An Aramaic word meaning the anointed. It occurs only in Dan. 9: 25-26 and John 1: 41; John 4: 25 (Messias). Used as the title of an office, it denotes the King and Deliverer whose coming the Jews were eagerly expecting. In the N.T. the deliverer is called the Christ, which is the Greek equivalent of Messiah, and Jesus the Messiah is called Jesus the Christ, Jesus Christ, or Christ Jesus.

Throughout the Apocrypha there is no reference to the hope of the Messiah, though during the century before the birth of Christ the hope was steadily reviving. But many Jews, as we learn from the Gospels, were looking only for a deliverer from the Roman power and for greater national prosperity; so when the Messiah came, the nation as a whole rejected him. Only the faithful were able to see in Jesus of Nazareth the true Suffering Servant of Isa. 53, as well as the true Prophet, Priest, and King of Israel (Matt. 16: 16; Luke 24: 21, 26, 27; John 4: 25-26; Acts 3: 18; Acts 8: 32-35; Acts 17: 3; Acts 26: 23).

But one of the real problems was that the Classical Jew was looking for the wrong things. First from the blessing of Jacob upon the heads of his sons Judah and Joseph, the classical Jew was look to there being 'two Messiahs.' From Genesis 49:10 within the blessing of Judah and from all the Davidic promises, they where looking for a King of David's line to come in glory and rule and reign as the anointed one would deliver them as we understand at the second coming. And since Christ was of the House of David, that is what they would have had to have seen from him to believe him. He would have to had delivered them from Roman rule and become their 'deliverying' King. But the Jews had divided the roles of the Messiah in two, From the blessing of Jacob upon Joseph, they understood that the 'Messiah' who would be their shepherd and deliver them from their sins was to be of the seed of Joseph of Egypt, the chosen son of Jacob. Thus in Genesis 49:22 they looked for the type of Messiah that Jesus was, as being the seed of Joseph of Egypt. Thus the classical Jew looks for two Messiahs, a Messiah Ben-Judah, the deliver, the King, and Messiah Ben-Joseph the shepherd, the stone of Israel. And they did not see in Jesus Christ a Jew either of these Messishs as the type of Messiah that Jesus was during his mortal sojourn was that of Messiah Ben-Joseph and not Messiah Ben-Judah. And how could one man be both the seed of Judah and the seed of Jospeh at the same time?

Now both traditional Judaism and Christianity have both made mistakes. The traditional Christian belief is that the reference to 'from thence is the shepherd, the stone of Israel' refers to either the Messiah being the son of the mighty God of Jacob or of being of Jacob. The first assumption makes Jehovah the father of Jesus which is not possible as they are the same person. And the second line of thought is redundant as Judah's blessing would have already established Christ as being of Jacob without having to restate it illogically in Joseph's Blessing. Thus the only logical interpretation is the Classical Jewish interpretation which logically makes Joseph, the topic of paragraph, the ancestor to 'the shepherd, and stone of Israel.' And in this does traditional Christianity stumble and also causes even the scholars of the LDS Church to so stumble as they attempt to follow after the logic of the traditions of both the traditional Christians and Jews alike. Now where the Classical Judaism does stumble, is that in every instance of the use of the word Ephrathite in the Old Testament the meaning is of the seed of of Ephraim or the same as Ephraimite. That is with the exception to the ancestry of David. And in each case the proposed meaning makes of the scriptural statements, statements of redundancy. Elimelech, Mahlon, and Jesse where all stated to be Ephrathites of Bethlehem. Now Bethlehem is clarified by an unknown Jewish compiler and editor of the Old Testament as being the same place as Ephrath. Thus the 'traditional' possition is that in every instance but that of the House of David, the use of the word Ephrathite means the same as Ephramite. But in the case of the House of David, it means that they were of the town of Ephrath, thus leaving the ancestry of Elimelech and Mahlon to be assumed to be the same as their second most close kinsman, Boaz.

But Jesus was a kinsman of John the Baptist and Jesus was of 'Judah' and John the Baptist was of 'Levi' being a Levite priest as was his father. Thus Jesus' and John's relationship was maternal and not paternal. And thus the question, 'Was Naomi's near kinsman Boaz maternal or paternal to Mahlon?' And was Elimelech and Mahlon actually of the tribe of Ephraim? If so, then that would make the House of David legally of the seed of Ephraim and Joseph of Egypt while still being of the blood of Judah. And then Christ could be both Messiah Ben-Joseph and Messiah Ben-Judah. So has the Classical Jew falsely been looking for two Messiahs? True Christian belief is that there is only one true Messiah. And the only way for Christ to be both Messiah Ben-Judah and Messiah Ben-Joseph would be for him to have dual ancestry from the House of Joseph through Ephraim and from the House of Judah through David.

See alsoEphrathite.