Now that being said and stipulated, we will turn to the two patriarchal blessings of Judah and Joseph which sets out that each of them are to be the ancestor to the Messiah as considered by the Classical Jewish interpretation. Now the Classical Jewish interpretation holds that there is to be Messiah Ben David and Messiah Ben Joseph. And once did Israel and the faithful Jews did understand how it was that this be but one singular Messiah and they did not divide him until some 200 years after the time of Jesus. Thus having lost their perfect understanding into corruption and no longer being able to explain how it would be possible for these seemingly two Messiahs to be one and the same, they concluded that there should be two coming Messiahs rather than two comings of the one Messiah. And they proceeded to variously divide the Messianic references of the Old Testament scriptures between these two considered Messiahs. Which due to various opinions as to which apply to who and which do not exactly apply and how, they have become almost totally confused upon the issue of the anointed Son of God. Thus being totally frustrating in untangling the web of the variant conclusions upon the matter, some have even settle upon that there is to be no such Messiah. We will not try to unravel the details of each of the issues but rather we'll start back at the beginning were the simple fact that there is only the one true Messiah be found and not the two theorized ones in any such definition` set out in any of their presentations.

We will first turn to Judah's blessing as given in Genesis to Judah by Jacob his father. This is often cited as the original basis for the consideration that the Messiah was to be a descendant of Judah. And at this early date it should be noted that David was some hundreds of years away in his birth. So how does the Classical Jew and Traditional Christian derive Messiah Ben David who is not born yet out of Judah's blessing?

Well it is a matter of backing into to it. Many of the Messianic prophecies of the scriptures are Davidic in nature and since the major emphasis of the Jewish Bible Book of Ruth is to establish that David was of the bloodline of Boaz, a Jew, who is correctly traced back to Judah as his ancestor. And then the Book of Ruth points out that Boaz begat Obed, who begat Jesses, who begat David. It is only through these promises to David and David's connection to the Jewish lineage that the 'Sceptre of Judah' begins to have its definition. Up to the point of David, descendant of Boaz, Judah had not ruled in Israel. Joseph of Egypt first did as ruler in Egypt and then Moses a Levite by birth next ruled Israel followed by Joshua of Ephraim and various judges down to the first king of Israel, who was of the tribe of Benjamin, namely Saul.

It is the promises of Messiah's descent first connected to the tribe of Judah by the Davidic promises made to King David which allows one to backtrack to the more ancient patriarchal blessing upon Judah.. It is important to understand that Judah had no such orignial promises made to him that the Messiah would be of the house of Judah until these promises made to King David that the Messiah would come through his seed. And these promises associated with 'Judah' through David being Messiah's ancestor actually did not occur until David's time. That being stated variously these repeated number of times, thus we must understand that the 'Jewish' Messiah is more correctly labeled Messiah Ben David, which is more specifically correlated with David than with Judah any previously stated promise to Judah. A careful reading of Judah's patriarchal blessing never did mention that Shiloh, the Messiah would ever come from Judah, only that Judah would have the 'Sceptre' until the Messiah would come.

Some may consider this but a technicality, but in fact this backing in process is in itself quite interesting. As just stated, Judah's blessing never does actually state directly that the Messiah called Shiloh would actually be rightfully or legally of the House of Judah. Lets read Judah's blessing at this point, and then consider if Judah's blessing ever did state that the Messiah would come of Judah's seed.

"¶ Judah, thou art he whom thy brethren shall praise: thy hand shall be in the neck of thine enemies; thy father's children shall bow down before thee. Judah is a lion's whelp: from the prey, my son, thou art gone up: he stooped down, he couched as a lion, and as an old lion; who shall rouse him up? The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh [Christ] come; and unto him [Shiloh or Christ] shall the gathering of the people be. Binding his foal unto the vine, and his ass's colt unto the choice vine; he washed his garments in wine, and his clothes in the blood of grapes: His eyes shall be red with wine, and his teeth white with milk." ~ Genesis 49:8-12

Now lets run through this again after having read the blessing upon Judah. Now Judah's blessing states that the 'sceptre' implying kings and rulers, and the 'lawgivers' will be through the tribe and/or bloodline of Judah, from 'between his feet'. Now this did not apparently mean all the time as Jacob ruled his family while he yet lived. And then Joseph, Jacob's son of the covenant did rule in Egypt while he lived and the whole of the twelve tribes were subject to his rule. And then Moses, a Levite by birth, did rule, govern, lead and give the law of God to Israel. And after Moses, Joshua of the tribe of Ephraim did rule and govern the Israelites. And then there was the system of Judges and various Judges from various tribes are mentioned. With Samuel, a levite assigned to the tribe of Ephraim according to the birth of his house, was the last ruling judge in Israel before the beginning of the era of the Kings of Israel. And when Israel received their first King, it was Saul, who was of the tribe of Benjamin and not of the tribe of Judah. It was not until the Prophet Samuel did anoint David to be king that the sceptre of rule and government ever reached to the tribe and bloodline of Judah as the recognized ruling house of Israel.

Thus King David was the first king of Israel who was of Jewish ancestry by his bloodline through Boaz. And he was the first to whom the blessing of Jacob upon Judah could apply. And this some hundreds of years and many generations past since that blessing was given.

Now the patriarchal blessing of Judah did state that it was Judah's bloodline, 'from between his feet', that is his posterity, would rule, judge and give the law to the people. This would therefore have to be seen as beginning with David and the kings from that house of David, as the scepter and lawgiver until Shiloh comes. It does NOT specifically grant the blessing that these Jews rulers would rule over the whole of Israel. For indeed God set forth that Jereboam, of the tribe of Ehpraim, would separate the bulk of the tribes of Israel, to be so called Israel after the name and blessing of the covenant through Ephraim. And thus only David and Solomon did rule over a united 'twelve tribes of Israel'. And then David chose Judah over 'Israel' and by the time of his grandson Reoboam, the kingdom was divided into the proper Kingdom of Israel and the Kingdom of Judah. Thus the majority of the Kings and Lawgivers of Judah did reign over what was for the most part, the Kingdom of Judah only. And the bulk of the other tribes, counted 10 and one half tribes, were ruled separately by the kings and lawgivers of Israel long before the coming and time of Shiloh, whom Joseph Smith identifies as Jesus Christ.

And thus Judah's great blessing, as great as it was, was to be understood within such limits and for the most part particular to the tribe of Judah and not to the whole of Israel.

Christ was to rightfully be of the House of Judah, born of an ancestry which would trace back to Judah. And thus this was true, Jesus Christ was of the house of David and the rightful Davidic King in Isreal. And thus it is and so implied and understood to that Jesus Christ came of that Davidic bloodline and was the actual heir to the throne of David, his great ancestor. And from the limited Jewish perspective, this has been the whole of it as recoreded in those scriptures write by and according to the understanding of the Jews.

However, while the Biblical text does associate Christ with King David, it does not specifically state or associate the Messiah with the House of Judah until the time of the King David and those promises made to him. And while David is of the bloodline of Boaz, it can be lawfully presented that it is through the house of Elimelech that David receives his blessing or inheritence and as will be seen, also his blessing of right from the Lord that the Messiah would be of the House of David. And it will be later shown that David was actually a source of the combining of Messiah Ben David/Judah and Messiah Ben Joseph/Ephraim into the one line that would produce the one and only single Messiah. And it will be shown that Israel, and therefore also the tribe of Judah, at one time had this knowledge. But similar to how Moses renounced his connection to the House of Joseph, which we will later present, King David also will be shown to select and prefer Judah over his rightful and legal family of the House of Joseph by way of Ephraim.

Thus it will be agreed that Christ would be of the bloodline of the House of Judah through King David's ancestry through Boaz and Ruth, the Moabitess descended from Lot, as set out in the Book of Ruth. The first born son of Boaz and Ruth was Obed, which Obed was raised as seed to the dead house of Mahlon and Ruth, and therefore of the house of Elimelech and Naomi. But what has perplexed the Jew and 'hidden' Christ from their consideration beyond their personal desires to do so, is likely the fact that in giving his patriarchal blessings, Jacob does clearly state that Joseph would be the ancestor to the 'shepherd' and 'stone or rock of Israel', which the Messiah was known to be. Or at least from the perspective of the classical ancient Jew, Messiah Ben Joseph was known to be so prophesied in the blessing of Jacob upon the head of Joseph. Only in traditional Christianity and not in the true restored gospel, is first found the rebuttal arguments against Messiah ben Joseph as taught by the ancient Jewish culture. And those traditional Christianity arguments which are based in Catholic Christianity and the Reformation Christian beliefs will be seen to be quite flimsy when reading how directly Jacob does make his pronouncement upon the head of his heir-apparent's head. We will discuss this more fully after our reading of Jacob's blessing upon the head of Joseph.

Now let's clarify the matter a bit. The more ancient Hebrew of true belief would have understood that the true Messiah would be of the house of Joseph, thus Messiah ben Joseph as per the prophecies given in and through Rachel and in and through Joseph's dreams. They would also have understood that he was to be descended from King David due to those promises to him. And further they knew there to be just one such Messiah. And there was no conflict, as they understood David's ancestry, that it was a 'dual' ancestry from both from Boaz as the vicarious performing male factor in raising up seed to the dead. And that David by legal right of the Law of Moses, was the rightfully positioned inheritor of the house of Mahlon and Elimelech and heir of the covenant of Abraham through Ephraim upon whom it was given by Jacob. Boaz had 'purchased' the inheritances of the house of Mahlon, Chilion and Elimelech by entering into the marriage with Ruth whose first husband was the deceased Mahlon. And as the nearer Kinsman pointed out, this would limit or 'mar' one's own children's inheritance, for Boaz purchased that 'heirship' for the sole purpose for it to be bestowed upon Obed the first born son of Ruth. That is Obed was the first born son, raised up as seed to the dead, or to the house of Mahlon and Elimelech. And Obed would have rightfully received as his inheritance at the passing of Boaz, all that which Boaz had purchased from via Naomi which had been Mahlon's, Chilion's and Elimelech's. And the ancient Jews well understood this 'dual' ancestry that by right David was of the house of Elimelech, though by blood he was the son of Boaz and Ruth. This understanding will also be presented later. Now, even they at the time of Christ, had common among them, at least to the point of discussion upon the matter of Christ being the Son of Joseph of Egypt and a 'Samaritan' besides being the Son of David and also as being the Son of God, the very only begotten Son of God in the flesh.

When it states that 'The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from beteen his feet, until Shiloh [Christ] come ...', One must understand it as literally and with the total back drop of understanding upon which it is laid. The first 'of Judah' to hold the 'Sceptre' and be the 'Lawgiver', was King David. But must assuredly, it would 'depart from Judah'. Thus one is left to consider just when one is and is not a Jew. In one sense, the perspective which the Jews hold to, the Messiah, Shiloh, even Christ, would be recogized and established to be a Jew. Now this was not by birth ancestry any longer, for God the Eternal Father was Jesus' literal Father. And God the Eternal Father was not born of the House of Judah, he existing in the eternities before the world even was. Neither was Jesus a Jew in the sense that he was the rightful heir of the Covenant of Abraham which had been given to come dowm through Ephraim, the anointed, chosen and selected Firstborn of Israel. And this according to God's Laws of vicarious adoptions beginning with Boaz as the first proxy to Joseph the Carpenter, who 'adopted' him as his firstborn son according to the Jewish laws, as heir of his house being raised, accepted and trained in his house as his firstborn and heir. Yet cerainly by cultural, national and religious associations, Jesus was a Jew. He was of the house of David, the properly adopted and lawfully deamed son of Joseph the Carpenter, who was cousin to his wife Mary. And both Joseph and Mary did jointly hold the rights to the throne of David, Mary the 'Queen Mother' by her birth,and Joseph as cousin and vicariously positioned male heir to that right to be given upon the head of their recognized 'firstborn son', Jesus Christ.

Now wherein, and how did the Sceptre and Lawgiver 'depart from Judah'? In the first place, Jesus was not a bloodline Jew of a Jewish father. His Father was God the Eternal Father, being his Only Begotten Son in the flesh pertaining to this world and this second estate. In this he was the Son of God and NOT a Jew. Second, according to the Law of God, of vicarious performances unto the dead, as explained in Deuteronomy 25:5-10, Jesus was a Son of Abraham and heir of the Abraham Covenant due to the fact that he was legally and lawfully accordingto the Laws and Ordinances of God through his decent as the promised son of Joseph of Egpyt, that is the promised Messiah ben Joseph or Ephriam, who is and was one and the same as the promised Messiah ben David, as David's legal and rightful linage according to the laws of God was back throug the Ephraimite House of Mahlon, Chilion and Elimelech. And thus in terms of divine sonship and in terms of being the Firstborn son of the Covenant of Abrham throug Ephraim, Jesus Christ, that is Shiloh, had 'departed' from Judah in these two very critical considerations. Not that he was not of the bloodline of Boaz through his mother Mary, but that the greater asspect of his heirship and inheritance so greatly over weighed that connect.

Thus, Jesus, as the promised Shiloh, has departed from and out of Judah (or better stated 'Judah is departed from the Lord-Shiloh, to (remain in Shiloh) to take his rightful position as the Son of God and the Heir of the Covenant of Abraham and also as the governing head and lawgiver over all of Israel, that is that house of Joseph and Ephraim, which was so given them from their ancestor and father Jacob in the patriarchal blessings upon both Ephraim and upon Joseph, the chosen sons of Jacob.

As is the case in scripture generally there are various depths of meaning and understanding. We have explored only that layer of meaning and understanding which directly identifies 'Shiloh' as being 'Jesus Christ' the Messiah. But Shiloh was much more depth of meaning and understanding. Shiloh was a place name undivided from the name and presence of the Lord, Jesus Christ, the Messiah. When Israel first is planted in the promised land under the hand of Joshua, it is at Shiloh that the house or tabernacle, that realm of the presence of the Lord is established. The Lord does not establish his house elsewhere, Israel of Judah does by the hand of David who choses his Jewish blood heritage over Israel and Shiloh, selecting Judah and Jerusalem to be were he, David, would remove the tabernacle of the Lord to be. Shiloh is the only real authorized and sanctioned station of the Lord by the Lord through his prophet leader Joshua. David usurps this by selecting Judah over Israel though Israel has the greater claim in David than does Judah.

And not only this, initially who does the Lord associate himself with but 'Joshua' at 'Shiloh' which is located in 'Ephraim' or 'Israel' by the blessing and position granted unto Ephriam by and under the hand of the patriarch Jacob. Ephraim was chosen to be the son of the covenant, the first born in Israel and Israel's God selected Shiloh in Ephraim to so Establish his name. There is the unmistakable clear association that the Lord was in Ephraim, Shiloh and even Moses had so named the chief of Ephraim and of all of Israel by the very name by which Jehovah had been established by God the Father from the beginning as Jehoshua, Jehovah Redeemer, as he who was at the head of Israel, the Word of God, in and out of Shiloh so tightly fixed and associated with Ephraim to unmistakably denote that the Messiah was that head in Israel, in Ephraim out of Joseph as the promised Messiah. All these deep and layered meanings were had and known by those who did fully understand the bery significance of placing the Lord's house in Ephraim for he was to come out of Ephraim and even down and until the people pursued their course away from the Lord, the King of Israel in and out of Shiloh, they demanding an earthly king rathering that 'Elimelech', or that is selecting the 'Lord as King' rather than any other entity or being. Thus when Israel demanded a king and the Lord granted their demand by the hand of his prophet Samuel, but with due warning what it was that they were doing to themselves, turning away from the Lord of Shiloh and unto an earthly king; this is when Israel of their own accord did select a king and a place other than Jehovah and Shiloh. And it was David who did select Judah and thus Jerusalem over Israel and Shiloh, thus confirming by kingly pronoucement that Israel, Judah, had completed their turn from the Lord unto the hand of man.

What the world reflects upon in relationship to Shiloh is but a very Jewish perspective of it. This type of a Jewish perspective makes of Jerusalem, the mount thereof, as the traditional place of not only the 'Akedah' of the sacrifice of Abraham of Isaac but also the place where Adam did offer his sacrifice unto the Lord. I think of this as such as the Soviet Syndrome; that is to say where or whatever was of important invention, it was a Soviet who did first discover it and not any other in the world. Jerusalem was a part of the land of Benjamin, the tribe from whom King Saul, the first King of Israel did come. And not until the days of David's replacement of Saul and King David's taking of Jerusalem from the Jebusites, many of whom still lived there for it was from a Jebusite that King David did purchase the land to build the temple (2 Sam 24:18, 1 Chr 21:15-18) and King Solomon used Jebusites for forced labor (1 Kg 9:20, 2 Chr 8:7). And it was likely such in build/bred pagan factions that caused the pagan Baal worship of the Jews even down to the days of King Zedekiah. Now, think, this 'pagan land' prior to the days of the kings, the Jews would adopt and the traditionally conceive it to be the site not only of Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac but the origin site of Adam's sacrifices.

Under such Jewish perspective, the true historical perspective of the signicance of such as the land of Shiloh, Shechem and Ephraim is lost. Let us attempt to restore some of that from a more 'Ephraimite perspective'. We know from a latter day LDS revelationary source that the Land where Adam did dwell and did offer his sacrifices to God was in Adam-ondi Ahman in the central United States of America. Thus Adam did not so sacrifice at that site in Jerusalem of the eastern hemisphere, though the significance of the name of Jerusalem may have originated in Adam's time the site of Adam's sacrifice from the Jewish perspective is not correct. Now to Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac. Abraham first offered sacrifice to God near Shechem on the Plain of Moreh. The Lord first stipulated the land covenant to Abraham as that land where Abraham did so sacrifice. The LDS Bible Dictionary in its first definition of Moriah sugests 'the mountain on which Isaac was offereed in sacrifice was probably in the same district as that of the "plian of Moreh"', and so it would be so associated with the Covenant so made with Abraham in that general location. Further Joseph's body was taken to and buried in Shechem, that land which was so covenanted to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and later so divided to the tribe of Ephraim by Joshua. Even Rehoboam, the son of Solomon went to Shechem of Ephraim for all Israel had come to Shechem not Jerusalem to make him king (1Kings 12:1), but Rehoboam blew it, yet in the Jewish tradition, they surmise that Israel withdrew from Judah, when in reality, Israel was already in Isreal, Shechem of Ephraim and it was the acts of Rehoboam which did divide the people and did lose him Israel's support that they were there to give. It was the Jewish usurbtion to the 'akedah' being at Jerusalem rather than at that site of Abraham's sacrifice, covenant in the land of Ephraim where Joseph was buried so skews the sum picture of the matter away from Ephraim and to the later coming Jews of Jerusalem, which was actually even a city given to Benjamin and not Judah at that.

Now further bring this perspective back to Ephraim, Joshua, the Ephraimite heir of the Covenant Birthright, was both the religious judge leader as well as the military civil leader of the children of Israel so anointed and named by Moses by that name of which the Savior would be known by during his earthly ministry. As soon as Joshua was able to so secure and obtain the various lands of Israel to the children of Israel, Joshua then turned to providing a permanent place for the temple or tabernacle of the Lord and its Ark of the Covenant. It is said that the structure of the outer court of the tabernacle in those days differed in that they were no longer mere 'cavas' type but were walls of stone. As to whether the tent like structure of the tabernacle itself remained totally tent like, that detailed information is not given other than that the tabernacle with the ark in it was so located in Shiloh of the land of Ephraim.

Shiloh in the Ephraim hill-country [Ramah], with the tabernacle/temple so established there, was the religious capital of Israel in all the time of the Judges down to the days of the interim Judge and Prophet Samuel of the Temple at Shiloh. The spance of the 'reign' of the 'Religious Judges' of Jehovah, Jehovah being King as the name of the last Ephraimite heir of that latter time so proclaimed, Elimelech no less, was some 400 years of the reign of the Judges. And it was in the days of Samuel the last prophet Judge, that Israel finally rebelled to the point that the Lord allowed the Prophet Samuel to given into all of Israel's demands to have a King as other nations did.

It was in those last days of the Judges that the sons of Eli did sin, that Israel did take the Ark of the Covenant from the Tabernacle and with the two sons of Eli, did march against the army of the Philistines with the Ark in tow thinking it would insure the victory as in the days of Moses. It did not, and in fact that Ark was captured, Israel defeated, and the tabernacle at Shiloh eventually destroyed by the Philistines. Thus not only was Jehovah no longer looked to as King, but his house was destroyed and Samuel told to allow Israel to have a man as king as was the case of the nations round about. Interestingly some have mistaken the identity of Samuel. Samuel was of the tribe of Levi, after that family and course which did serve the tribe of Ephraim as may be proven by his genealogy. But since his father was said to be an Ephrathite of the hill land of Ramah or Ephraim, some have erroneously concluded Samuel to be an Ephraimite. While Samuel could in one sense be called an Ephraimite being of the land of the Ephraimites, he was a Levite assigned to serve the tribe of Ephraim in the land of Ephraim, an Ephraimite by citizenry but not by ancestry. Such was that priest of the tribe of Judah, spoken of elsewhere, who was of the tribe of Levi, but Jewish by assigned citizenship of service and residence.

Now that Israel had so disclaimed their God as King, having sought unto an earthly king, so disicrated the temple/tabernacle by the removal and loss of the Ark of the Covenant, and had been defeated by the Philistines at Aphek, from thence the Philistines then continued to march upon Shiloh and destroy House of the Lord; the transition was basicly complete. God was no longer the recognized King of Israel either by God or by Israel. And God allowed Samuel to so anoint a king in Israel of men, the first of which would be of the tribe of Benjamin, namely Saul. The point being here that God had established his House in Shiloh for four hundred years until Israel turned from him and rejected him as their King. Philistines would eventually return the Ark to Israel, it being nothing by a cursing unto them, but Israel no longer had a House of the Lord in which to place the mercy seat of the Lord their King, Jehovah.

Later it would be King David's devise to build the Lord a House, a temple, in the city of Jerusalem which he had captured. Shiloh had been the Lord's own designated place for His House, Jerusalem the choice of King David, the earthly king of Israel. It would be King David who would remove the Ark to Jerusalem, still unhoused since the tabernacle's destruction in Shiloh. Jerusalem was not therefore the Lord's selected city, as Shiloh had been by the voice of the prophet leader Joshua/Jesus. King David would further form the wedge that would eventually divide Israel by later choosing Judah and Jerusalem over Israel, though Israel had the greater claim in David as discussed elsewhere in this text. In King Solomon's day the wedge was positioned in that the man designed House of the Lord was erected in Jerusalem and the wedge was fully driven home by Solomon's son Rehoboam. Shiloh, the Covenant of God, and the Covenant Firstborn tribe of Ephraim/Israel, was thence divided when the prophet anointed king, that Ephrathite/Ephraimite Jereboam, became King of Israel and removed themselves from under Rehoboam's rule and reign. Rehoboam was then but King of Judah and Judah's companions, be they of what tribe they might be and Jereboam was the King of all Israel, Ephraim and the other '10' tribes of Israel, his companions, all those but those of Judah.

The irony here was that through Obed the son of Ruth, the heir of the covenant of Ephraim as being that son of the dead Mahlon and of the house of Elimelech, Ephrathites/Ephraimites, and heirs of the covenant, and Jesse, that Ephrathite of Bethlem, David had been born. And was to be recognized by his bloodline descent from Boaz the Jew, though David was legally and rightfully heir of the Everlasting Covenant of God, of Abraham and of Joseph, which included the promised ancestry of the Messiah. Thus the Messiah would be recognized as a Jew of the House of David, though even the Jewish leaders knew and would charge him as being a Samaritan, one of mixed Israelite blood descent with such as Rahab, Ruth and Bathsheba being of the parental ancestry of the Savior; as also as well as being the rightful heir of Ephraim/Israel.

And now we come to a summary of the Ephraimite perspective and one may ask, 'So what?' Well with only one perspective, the Jewish perspective, one has only lets say an 'eastern view' of a three demensional object. It sees only the one side and thus may so skew the perception to one side and not account accurately the whole of the matter. With lets say the 'western view' some 180 degrees about, a whole other side of the matter may come into view and bring unconsidered and previously unknown asspects and thus, while not eliminating the other persecptive, bring the vision of the matter more into the reality of the matter and un-skewing the one sided view. This is what the Ephraimite perspective does, and it reveals such as that Shiloh and the Messiah are but one. The House of the Lord was Shiloh. The Ephraimite hill city of Shiloh was the city of the Lord and in all the days of the Judges when Israel did look unto Jehovah as their King, Elimelech, Shiloh was were unto they did look. Is it any wonder that another name for Jesus Christ is but Shiloh. There is were his house is. And until Shiloh comes, until that undersanding is fully restored, the Jewish usurption to the septre of Israel will be in effect. But when the Lord comes again, when Shiloh comes, then will all of Israel be gathered in unto him, unto Shiloh.

Now how appropriate will it be that the Jews, the Kingdom of David, that kingdom of 'Jewish' rule, will not be returned and redeemed of the Lord until they do again return unto Shiloh, the presence of the Lord as King, both in recognizing Jesus Christ as their King and Shiloh, that is from whence out of Ephraim the Lord doth come. To have it otherwise would be to disregard the whole of the history of Israel, Joshua (Jesus) establishing Israel in the Land at Shiloh, with Ephraim, even the Lord, at the head of Israel. And by the Hand of the Lord's anointed, Joshua in type of the Lord, committing Israel unto the Lord by great and grand ceremony at Shiloh between the two mountains of the Lord, and , in that acoustically perfect arena of the Land of the Lord, in the Land of Ephraim, even Shiloh. Is it any wonder that the name Shiloh is unmistakably so closely alligned with Jesus Christ to mean and be one in the same, Shiloh is the Lord, the Lord is Shiloh, and all that it intails and means in all its various depths and layers of meaning and understanding.

Now let us review through Judah's blessing with this new in depth understanding of Shiloh as both the place, name and origin of the Lord of Israel, that is Isreal's God is Shiloh, in Shiloh, of Shiloh and out of Shiloh.

"¶ Judah, thou art he whom thy brethren shall praise: thy hand shall be in the neck of thine enemies; thy father's children shall bow down before thee. Judah is a lion's whelp: from the prey, my son, thou art gone up: he stooped down, he couched as a lion, and as an old lion; who shall rouse him up? The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh [Christ] come; and unto him [Shiloh or Christ] shall the gathering of the people be. Binding his foal unto the vine, and his ass's colt unto the choice vine; he washed his garments in wine, and his clothes in the blood of grapes: His eyes shall be red with wine, and his teeth white with milk." ~ Genesis 49:8-12

It was under 'Judah's' leadership and scepture that Israel did fully turn from the Lord in David and David's leadership. And from that date was the scattering of Israel determined as they had turned themselves from their Lord and God as King in Shiloh. And it would not be until the last days that 'the gathering' should be unto 'him', Shiloh, that is the Lord in Ephraim. And this is direct reference to the latter day fact that Israel is being gathered back to the Lord by the hand of Ephraim under the direction of 'him' who is the Lord in, of and out of Ephraim, even Shiloh. Thus the scepture is taken out of the hand of Judah and from the blood line of Judah as preferred by king David in Jerusalem and it will be rightfully placed in the hand of the Lord, the rightful King of Israel in Shiloh, who is the legal and rightful heir of the covenant in and of Eprhaim who is Israel by that covenant of the Law of God which makes Obed and his seed the son of Mahlon and Elimelech, and then again 'The Lord is King' and not the earthly seed of man as in Judah and the kingdom of David. Jesus the Messiah was NOT from between the feet of Judah, his father was the very God of Eternity, the Father of Spirits, even Elohim and he, Jesus Christ, was not the son of earthly man but The Son of That Man of Holiness, even God the Father, the only begotten son of the Father in the flesh. And it was only by his being the son of a woman, Mary, and the 'adopted' son of Joseph the Carpenter, that Jesus was the rightful and legal heir of the throne of David as well as being the heir and Son of God. And by his Law of God adoption unto the house of Elimelech, is he the rightful heir of the covenant through and of the house of Joseph, even that son of Ephraim of Shiloh, the King of Israel, of Heaven and of Earth. And not until Judah is turned and recognizes Jesus as the Messiah out of Shiloh of Ephraim will the fulfilment of Judah in the Lord come to pass and Judah be turned and returned with the rest of Israel unto their God and Lord. And then the first will be last and the last first in the Lord Judah and Ephraim, Ehraim and Judah.

"Wherefore, I [Jesus Christ] am in your midst, and I am the good shepherd, and the stone of Israel. He that buildeth upon this rock shall never fall." ~ D&C 50:44

In the patrichal blessing of Joseph as given by Jacob, it is stated that the true Messiah would come thence from Joseph. This is Joseph's blessing:

"¶ Joseph is a fruitful bough, even a fruitful bough by a well; whose branches run over the wall: The archers have sorely grieved him, and shot at him, and hated him: But his bow abode in strength, and the arms of his hands were made strong by the hands of the mighty God of Jacob; (from thence is the shepherd, the stone of Israel:) Even by the God of thy father, who shall help thee; and by the Almighty, who shall bless thee with blessings of heaven above, blessings of the deep that lieth under, blessings of the breasts, and of the womb: The blessings of thy father have prevailed above the blessings of my progenitors unto the utmost bound of the everlasting hills: they shall be on the head of Joseph, and on the crown of the head of him that was separate from his brethren." ~ Genesis 49:22-26

Now in formal English writing, which is beyond my talent, a paragraph will have what is called a 'Topic Sentence' about which that entire paragraph is built and based upon. Certainly the Kings James Bible was produced by the leading scholars of the day and they well conformed their translation to this. The 'topic sentence' states, 'Joseph is a fruitful bough, . . .'. And the 'Subject' of the 'Topic Sentence' is most certainly 'Joseph'. And it is only logical that Joseph's patriarchal blessing as given by Jacob upon his son and heir, Joseph should all revolve around Joseph. Thus when Joseph's blessing makes a attributed statement such as 'from thence is the shepherd, the stone of Israel,' it is only logical that it would refer to Joseph, the central subject of the paragraph as the subject of the 'topic sentence'.

Certainly Jacob would not inappropriately speak of himself in Joseph's blessing and even more certainly he would not place something that applies to Judah in Joseph's blessing. And thus the Classical Jews, who knew their Torah frontward and backward, concluded that Messiah the shepherd and stone or rock of Israel would be descended from Joseph as so stated by Jacob in Joseph's blessing. And though through the passage of time, this understanding has been somewhat lost and forgotten or 'hidden', it will be shown that the Jews of Jesus's date still had that basic understanding.

Now 'today's' contrived arguments against a Messiah Ben Joseph are varied. One says that the phrase in parenthesis 'from thence the shepherd, the stone of Israel' should only be applied to the object of the immediately previous prepositional phrase 'of the Almighty God of Jacob.' And it is from thence, the Almighty God of Jacob, which is to be considered as the ancestral source of the Messiah. This sounds good, but it most surely comes out of such as the Catholic school of thought, that God the Father and God the Son are but one God, and thus Christ is the father of himself. For this explanation means that Jehovah, who is the Almighty God of Jacob and the God of the Old Testament was to be the father of Jesus Christ as 'from thence is come the shepherd, the stone of Israel'. Which is fine and dandy if you are a Catholic or of some such belief in the unity of the trinity as being but one being.

To such a thought that the Messiah was to be his own son and that the considered phrase of explanation referred to the object of a preposition and did not apply to the 'subject' of the 'topic sentence,' Joseph, the Classical Jew but scoffs and will suggest that it is but foolishness and that the English do not know their own language, little alone the language of the Hebrew well enough to truly ascertain what is being stated.

Another will follow this same line of logic but just apply it to Jacob being the prepositional phrase object, which the explanatory phrase is in reference to. This too meets with much the same retaliation by the Classical Jew. And in addition, they will point out that Jacob would not encumber a blessing he was giving on the head of Joseph, just to state something that is already known to be in conjunction to himself and not Joseph and is elsewhere associate solely with the House of Judah.

And then another zealous Christian of tradition will attempt to explain it away with the fact that Joseph the carpenter is to be the Messiah Ben Joseph as the father of Christ. But the Classical Jew will point out that they know not the Bible at all, even their own Christian New Testament. For the Messiah Ben Joseph application is to Joseph of Egypt not Joseph the carpenter. And if Joseph the carpenter is indeed the father of the Messiah, then he is not the promised 'Son of God' anyway, for God is to be His Father, not Joseph the carpenter. And thus that web of circular logic is the end in which that argument ends.

So what is left out of these two blessings is that the Messiah was considered to be of two Houses, a Messiah Ben David/Judah and a Messiah Ben Joseph/Ephraim. What is not comprehended or is 'hidden' to the later Jews, perhaps by their own hard of hearing, is that King David was in fact of a dual house and heritage which will be discussed more fully under other topics. And in David is the dual requisite of Messiah Ben David/Judah and Messiah Ben Joseph/Ephraim satisfied, as David was of the bloodline of Boaz the Jew but he was raising up a son to the house hold of Elimelech and Mahlon who were Ephrathites or Ephraimites of the House of Joseph.

But from traditional Christianity's limited understanding and perspective this could not be. Christ after all was a Jew not of the tribe of Joseph. And thus they contrived arguments against the Classical position. Now before we leave Joseph's patriarchal blessing under the hand of Jacob, we ought to consider one additional supporting evidence relative to this blessing.

Psalms' Support of Joseph's Blessing

"SING aloud unto God our strength: make a joyful noise unto the God of Jacob. Take a psalm, and bring hither the timbrel, the pleasant harp with the psaltery. Blow up the trumpet in the new moon, in the time appointed, on our solemn feast day. For this was a statute for Israel, and a law of the God of Jacob. This he ordained in Joseph for a testimony, when he went out through the land of Egypt: where I heard a language that I understood not." ~ Psalms 81:1-5

Salvation was ordained of the seed of the Firstborn, thus this was ordained in Joseph per Joseph's blessing. As in Joseph was Israel delived in the time of famine unto their Physical salvation by the hand of the Lord through Joseph, the heir of the right of the firstborn in Israel so their praises to the Lord for such deliverance ought to be sung both in remembrance of that day when through Joseph Israel was delivered, and as Moses was the adopted son of the daughter of Pharoah of the house of Joseph(JST Genesis 50:29) so Moses was of the seed and promise through Joseph for the deliverance of the exodus from Egypt; and as also a foreshadowing that again there was a spiritual deliverance also to be found in the seed of Joseph, both in the Savior as the seed of Joseph, both in the Savior as Messiah ben Joseph as also through the promise through Joseph's seed unto the latter day restoration in preparation for the Second Coming of the Lord. And thus are the praises sung unto the Lord in remembrance and in foreshadowing of his great works which he has done for us. And all this was done in the covenant of the Firstborn, the rights thereof, which had been ordained upon, in and through Joseph by whom the promises remained (D&C 27:10).

Lehi's Support of Joseph's Blessing

Though covered in its own topic area as well, a parallel comparison between the major sentence of 2 Nephi 3:5 ought to be paralleled beside the patriarchal blessing upon the head of Joseph by Jacob as it does confirm and enlarge upon much of that blessing in paralleled occuring events.

If it wasn't understood that the blessings of ones patriarchal blessing are to come true, the marked parallels between Joseph's Blessing and Joseph's Prophecies would seem contrived. But whereas one's blessings from God are promises so made to be fulfilled, it is but understandable that the covenant prophecies of Joseph given him by the voice of the Lord would so parallel his patriarchal blessing given him under the hand of his prophet father Jacob. Now we can move on to another of Joseph's Prophetic Blessings.

Joseph's Second Prophetic Blessing

Moses, in Deuteronomy chapter 33, gives prophetic blessings upon the heads of all the tribes of Israel. Interesting is that the blessing of Judah (Deuteronomy 33:7) has no foreshadow or connection whatsoever to the coming of Messiah by Moses' words, but Joseph does. Further of interest, even though Moses has divided the tribes of Israel into the acceptance of Ephraim and Manasseh, he does not bless then separately as tribes of Israel but blesses Joseph their father, the son of Jacob.

Understanding that it was in Joseph's patriarchal blessing upon the head of Joseph which states within Joseph'd blessing that 'from thence is the shepherd the stone of Israel to come', what would Moses' blessing further reveal? If we look specifically at Moses' blessing of Joseph, can we find anything which would tie the Christ as being related to the seed of Joseph? Let view that blessing at this point.

"¶And of Joseph he said, Blessed of the LORD be his land, for the precious things of heaven, for the dew, and for the deep that coucheth beneath, And for the precious fruits brought forth by the sun, and for the precious things put forth by the moon, And for the chief things of the ancient mountains, and for the precious things of the lasting hills, And for the precious things of the earth and fulness thereof, and for the good will of him that dwelt in the bush: let the blessing come upon the head of Joseph , and upon the top of the head of him that was separated from his brethren. His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns [wild ox (Ephraim and Manasseh)]: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth [the ingathering of Israel]: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh." ~ Deuteronomy 33:13-17

Who is the 'firstling of Joseph's bullock' whose glory is like? The firstling of the bullock was the sacrificial offering of the Law of Moses. It represented and was the symbolic offering of the which represented the sacrifice of the Messiah and the entering in to the covenant of the Lord. When taken in conjunction with the fact that the shepherd, the stone of Israel was state to come forth from thence in the blessing of Joseph under the hand of Jacob have a relationship to the glory of the firstling firstling of the bullock bing that of Joseph? Is not the shared symbol of the firstling of the bullock to Joseph and to the Messiah and the sacrifice thereof, not a prophetic foreshadowing of Joseph as the ancestor of the covenant to the Lord Jesus Christ? And it is Ephraim whose standard did maintain that symbol as it was the head of the bull while Manasseh's was symbolic of what was probably the now extinct wild ox which the KJV translators make to be a 'unicorn'.

At this point we are now prepared to consider the fact that Joseph of Egypt himself did personify he who was to come of his house. Just as Abraham and Isaac did portray God the Father and the sacrifice of the Son by the Father, so did Joseph's life portray the Christ who was to come rightfully and legally of as the seed of the house of Joseph through his son Ephraim.