36. "We have found HIM, of whom Moses did write, the son of Joseph"

It is of some interest as to just when the Jews first understood that there was to be Messiah ben Joseph. It does appear that they did come to split the Messiah in two primarily after the time of Jesus Christ beginning in about the 2nd century AD. But was there some understanding that Messiah was understood to have come from Joseph, the seed of the covenant well before that which allowed in the division of the Messiah to be of the two imagined motifs of Messiah ben David and Messiah ben Joseph? Certainly a number of items already discussed seem to indicate that from community announced blessing of Obed which included both Rachel and Leah, Joseph's of patriarchal blessing, the parable of Solomon's wisdom, and the detailed manner in which the 'genealogy' was to be kept after Judah, though the birthright covenant was of Joseph (1 Chronicles 5:1-2). In there are other indications including John's recorded presumed quote of Moses that Moses and the prophets did write of Jesus of Nazareth as being 'the son of Joseph'.

Philip did declare this to Nathaneal and there are five parts to consider. First, Moses in the law did write concerning the coming of Jesus as the Pearl of Great Price book of Moses does attest [JST Bible version]; Second, the prophets did write concerning Jesus though Bible 'editing' has removed such direct quoteable examples; Third, it was so known that his name would be Jesus/Jehoshua as part of those 'Old Testament' quotes; Fourth, he would be 'of Nazareth'; and Fifth, it was known that he would be seen by the believing as the Son of Joseph, that is the Joseph of Egypt and not just of the contemporary Joseph the carpenter as the sentence implies that he being the son of Joseph was a part of what Moses and the Prophets had written. It may be well considered that neither Philip nor Nathaneal at that time knew Jesus' supposed father's name and that the appealation of being the 'son of Joseph' came from the writings of Moses and the prophets. And this brings to mind an added diminsion to the speculation that each questioning concering Jesus being questioned as if he was 'the son of Joseph', was not also of this consideration?

Of Whom Moses Did Write

Yes, Moses did write of the coming of Jesus Christ or Jehoshua Messiah. As early as the book of Genesis did Moses so write as revealed in the JST translation and the book of Moses in the Pearl of Great Price. Moses writes that Adam, Enoch and Noah knew and taught of the coming of Jesus Christ. Though the Adamic language was 'in vogue' or the language of the people until the time of Babel, Moses likely used Hebrew words such as Jehoshua and Messiah in lew of Jesus and Christ. But for our understanding and clarity, Joseph Smith used the more contemporary words of Jesus and Christ. (See Moses 6:57, 7:50, 8:23-24)

Moses also in the Law did write of the coming of Christ:

Now there are a number of places in the scriptures where it is varified that this prophet so prophesied by Moses was Jesus Christ (Acts 3:22-23; 7:37, 1 Nephi 22:20-21, 3 Nephi 20:23, JS-H 1:40). In particular we need not doubt that this was whom Moses spoke of in the Law for Jesus Christ himself so states it:

All Prophets and Apostles Testify of Christ

Further as so stated by Christ and elsewhere (Acts 3:24-26, 1 Nephi 10:5, Jacob 7:11), all the prophets have so written, spoken and testified of the coming Messiah, Jesus Christ. This is one thing that distinguishes a true prophet of God, that they will so stand as and bear witness of him.

His Name Would Be Jehoshua/Jesus

Those that maintained their true belief in the coming Messiah as taught by the prophets knew that his name would be Jehoshua/Joshua/Jesus. Even the early Church 'fahters' of the early Christian church understood this. Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea wrote that Moses so renamed Oshea the son of Nun by the name Jehoshua in similitude to the coming Messiah, that is Moses knew that the Messiah's name would be Jesus or Joshua. The early Christian Ecclesiastical leaders or 'fathers' knew and understood this as exemplified by Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea:

It is of interest that as late as the days of Eusebius of the 3rd and 4th century A.D., that written by John of Moses and the ancient prophets knowing the Messiah to come as being Jesus/Joshua/Jehoshua, though this is 'little' had in the Old Testament Bible of today. And thus, this also gives much light on many Old Testament writings and the understanding that they knew the name Jehoshua/Joshua to be the name of the Messiah to come. And in the light of such, such as Zechariah's fourth vision in Zechariah 3, can be seen as that of Jehovah as Jesus/Jehoshua in the events of the pre-existence.

That the learned of the Jews knew well that the name of the coming Messiah was to be that of Jehoshuah/Joshua/Jesus ought to be well understood. Consider how many times Simeon of the temple would have heard the name 'Jesus' being given to a firstborn son dedicated in the temple to the Lord and failed to discern him as the Messiah he was promised to see before he would die; and then and until that fateful day of his old age when the spirit bore witness to him that at last this 'Jesus', son of Mary, was the Lord's Christ, that is the Son of God, even God's provided salvation (Luke 2:23-35).

Jesus of Nazareth

Now, though so stated in the openning verse of this section, that Moses and the Prophets knew and wrote particularly of 'Jesus of Nazareth' (John 1:45), it has been somewhat obscured in transcriptions, translations and interpretations of the scriptures by both Jews and Gentiles. Matthew himself references that Jesus was foreknown to be a of Nazareth or a Nazarene/Nazarite.

It is fully obvious that Matthew's word of use was that of 'Nazarite' as he so associated it with Jesus being of the city of Nazareth. But due to either translations or concepts which cross the name of the city of Nazareth with that of Nazarene, some have attepted to disassociate the two. Yet Matthew clearly states that the prophets had spoken/written that Jesus would be known as being a Nazarite, that is of the city of Nazareth. That particular scripture is lost other than Matthew's reference to it. But Isaish does somewhat to restore the concept.

Partly reflective of Jesus' declaration before those of Nazareth as well as that which he bore to the people of Galilee, that he was indeed that Christ, the promised Messiah; this reference of Isaiah does associate Jesus as being of that particular land region. Indeed, if not frequently called Jesus of Nazareth, he was just as frequently referenced as Jesus of Galilee. But there is to be particular confirming significance in the meaning(s) so associted with the very word 'nazareth'. There are two roots from which the name of Nazareth may have evolved, both holding Messianic inferences.

First 'NZR' could relate to the Hebrew noun nazir, meaning someone 'set apart' or 'consecrated'/'anointed'. Or it could relate to the Hebrew nown nezer, meaning 'crown'. Jesus was the one selected and anointed by the Father to be the Messiah, even the King of Israel. Second root 'NSR' could reference the Hebrew nown netser ('branch', 'bud' or 'flower'). The scripture verse from again Isaiah so uses this second noun 'netser' in the fameous Messianic prediction of Isaiah chapter 11.

Jesus is often referenced Messianically by such as the BRANCH. So take your pick, 'Jesus the anointed/consecrated', 'Jesus of the Crown', or 'Jesus the BRANCH', each correlates with Jesus of Nazareth. And such may have been lost into literal translations of such as 'NZR' and/or 'NSR' and thus in the orignal Hebrew it may well have been so deemed as Matthew put it, 'that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene' [NZR/NSR-netser—BRANCH] (Matthew 2:23).

Moses, the Prophets, Write, the Son of Joseph

Though this particular item is strong enough to warrent further exploration in the next section. One particular ending event is posted here which in fact is a very strong bridge on into the next section of 'Is this Not Joseph's Son?' The instence is Jesus' reading of Isaiah in the synagogue of Nazareth on the Sabbath Day. Some build of of the invironment of the synagogue and the operation thereof, as will as the developing history of the ministry of Jesus is helpful in fully understanding the event at the Nazareth synagogue.

Jesus' witness and baptism by John and related events had occured as well as the marriage in Cana, his first miricle performed there (John 1 & 2). Then due to great feast of the passover, and Jesus becoming of the age to teach, Jesus and his then disciples went up to Jerusalem at the passover of the Jews (John 2:13). Jesus according to John's record is performing many miricles during the feast days (John 2:23). And then comes the first cleansing of the temple as a part of this opening of his ministry (John 2:14-). His time had come. And at this early point Jesus gives his first his sign 'destory this temple and I will raise it up in three days' dialogue to the Jews of the temple (John 2:18-22).

And also while in Jerusalem this first time, Nicodemus comes to Jesus by night to inquire of him (John 3:1-). And Jesus speaks strongly concerning the mission of the Son of man, the lifting him up even as Moses did with the serpent (John 3:13-15), that God so loved the world (John 3:16), the light is come into the world (John 3:19-20) and so forth. From thence Jesus went throughout Judea making converts and baptizing many, or that his disciples did baptize more than John the Baptist (John 3:23; John 4:1). And the first transitioning of John's followers to Jesus conmenced (John 3:25-30).

And then upon his return to Galilee he travels through Samaria, speaks to the woman at the well and coverts many Samaritans and stays in that land a few days accordingly (John 4:4-42). Now many of the Galileans were in Jerusalem at the passover also, and seeing what Jesus did there they were very receptive of him (John 4:43-45). And then John tells of Jesus' second mircle in Galilee, though he had performed many in Jerusalem. And this was the healing of the nobleman's son who was at Capernaum (John 4:46-54). And because of what he had done at the passover round about Jerusalem and Judea as well and as this healing in Galilee, a fame of him went through all the region (Luke 4:14). And then he comes to Nazareth.

Some suggest that this is the 'new Rabbi's' first teaching/reading in the synagogue, for sure the first since his fame went forth. That Sabbath day it seems assured that there would be great attendance at the Nazareth synagogue. But before Jesus reading in the synagogue it is beneficial to understand the arrangement of things in the synagogues of that day.

The Seat of Moses

This stone 'Seat of Moses' was excavated from the ancient synagogue at Chorazin, Israel. Depending upon the 'luxury' of the enterior of a synagogue, its community, each would have such a stone seat of Moses and around the synagogue the elders would sit either on the ground or on benches, perhaps of wood. The synagogue would double as for Sabbath day service and also for lesser or lower sanhedrin meetings and judgings. During the weekly Hebrew Sabbath Day scripture readings, one would rise to read and be handed the 'torah'. Needfully standing to so read from the synagogue scrolls the appointed teacher/elder/rabbi would so read the passages and then he'd turn to sit down. But not back on the ground. As the appointed reader he'd then sit on 'Moses' seat' and expound upon the verses so read, explaining them. Of course during a Law of Moses judgment council, the chief leader of the lower sanhedrin, be it a high priest, rabbi of the synagogue, Pharasee or whom ever; would take his lead role position upon the seat of Moses as judge. The others 3 to 24 or so, would sit round about to question and proceed with judging the case at hand.

At this point it may well be presented or asked if this is what Jesus did in the Nazareth synagogue. It would have been the 'young rabbi's first' such reading and explanation or surmon before his home synagogue. Either like a missionaries return home talk or a minister's first sermon before his congregation. The text that was read by Jesus was the opening verses of Isaiah 61 which were Messianic pointing to the Messiah. This was the very question rumored about. Who was this new miracle working Rabbi, whose group baptized more than John the Baptist, who cleansed the temple of Jerusalem during the passover, who had been performing miracles and who had so answered the Jews of the temple as he had? Israel at this time was indeed looking for a coming Messiah, if not the coming Messiah, to deliver them from the Roman rule. Was this 'Jesus' the Jesus of Nazareth, the prophet like unto Moses, he that was written of by Moses and the prophets? The irony was not likely missed as Jesus turned to sit on Moses' seat. Was this indeed that promised prophet to come? And in this Jesus did not disapoint. He proclaimed that 'this day is Isaiah 61 fulfilled in your ears.'

Yet a rich irony it would be. The prophet like unto Moses anouncing himself from Moses' seat. 'In your ears is this fulfilled.' Yet the course would change and ears that heard would not hear. And eyes that saw would not see. Even the right question was considered but came with convoluded dualistic or multiplistic undertones. And a moment's recognition would be lost to the vanity of man deciding to make the Messiah in that image that was pleasing and acceptable to themselves rather than see and accepting him for what it was that he was.

'And as they sat and heard his explanation from Moses' seat, they all bore him witness and wondered at his gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth' (Luke 4:22). And dualistically if not singularly at first, in respect to the promised Messiah ben Joseph, that Joseph of Epgyt, the questioned, 'Is not this Joseph's son (or in other words the Son of Joseph)?, was asked. This self explanation of Jesus benig the Messiah is not that which would initially come to upset them except as a debateable question as to whether the Messiah was to be recognized after the birthright of Joseph or only after the bloodline of Judah (1 Chronicles 5:1-2) through Boaz a Judah had prvailed with David so selecting Judah over Israel and Israel being scatterd and was no more, and the legal rightful ancestry of the son of Naomi was disgarded. They were seeking the Messiah to come, even the very promised Messiah. And as long as this 'JESUS' would so fit their expected and acceptable mold of who they would accept him to be, they'd likely agree that he was or could very will be the Messiah. Remember, it would not be before long that all of Galilee would seek him to make him King, even King Messiah.

But so much for gracious pleasing words as Jesus saw the old controversy begin to arise over the ancestry of Jesus the Messiah even to the extent of some bring in the question to his own birth of Joseph the carpenter. Those who would accept such a Messiah as those elders of the synagogue would only want to hear what would be acceptable to themselves. Thus, it is what Jesus next states to them that does anger them. Not that he intimated being the Messiah, but that they would reject him and that he would not so minister unto them even as Elijah and Elisha had turned their back of ability to deliver Israel, and in favor of a gentile woman and a pagan soldier. That is what did make them angry (Luke 4:23-28). It is simple, if the prophet or minister speaks pleasant and pleasing things, honey words to the ears of his congregation, he is well received and accepted. But condemn them with chastizement and harshness, and the people do anger and soon reject such a prophet, even a prophet of God, the prophet like unto Moses.

And thus, the literalness of this scripture (John 1:45) must be considered, especially in light of all the other supporting evidences this text does present. Though the recorded record which Philip refers to no longer is found in our Jewish prepared and Traditional Christian extracted tracted Bible in plainness. Moses and the prophets did write it. It was written down and was once understood, and Philip did but quote or paraphrase it, that Moses and the prophets did write and prophesy that the Savior, the Messiah, would come and even be "Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph". Accordingly they knew his name would be Jesus or Jehoshua meaning Jehovah saves, redeems or delivers. They knew that he would be brought up as a citizen of Nazareth, and they knew from those written prophecies that he was to be 'the son of Joseph'. Not that Moses and the prophets were stating that he was to be the son of the carpenter Joseph, but that Jesus, the Messiah would be 'Messiah ben Joseph' meaning the promised and expected son of Joseph of Egypt, the one true Messiah son of Joseph the son of Jacob accoring to the Covenant blessings of the fathers, the Covenant of God, the Covenant of Adam, Enoch, Noah and Abraham which included the ancestry of the Messiah as well as all the gospel blessings and priesthood rights pertaining there to.

Now what the Apostle Matthew does confirm is that the prophets of old did prophesy that the Messiah would be called a Nazarene, having dwelt in Nazareth. And that was commonly known scripture during the time of Christ and has been lost since. Thus Joshua/Jesus or 'God's Help', the Nazarene, was a known prophetic scripture referencing the nature of the coming Messiah as written by the prophets. And that he would further be 'THE son of Joseph of Egypt' was also then commonly known and understood from the writings of the prophets and it was also stated by Moses in his record of the blessing of Jacob upon Joseph's head in Genesis 49:24, where it states of Joseph of Egypt that 'from thence is come the shepherd and stone of Israel.' And despite the later Jewish interpretation and that of 'traditional Christianity', Joseph was set out to be the legal ancestor of Christ as he and his son Ephraim was the chosen firstborn of Jacob upon whom all the birthright blessings and responsibilities fell, includig being the ancestor to the Messiah and the tribe by which the restoration and blessing of the gospel would be taken to the world as a stated part of the Covenant of Abraham.

The fact is that many of the various prophets' writings and scriptures have been lost, altered and falsely interpreted. This is a scriptural fact as well as a historical fact. In 1 Nephi 13:26 it points out that many plain and most precious parts have been taken away from the scriptures. Thus the understanding of that which remained has been muddled. As stated in Matthew 2:23 and in John 1:45, there were prophetic writings had at the time of Christ being part of the Jewish scriptures that Christ, Jesus/Joshua, would be a citizen of Nazareth, that is a Nazarene. The scriptural writings containing such prophesies has been lost, likely purposefully so.

Also, it would seem that the dual nature of the Messiah was quite well known and understood during the time of Christ by the Jews. That dual nature would consist of an understanding that Obed was both of the 'blood of Judah' and also 'legally' the seed of Joseph. Philip's statement to Nathanael was to the effect that Moses and the prophets had written that the Messiah was to be a 'Nazarene' and 'of the house of Joseph of Egupt'. Certainly the response which Nathanael stated showed his understanding as to exactly who Philip was stateing Jesus to be, that is the promised Messiah. And when Nathanael met Jesus, it took little to comfirm to him that Jesus was the very 'Son of God' which Philip had declared him to be by Philip's reference to him being the promised 'Joshua/Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph' as had been written anciently by Moses and the prophets. Philip of Bathsaida would not have known Jesus personally prior to this 'discovery' of finding him and he would not have know at this juncture that Jesus immediate adoptive father was the contempory Joseph the carpenter. Philip could have only been reporting the ancient understood legal and rightful ancestory of the Messiah under the Covenant of Abraham to be that of the line of Joseph of Egypt, the sought after Messiah Ben Joseph. What further confirms this premise is that Philip when he states that Moses and the prophets had written concerning 'Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph', was speaking to Nathanael who never has known Jesus before, which fact is confirmed in verses 47-49. If Nathanael, to whom Philip spoke, never knew Jesus, how could Philip address Nathanael in such a 'familiar fashion' as implying that Nathanael would know which 'Joshua [Jesus]' was son of which local father named 'Joseph'. They just did not know Jesus as son of Joseph the carpenter. The only inference could be that they were refering to 'that Jesus' who was to be the 'son of that Joseph of Egypt' of which that could have had an understanding that the Messiah was to be.

The reference to Jesus being 'the son of Joseph', was not a contempory reference to Joseph the husband of Mary. That Joseph was not the father of the Son of God. And the prophecy that the Messiah or Christ would be 'Messiah Ben Joseph' was a well prophesied and known fact by the Jews of the day of Christ. It is only later that the Rabbis proceed to divide the Messiah into two persons, Messiah Ben David and Messiah Ben Joseph. Prior to that 2nd century interpretation it was well understood by the Jews that King David was legally a descendant of Joseph through Ephraim while at the same time being of the blood of Judah through Boaz. This is the understanding which Philip's statement to Nathanael does present as Moses and the prophets had written that the Messiah was to be a Nazarene of Nazareth and the 'legal' son of Joseph of Egypt as to his earthly ancestry. Any other reading of verse 45 of John chapter 1, tends to mix apples and oranges. That is long before the birth of Christ, it had been prophesied and wrtten that Christ would be both a Nazarene and the promised Messiah, the son of Joseph of Egypt. And it was written long before the time of Mary and Joseph, the parent and step parent of Jesus. To conclude that being a Nazarene is part of the prophecies and that being the son of Joseph of Egypt is not is to cut a scentence midway through its stated intent just to force the second item being spoken of as being prophesied off from the true intended meaning of the complete scentence taken to its logical conclusion.

Now there are those who will hold to the 'traditional understandings.' And they will persist in them even though such understandings are taken out of context. Philip anounced to Nathanael that he had found the Messiah, who had been await, and he gives two prophetic qualifications of the writings of Moses and the prophets to identify him as such. The first was that 'Jesus was a Nazarene of Nazareth as also cited by both Matthew's and John's gospel record as being of such writings. And he also states the prophetic fact that in addition, Jesus was 'the son of Joseph'. That is the 'promised son of Joseph' which Moses himself had recorded to be 'from thence the shepherd and rock of Israel' in Jacob's blessing of his son Joseph of Egypt. That is the proper context of John 1:45. Philip did not all of a sudden interject that the promised Messiah who was to be the 'Son of God' was the son of a local carpenter Joseph instead. It is most likely that Philip did not even know of Jesus' current contempory parentage at this point in time. He did not know that Jesus' step father was also named Joseph. Philip could have only been refering to the well known scriptural fact that the Messiah was to be the son of Joseph of Egypt as prophecies by Moses, other Prophets and as recorded in Jacob's blessing upon the head of his son Joseph anciently as recorded in Genesis chapter 49. Philip was identifying the writings of the prophets and Moses which pointed to the fact that Christ was to be Messiah Ben Joseph. And it substanciates that many of the Jews at the time of Christ understood King David's dual ancestry, being of the bloodline of Judah through Boaz, but of the legal and rightful seed of Mahlon, Elimelech, Ephrathites of the tribe of Ephraim, the seed of Joseph, thus making the Messiah both, Messiah Ben David and Messiah Ben Joseph.