9. Rachel and Ephrath

Rachel means Ewe or Ewe Lamb, a female sheep. In 2 Samuel 12, Nathan condemns David's sin by first telling him the parable of the little 'ewe lamb', which he then identifies Bathsheba as being. Because of Rachel's beauty, the concept of being named a 'ewe lamb' brings to mind one with beautiful eyes. And if the young women of the time of Laban and Jacob where then acustom to the practice of wearing a veil, then it may well have been Rachel's beautiful eyes which first attrached Jacob to her.

But through Laban's contrivance, Jacob ended up marrying both Leah the older sister and then Rachel. Jacob worked for Laban 7 years for Leah, 7 more years for Rachel and then additional years for wages of cattle and sheep (Genesis 29:21-30; 30:26-34). Thus Jacob had worked for Laban some 20 years total (Genesis 31:38). It was during this 20 year stay with Laban that all the sons of Jacob where born except Benjamin. Joseph being the last born in the land of Laban and the first born of Rachel (Genesis 30:22-25). Therefore Joseph was the youngest of the sons of Jacob with the exeption of Benjamin.

Thus Joseph was born, as were all the other older sons of Jacob, in Syria or where Laban the Syrian lived. It was not until after leaving Laban's land holdings in Syria that Rachel was expecting Benjamin. Rachel died as a result of and shortly after the birth of Benjamin on the road between Betheul and a place which would be named by Jacob to mean 'fruitful' being Ephrath. Joseph of Egypt would abopt this name of the site of his mother Rachel's death and burial and give it to his second born son Ephraim, that being the human male name of the same meaning 'fruitful' and word source.

Now it will be noted that this account was first recorded by Moses as an abridgement of the information from which Moses compiled his account, Moses never seeing the promised land of the place of Rachel's burial near Ephrath. And Moses would have only known the place by the name of Ephrath, Bethlehem being the later name give the land and town after the return of the delivered Isralites. Thus it should be well understood that the later Jewish scribes and compilers of the Bible records from the writings of Moses did proceed to 'edit' and 'clarify' with commentary the writings of Moses. The phrase of '(for she died)' was added by such Jewish editors and compilers of the words of Moses to clarify what was meant by 'as her soul was in departing'. The clarifications concerning Ephrath that states 'which is Bethlehem' and about her grave 'unto this day', are obvious later added editorial clarification and commentary for the benefit of the later more modern Jewish readers. Moses did not know the place by any other name than Ephrath. And Moses 'died' before entering in the promised land and did not live until the clarifying 'unto this day' whatever exact day and time that was meant to imply by the later compiler and editor of the Biblical record.

Now it is logical that Joseph would tell his sons of the death of their grand mother Rachel, That she had died in the land of their grandfather Jacob, at a place named Ephrath. And Joseph would explain that he had named his second son Ephraim after that place name meaning 'Fruitful' becasue it was the birth of Rachel's second son which occasioned their grandmother's death at Ephrath.

Thus the name of Ephraim had a deep seeded family meaning and understanding associated with it. It would remind Ephraim and his seed, who never had lived in the land of Israel until they returned by the guidance of Moses and Joshua, of the death, circumstance and burial of Jacob's chosen wife and their ancestor Rachel.

Jacob would have been most appreciative of the name of Joseph's second son being Ephraim. Whether this endeared Jacob more toward Ephraim or not can be conjectured. At any rate, Jacob blessed Ephraim with the birth right of being his firstborn son in place of Reuben who was not worthy to receive that birthright of the firstborn. That birthright upon Ephraim's head included the right to fulfilling the whole of the Covenant of the Fahters, the Covenant of Abraham, which included that of being the rightful and legal ancestor of the Shepard and the Rock or Stone and Redeemer of Israel.

One last note should be made here as it ties directly to the next item. It is significant that Rachel's burial site had been marked and was still well known and precisely identified during the later days of the Israelite occuption from the delivered return post Exodus. Leah's grave is not so well marked and known, but the seed of Joseph certainly pointedly did retain in scriptural remembrance the burial grave site of mother Rachel. And being that burial site of their maternal ancestor, Ephrath would be an important place for both the seed of Joseph (Ephraim & Manasseh) and Benjamin. And despite 'tribal city claims' and lines drawn in the sand, the hearts of Rachel's children of descent did turn to their ancestor Rachel and laid claim to the land about Ephrath. This will be further discussed in other items which stipulate that the seed of Joseph did most certainly live, reside, and have lands of inheritance in the coasts & regions from Ephrath to Ramah as did the family of Manasseh of Lehi, and the families of Elimelech (Jesse & David) and Ishmael of Ephraim. (Especially see item number 34 - Rachel Weeps.)

Land of Jerusalem

In the Book of Mormon we come in contact with the concept of 'lands'. That is to say, there is a city and the land which belongs to it. It should be an understandable concept that a 'walled' city and that city proper is supported by its surrounding lands. In a 'city' there are no large fields of crops or extended grazing lands for herds of animals. Such producing lands are outside of a city though they are clearly associated with that city. Thus we have the city of Zarahemla and the land Zarahemla which is the immediate agricultural and horticultural lands which are associate with that city and its support.

This common concept is not only limited to Book of Mormon use. Midevil Lords, their city and castle was supported by the common people who where subject to that Lord upon the surrounding lands of the Lord's Manor. All civilizations will have this relationship between the 'city center' and its surrounding land which supports and is part of that city's realm. This is also true about Jerusalem. Jerusalem was not limited to the land which laid within its walls. Jerusalem was supported by the lands of harvest and range lands for the animal herds about that city.

Now the question is, 'Just how extensive was the 'lands of Jerusalem' considered to be? How many miles of grazing land and farm land did it take to support the city of Jerusalem and which lands where considered within that radius of the city center with its 'gates' entering into the city proper?' Again we turn to the Book of Mormon. Lehi was said to have lived or dwelt at Jerusalem all of his days (1 Nephi 1:4). Does this mean that Lehi stayed in the city central all of his days? Of course it doesn't mean that. Lehi even had a land of inheritence (1 Nephi 2:4, 11). And when Nephi and his brothers retreived the wealth of their father to trade for the plates of brass, they went down out of the city of Jerusalem to fetch them (1 Nephi 3:16, 22). Lehi's land of inheritance was within the large 'land of Jerusalem' but not within the city walls proper.

This same reasoning is how Alma could speak to the people of Gideon about Jesus to be 'born of Mary at Jerusalem. the land of their forfathers'. Now Bethlehem is only about 5 miles south of Jerusalem. The lands of Jesse the Ephrathite of Bethlehem, which he obtained per Obed who obtained the lands of his rightful, and legal father Mahlon through Boaz's surrogate performance and redemption of that land to be so passed on to Obed and thence to Jesse, where such that could support the grazing of sheep, which David tended. In the minds of our Book of Mormon prophet Alma, this land of Bethlehem was a part of the land of Jerusalem of their forefathers, where Christ was born. And Christ was born in Bethlehem, the land of his forefathers, being of the seed and house of David.

Here we have a parallel of interest. The land of the Book of Mormon people who descedended from Lehi state that the land of their forefathers, whom Lehi would qualify as being, was that land of Jerusalem where Christ was born. It could be understood and interpreted that Lehi's and his son's lands of inheritance, the forefathers of Alma and the people of Gideon, Nephites, was that same land of the forefathers of Jesus, meaning David, Jesse, Obed, Mahlon, and Elimelech. Those would be the lands passed on by Boaz's vicarious performance to Obed, the first born son of Ruth, in raising up seed to the dead Ephrathite, Mahlon. Of course, more generally, it could be considered any lands round about the city of Jerusalem, with all such lands being a part of Jerusalem.

But what is most important here is that Bethlehem was considered as part of the land of Jerusalem and pertained to Jerusalem in the minds of the people of Lehi who came from the land of Jerusalem about 600 BC. This means as anciently as 600 BC, Behtlehem was considered to be a part of the lands of Jerusalem. Now where does that get us? Well we now turn back to the fact that Rachel was buried near Ephrath and/or Bethlehem. And it was Benjamin who she had just delived in giving birth. And Rachel's was a result of the hardness of this birth of Benjamin. Now who better than Benjamin, and the house of Rachel for Joshua to give the land containing Rachel's burial site?

And that is the question before us. Bethelem or Ephrath is never stated in any of the land assignments of Joshua to any of the tribes of Israel. But if the little site of Ephrath was considered to be a part of Jerusalem, then it was given to a particular tribe by Joshua. You might think this to have been Judah. But it was not. Jerusalem and the associated lands pertaining to Jerusalem were given to the tribe of Benjamin (Joshua 18:21-28 especially verse 28: Judges 1:21). This is exactly to whom logic would have given the land of Ephrath and the tomb of Rachel, to the tribe of Benjamin, Benjamin being a son of Rachel. With this logic, it would seem much more reasonable to extend the original lands assigned to Benjamin to a 'circumphrance' line about Jerusalem, rather than putting it right at the southern walls of the city proper, so that it would include the 'land of Jerusalem' were it is stated in scripture that Christ was Born. And that was of course in Bethlehem. Thus the map to the right shows such an adjustment to the land of the tribe of Benjamin to have originally included Ephrath, the site of Rachel's burial. And that is considering that the land of Jerusalem did originally included this as part of its associated lands.

Is Bethlehem the Same as Ephrath?

Now there is scriptural proof that the site of Rachels burial, her tomb, which today is at Bethelhem, was a part of the land of the tribe of Benjamin. Jacob set up a marker at Rachel's burial site. That marker of Rachel's sepulchre was in the border of Benjamin. Thus the above suggested mapping is likely correct. Here is the scripture that states it.

This was just after Samuel anointed Saul to be 'king' or 'captain' over Israel, thus David had not taken Jerusalem and such lands so associated with Jerusalem would have still been in the claim of Benjamin not Judah. The Jewish comilers and commentators had made the site of Rachel's tomb the same as Bethlehem and they called it Ephrath at a much later date. But if Zelzah is the place of Rachel's tomb according to the much earlier writings of Samuel, then how can Bethlehem and Ephrath be the same place? Or is Zelzah merely on the way to Ephrath as is stated that Rachel's tomb was merely on the way to Ephrath? And therefore is Bethlehem merely on the way to Ephrath and not Ephrath itself as contrived by the later Jewish compilers? Today Rachel's Tomb is in at Bethlehem and not on the way to it. And if Bethlehem is Zelzah and not Ephrath, then just where is Ephrath? And why did the Jewish Biblical compilers of the Old Testament feel pressed to add their commentary and make Bethlehem, which 1 Samuel 10:2 identifies with Zelzah and the same site of Rachel's Tomb, the same place as Ephrath? Is this the only way they could contrive Ephrathite to mean an inhabitant of Bethlehem and not mean Ephraimite and thus conceal that the Messiah is legally of the house of Joseph?

Is Zelzah the Same as Zelah?

Some, including those of today, believe that Rachel's Tomb is at Bethlehem. Some others using the statement in Genesis 35, that Rachel was buried on the way to Ephrath and not at Ephrath, make Rachels Tomb somewhere further north than Bethlehem. This is all in consideration that the later compilers of the Old Testament record do equate Bethlehem as being the same as Ephrath. But how could that be if Rachel's Tomb is at Bethlehem and not on the way to it, then how could Bethlehem and Ephrath be one and the same place? As just stated, Samuel, a more closely related writer in time than the later compilers of convience and purposes, does not associate Rachel's Tomb as being located at Ephrath, alias Bethlehem. Samuel states that Rachel's Tomb was in the border of the land of the tribe of Benjamin at Zelzah. But where is Zelzah?

If Rachel's Tomb was a part of Benjamin's land at Zelzah, and Rachel's Tomb is in fact at Bethlehem today, then Zelzah is the same as Bethlehem and it is the later compilers with their added commentary that are mistaken in associating Ephrath as being the same as Bethlehem. Now there are those who do make Zelzah the same as Zelah. And Zelah was given to the tribe of Benjamin by Joshua's decree recorded in Joshua 18:28.

Thus if Zelah is Zelzah, then that makes sense in that Benjamin, the son of Rachel was given the site of Rachel's Tomb at Zelzah. And if Rachel's Tomb is at Bethlehem today then that associates Zelah, Zelzah and Bethlehem as being one and the same place. The map section to the right shows this relationship, though it may tend to indicate that Bethlehem is not quite the exact same as Zelah (Zelzah) where Rachel's Tomb is located. How close to Ephrath Jacob's party was when they buried Rachel on their way to Ephrath is a matter of some conjecture. Some suggest that Rachel's Tomb is even north of Jerusalem. But this mapping supports the concept that Benjamin's lands did push much further south than what most tend to draw the borders of the land of Benjamin to be. And Bethlehem is neither mentioned in the cities of Judah or in the cities of Benjamin, but with Zelzah/Zelah being the site of Rachel's Tomb according to the scriptures, and with Rachel's Tomb located at Bethlehem today, then Bethlehem did fall within the lands which Joshua divided to the tribe of Benjamin, one of the sons of Rachel, which makes perfect sense.

Family Burial Grounds

Now there is one more item of curiousity in respect to Zelah. Zelah was most certainly one of the cities of Benjamin. King Saul was recorded as having been buried at Zalah. In fact the bones of Saul and Johathan were both placed in the sepulchre of Kish, Saul's father in the country of Benjamin in Zelah (2 Samuel 21:12-14). Saul is even supposed to have been born there. According to the present map, this places Saul's family and David's family right within the same land regions of Zelph, Rachel's Tomb and Bethlehem. It further supports the concept of various of the children of Rachel having land holdings in and about Rachel's Tomb, Zelah and Bethlehem. And just when 'Bethlehem' came under the land claim of Judah could have been in association with the rule of David, his taking of the city of Jerusalem, and David's preference of Judah over Israel which will be detailed in item number 21 and 22 later.

When Israel returned to the promised land after there few hundred years of captivity in Egypt, it is likely that the land region would have had some changes over those hundreds of years. Now burial markers may well have been kept in reverence to the dead. So finding Rachel's Tomb after this time would be one matter. But according to Moses' original writing, Rachel was buried 'on the way to Ephrath' and not at Ephrath. Today Rachel's Tomb is in Bethlehem and Samuel calls that place Zelah or Zelzah. Why the later compilers and commentators of the Jewish Old Testament, after 600 BC, and after the destruction of Jerusalem would then decide to report that Bethlehem and Ephrath where indeed the same place and Rachel's Tomb was still there even until their day is puzzleing. It does not appear to be consistent with the facts of the matter in Jacob's day, Samuel's day and in our Modern day. If simply an error, it is an error in placing a long past historical site, Ephrath, which none of them had evern seen as being the same site as Rachel's Tomb when the scripture states clearly that it was not. If there is a 'motive' to this determination, one might consider the hiding of the true meaning of the word Ephrathite, which in all other cases but in relations to the family of David, it is defininently known to mean 'Ephraimite'.

Of course later, after Joshua's original land assignments, the majority of the tribe of Benjamin becomes extinct (Judges 20 & 21). The tribe of Benjamin never does over power the Jebusites in order to take the city of Jerusalem proper. And when King David takes over from Saul and assumes the position of King over the land after the death of Saul, David does 'conquer' Jerusalem (2 Sam. 5:6). And it has been the surviving Jews who do claim Jerusalem as theirs. This was done in spite of Joshua's original assignments. But since the Jewish Bible, as we have it today, was not compiled by the Jewish until either in conjunction with or after their Babylonian captivity, it would have only been Judah that was left in the land to claim it. And all remaining remants were considered 'Jews'. Even the Book of Mormon has reference to Lehi and his family being 'Jews'. So just when Jerusalem left the house of Rachel and was assumed by the house of Leah in Judah, we leave to an undeterminable time, though it is most closely associated in the Bible with King David's taking of Jerusalem from the Jebusites. But even this conquest did not remove the Jerusites from Jerusalem as Jeremiah reports them living side by side with the Israelits or the Jews in his day.

Here we see that Bethlehem may well be considered in various ways of the right of the house of Rachel and that it could have well been assigned as such by Joshua. And elsewhere we will continue to show that the lines in the sand set out by Joshua, did not prevent various tribal members from crossing those lines and obtaining inheritances in those lands. Lehi and family is once such example of Manasseh. Ishmael's family of the Book of Mormon would have been another such family of Ephraim. Laban of the Book of Mormon would also have been of the house of Joseph, likely of Manasseh and related to Lehi. And of course in this presentation we are considereing that Elimelech and his family of Ephrathites are also of such distinction of being Ephraimites of the house of Joseph living in and about Bethlehem and the land of Jerusalem.