87. The Threads of Joseph and Ephraim in the Psalms

Now before we get into an exploration of this and the other references in the Psalms to Joseph and Ephraim, it ought to be first re-established as to why we must search these things out. Moses, the writer, author and original compiler of the first five books of the Old Testament was told by the Lord that many of his words would be esteemed 'as naught' and that many of them would be taken from the record which he should write (Moses 1:41). This is also consistant with what the Book of Mormon teaches concerning the records of the Jews (See 1 Nephi 13:26-29, 32, 34-35, 40; 1 Nephi 14:23). Joseph Smith taught that he believed the Bible to be the word of God but with a very pointed qualification, that he believed it as it was first written by the original writers, the prophets of God. And he further stated that many errors had entered in and that designing men had purposefully changed and removed portions of the writings. Of course, the Jews, as well as Israel, have long pursecuted the prophets of God, putting them to death and treating their words and writings as naught. Thus much has been lost and purposefully altered. Yet truth is most difficult to erase entirely from such pages. Thus in the 'treads of the Psalms' there well might be surviving passages concerning the relationship between Christ and the House of Joseph.

Now in some defense of the Jewish position, it ought to be remembered that when the Bible was being compiled and salvaged in the land and captivity of Babylon and since that time, Israel and Joseph, that is Ephraim, had long passed by the way being scattered. And the Jews in their mind could well have most honestly determined that they alone had prevailed in the Lord and that much which had been written concerning the House of Joseph was not longer in force. And after all, the mindset and attitude of the Jew was Jewish and not of the house of Joseph but of Judah, and of the family of Leah not Rachel.

So now with this in mind, that one well might expect that they would have to finely comb through the records of the Jews to find that which pertains to the families of the others tribes, particularly concerning Joseph, Judah's rival as to Judah's desires of usurption. And so it is also the case of Joseph's and Jacob's son of the covenant, Ephraim and his brother Manasseh. And thus we return to this topic's beginning reference of Psalms 77:15.

Now when Psalms 77:15 states that the Lord has redeemed his people, the sons of Jacob and Joseph, there are only two sons which qualify of being sons to both these men exclusively, and that is Ephraim and Manasseh because that Jacob did adopt them in the place of Rueben and Simeon as his firstborn sons in Israel. Thus this verse which connects the the redemption of the Lord's people, 'thy people' with Ephraim and Manasseh seems to be an exculsive application to the sons of Joseph who Jacob did adopt. It also seems to be in parallel that the sons of Joseph as well as Jacob, meaning Ephraim and Manasseh are paralleled with being 'the Lord's strength among the people. This is seeming confirmed by another thread from Psalms which we will now cover.

Now some will say that Judah is the lawgiver through Christ, Christ being of Judah. This may be correct in that Christ has a dual ancestry which we are covering. But there is another aspect to Judah being the 'lawgiver' and that is in the fact that it the Jews who have given the world the Biblical record and testaments of God. In providing that record, Judah has given the world God's law. But in respect to Ephraim being the strength of 'mine head', there is only 'one head' in God unto this world and that is Jesus Christ. And if Ephraim his the strength of that head, that is through Ephraim the strength of God's 'Right Arm' doth come, and God's 'Right Arm' is Christ. This Ephraim seems to be implied as the true ancestrial connection of Christ to the everlasting covenant of the priesthood, that everlasting covenant of God, which is in and through Christ. It is hard to see how that can be separated. On the one hand Judah may or may not be implicated as associated with Christ being of Judah, but certainly Ephraim is for sure so implicated as there is only one head, Christ and the strength of that head, is his covenant ancestry of Ephraim.

Now, after associating the strength of the 'head' who is Christ as being Ephraim, it is most appropriate to consider Psalms 80. The 'Shepard of Israel' is Jesus Christ and Jacob in Joseph's blessing did state in Genesis 49:24 'that thence [from Joseph] would come the shepherd and rock of Israel.' That Jesus Christ stands at the head of Joseph to lead that flock of Joseph has a very particular significance in that the New Jerusalem is to be built up unto the remnant of the house of Joseph in the land of Joseph in America (See Ether 13:6-10). And Jesus' Second Coming will be unto the New Jerusalem, is being that city which should come down out of heaven with the Lord at his coming (Ether 13;3). And as Wilford Woodruff so taught, Joseph Smith the prophet of this last dispensation is busily preparing that those of this last dispensation, particularly being a 'pure Ephraimite' and the Church having been the fulfilling of the Covenant of Abraham in and through Ephraim, to come down with the Lord at that coming to that New Jerusalem. From this is may be concluded that the 'Shepherd of Israel', who came thence from Joseph, stands at the head of the people of Joseph, in the land of Joseph, he being the legal and rightful heir of Joseph and the covenant to take such a position in the household of Ephraim, Jospeh and the family of Rachel.

And that is the significance of the 'strength' being before those son's of Rachel so mentioned, Ephraim and Manasseh being of Joseph with Benjamin so being named as a part of the household of Rachel, not Leah. But not all the threads of the Psalms seem to favor Joseph, so in honesty we will now consider Psalms 78.

So what of this? This does have a very Jewish perspective about it. And that is just one of the points. It was written and kept by the Jews. Why not, with Ephraim, the is Israel gone, would not Judah so consider themselves to be 'chosen' over Ephraim. But there in lies the next point. Why would Judah have to particularly point out that they were chosen and NOT Ephraim if in deed Ephraim had no such claim in it. This is a defensive posture, that with many other sons of Jacob, would Judah so particularly pit itself against the youngest of Joseph, except that the youngest of Joseph did have such a claim in it?

Now in truth King David did remove the tabernacle out of Ephraim and did bring it to Jerusalem, But Jerusalem by the division of Josphua was not Judah's, it was Benjamin's, the youngest son of Rachel, not Leah. And it was Ephraim who sinned and failed to chose the Lord, for the last anointed King of Israel was of the tribe of Ephraim, being Jeroboam of the prophet Nathan. And it was King David, who after being restored to his throne, being opposed by the Jews under his son's rebellion—being so restored by the hand of Ephraim or Israel—that did dishonor that supporting hand in choosing Judah over Ephraim. And at this date, King David with his multiple sins could hardly be considered the voice of the Lord upon the matter. And though Judah did claim David by blook kinship, it was Israel or Ephraim who had the greater claim in David. That is David was the legal and rightful heir of the covenant through his being the son of the house of Elimelech and Mahlon according to the Law of God. Thus it was actually David who was rejecting his postion in the linage of the covenant, having already been so dropped from it because of his sins in the eyes of the Lord, who did the chosing of Jerusalem which had been 'stolen' by the Jews from Benjamin, and the moving moving of the tabernacle to Jerusalem was also by the hand of that same sinful King David, and not by the hand of the Lord, though at the time Ephraim was likely not any more worthy of it. So this is a very Jewish perspective and so reported from a very Jewish slant upon the actual facts of the matter.

And there is one more particular which seems worthy of mention. Though Jerusalem has been given to be that 'mount Zion' as celibrated by the Jews, there is also another Zion, which is the Lord's Zion of the latter-days which is not in the old Jerusalem at all, but in America and that truly selected land choice above all other lands, and favored above all other land and scripturally support to be choosen of the Lord above all other such mounts, Zions and lands. And this is the land of Joseph. And the Lord has scripturally so chose it, it truely being that mount Zion which he loved. Thus hath the Lord truly chosen Judah over Joseph as prescribe by the Jewish record? It would seem today that the Lord has 'refused' the tabernacle of the Jews which was defiled by the Jews even after the Lord's two cleansings of it in his mortality. The Jews also 'rejected' Christ, in that they crucified him. There is a true mutual rejection. And today there are over a hundred 'Temples' of the Lord which are not so selfishly and pridefully reserved but unto one people, but are spread over the face of the whole earth by the hand of Ephraim's latter-day leadership. So in truth, whose 'tabernacles' have been refused and whose have been accepted unto the Lord? Are they not the 'tabernacles' or Temples of Joseph? And has not the Lord chosen the tribe of Ephraim and NOT the tribe of Judah? But then Ephraim is of the mind that salvation is unto all people, even the Jews. So the Jews do not stand rejected forever as the Jews would so promote by their position against Joseph and Ephraim as so set out in their Psalm 78.