they place the 'learning of the Jews' above the revealed truth of Christ's Church.

And yet, a simple drawing by a Christian of perspective, Dan Botkin, illustrates well that the 'two Messiah's' of the scripturally based Jewish split of Messiah ben Joseph and Messiah ben David, are in deed but the One True and Only Messiah who is Jesus Christ, Jehovah. And from this motif of the suffering Messiah as Messiah ben Joseph and the glorious Messiah being Messiah ben David, it is easy to see how the Jewish Rabbis have divided or split the Messiah into two separate Messiah figures. And then the Jewish Rabbis have further 'imagined' and contrived out of scriptural related events further details concerning their Messiah ben Joseph, the suffering Messiah and his roles in that history as opposed to that which they do but reserve unto their greatest hero, Messiah ben David. And this they maintain rather than to accept Jesus Christ as the One true Messiah being both Messiah ben Joseph as well as Messiah ben David. Yet how various LDS scholars have jumped on the Jewish band wagon of the 'two messiahs' to pitch that Joseph Smith is the Jewish contrived Suffering Messiah ben Joseph is beyond me. Joseph Smith is that promised latter-day prophet of the restoration descended from Joseph of Egypt, but we ought not make of him 'Messiah' as there is only but one Messiah, and he is Jesus Christ (2 Nephi 25:18-19).

"Wherefore, he shall bring forth his words unto them, which words shall judge them at the last day, for they shall be given them for the purpose of convincing them of the true Messiah, who was rejected by them; and unto the convincinig them that they need not look forward any more for a Messiah to come, for there should not any come, save it should be a false Messiah which should deceive the people; for there is save one Messiah spoken of by the prophets, and that Messiah is he who should be rejected of the Jews. For according to the words of the prophets, the Messiah cometh in six hundred years from the time that my father left Jerusalem; and according to the words of the prophets, and also the word of the angel of God, his name shall be Jesus Christ, the Son of God." ~ 2 Nephi 25:18-19

This is the Jewish Messiah ben Joseph Whom They Rejected