Traditionally in all contexts, except in reference to the House of David, Ephrathite means being of the House of Ephraim or an Ephraimite. Both the words Ephrath and Ephraim are the same word with the same meaning, 'fruitful,' but with different suffixes. Classical Judaism looks for two Messiahs, a Messiah Ben-David and a Messiah Ben-Joseph. The attributes of each of these 'two Messiahs' both fit Christ. Classical Judaism sets out that the Messiah Ben-Judah was to be the blood-line of Judah by Judah's blessing under the hand of Jacob in Genesis 49:8-12 particularly verse 10. Classical Judaism then sets out that the Messiah Ben-Joseph was to be of the seed of Joseph by Joseph's blessing under the hand of Jacob in Genesis 49:22-26 particularly verse 24. To avoid the Classical Jewish interpretation, traditional Christians have tried to make the reference 'from thence is the shepherd, the stone of Israel;' be in reference to either Jacob or 'the mighty God of Jacob.' But that is not good English in terms of what is the 'Topic Sentence' of the Biblical paragraph, which is Joseph. The Classical Jewish possition is strongest in that most properly read, there is to be a 'Messiah Ben-Joseph' who is the 'shepherd' and the 'stone of Israel.' And those are positions held by Christ. But Christ is of the Blood of Judah as a descendant from David, the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz. But there is the question at hand. Boaz married Ruth and raise Obed as seed to the House of Naomi, Elimelech, and Mahlon who was son of Elimelech and Naomi and first husband to Ruth. And as set out in Ruth 4, Boaz did take upon himself to raise seed to the dead, that is Mahlon, and the house of Elimelech and Naomi. Now if Elimelech and Mahlon, Ephrathites are of the tribe of Ephraim, then that would make Christ of the blood of Judah and legally of the seed of Joseph through Ephraim. Thus Christ would and could be both Messiah Ben-Judah and Messiah Ben-Joseph and fulfill both blessing of Jacob upon both his son's heads as interpreted by the Classical Jewish beliefs of the 'two Messiahs.'

Now for the other supposed references of the 'shepherd and stone of Israel' being of the 'mighty God of Jacob.' The mighty God of Jacob is Jehovah. And while traditional Christianity may not preceive the problem with this bing the reference, certainly Later-day Saints should readily see the problem in making Jehovah the father of Christ. Christ was not his own father, and Christ was Jehovah of the Old Testament, the mighty God of Jacob. As for the reference being to Jacob, which is the only other possiblity other than the most proper one being to Joseph, one need only ask why? Why is there any logical need for reference in a paragraph concerning Joseph son of Jacob to Jacob being the source of 'the shepherd, the stone of Israel' if such was merely to come through Judah and have nothing to do with Joseph? And that is the strong point of the Classical Jewish position. There is only one logical reason for a reference of the 'shepherd and stone of Israel' to be in Joseph's blessing and that is if Joseph is to be from 'thence' he is to come. It is Joseph's blessing, not Jacob's or Judah's. And Joseph is the topic of the paragraph to which all clarifying references should locgically be pointed back to. And that is what the classical Jewish position does. 'Thence' from Joseph is the shepherd, the stone of Israel to come.' And if Christ is to be the one and only true Messiah and fulfill both Judah's and Joseph's blessings as properly interpreted by the Classical Jewish faith, then the only seeming answer lies in the fact that Boaz of Jewish blood did raise up seed to the house of Mahlon and Elimelech who where of the tribe of Ephraim, thus making Obed the legal seed of Joseph while being the blood of Judah. Ephrathites of Bethlehem-judah (Ruth 1:2).

See alsoEphrathite.