'Rueben's birthright was given unto the sons of Joseph the son of Israel: and the genealogy is not to be recokoned after the birthright. For Judah prevailed above his brethren, and of him came the chief ruler, but the birthright was Joseph's.' ~ 1 Chronicals 5:1-2

Why muddle the 'chief ruler' who came from Judah with the 'birthright', which came by Joseph and his sons, primarily Ephraim? And what does the genealogy of this 'chief ruler', presumably David, have to do with Judah and Joseph? Just what does this mean which was recorded in the first book of the Chronicles of the kings?

First, it is important to understand just from whence Chronicles and the perspective of that record was derived. In the Jewish cannon the two books of Chronicles are given as one book. It was so written as one work at one time. Chronicles begain with a summary from the beginning including the ancient genealogies. It was also taken from many various sources, from the writings of previous prophets, from the writings of Samuel, the book of Nathan the prophet, the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonte, the visions of Iddo and it even derived information from the books of the Kings. In fact the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, who brought back the exiles from Babylon after the Babylonian captivity and write of it, are regarded as sequel records to Chronicles. This places the compilation of Chronicles to have occured during the Babylonia captivity. And it would be from that perspective that Chronicles was written.

This would be a very Jewish perspective, considering all of the kings of Judah to have been from that 'chief ruler', David who they promote as having descended from Judah. And it would be without much respect to the kings of Israel who were not of the house of David. Of course the 'chief ruler' was speaking of the house of David, who else but David, through who the promise of the Messiah was through? And it would also be from the added advantageous perspective that the whole of Israel, particulary Ephraim was gone, removed from the scene, though the remaining 'Samaritan' would still promote that the promised Messiah would come out of Ephraim. So who was left from the Jewish perspective but Judah? Why then even mention Joseph and the birthright? Spurn the 'half breed' Samaritans. Certainly the consideration of paying any attention to the Samaritans was completely removed by the Jews contempt and condescension toward them,

Now why did 1 Chronicles 5:1-2 even burden the concept of the 'chief ruler' with anything concerning Joseph of Egypt and his two sons and the birthright, UNLESS the matters of the birthright, the genealogy of such and of who the 'chief ruler' was, were all still in play concerning David? And the only way that all of these would still be in play is if they co-existed in the single house of David together, That the birthright was to be claimed by David. though the genealogy of David was not to be reckoned after the birthright, but to be after Judah who had prevailed is strange.

So now, if it was known that David received the 'birthright' because he was legally and rightfully of Joseph, receiving that 'birthright' of the covenant which was the right of the ancestry of the Messiah, through Joseph's sons who inherited it from Jacob in the stead of Rueben; then it must have been understood that it came by way of the house of Elimelech and Mahlon to Obed. But in that respect the Jewish recorder of the Chronicles then takes the very Jewish perspective and states that the genealogy was not to be reckoned after the birthright. Whose genealogy? It could only be in reference to David's genealogy which was being spoken of, for there was no other genealogy to be considered. The 10 tribes were gone. Thus by denying the birthright genealogy of that birthright of David the chief ruler which was from the sons of Joseph by whom the birthright came, the record in Chronicles is actually stating that the house of David did have that ancestral link to Joseph and to Ephraim. Thus by denouncing it, the recordkeeper is actually pronouncing it. The house of David was of Joseph of Egypt through his sons, by whom the birthright came, particularly through Ephraim, who was the bearer of the birthright from Jacob as being of Joseph through who it would come (D&C 27:10).

Now of course David had chosen Judah, his 'blood' relations over the legal relationship to the Birthright as provided by the Law of Moses due to the vicarious performing kinsman Boaz, raising up seed to the dead. In this case it was Boaz who had raised up Obed, the first born son of Ruth, the wife of Mahlon, to the purpose that the house of Elimelech and Mahlon would have an heir and their name would not be plotted out in Israel. How ironic that the purpose of the Law of God was now herein being denied in that the Jews now usurped the genealogy away from the 'dead' taking it away from Mahlon and Elimelech, and thus so making it from the Jewish perspective that the dead would have no seed in Israel.

Thus in this usurption, Judah did prevail. The Kingdom of Israel was gone and there was none to contend with it. So Judah 'stole' the genealogy back from Elimelech and Mahlon and assigned it to Boaz and from thence to Judah by blood, disregarding the Laws of God. But perhaps even worse that how Rueben lost it in defiling his father's bed, Judah would claim it from Joseph by stealing it from the dead and against the Law of God. Thus the 'chief ruler' David had claim to the 'birthright' which was Joseph's as given to his son's, primarily Ephraim, so that through David the Messiah would be born. But according to the Jews, Judah had prevailed over 'his brethren', more specifically Ephraim. And thus the genealogy of David would not be given after the birthright back through Jesse to Obed to Mahlon to Elimelech and thus back through Jehoshua, and Nun and thence to Ephraim and Joseph of Egypt by whom the birthright came. As the sole dominant surviving tribe of Israel, Judah would lay their claim to it. And they would claim it by blood relationship. They would write it into the end of the Book of Ruth. And only the schooled and learned would understand how Jesus could have been 'well referenced' by the learned Jewish leaders as a Samaritan while being of the House of David. But this WAS NOT the design of God, but the contrivance of men. For the blessing of Jacob upon the head of Joseph had already pronouce who was to prevail in Israel.

"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 49:26

Judah had always coveted that which was Joseph's, so much so that he lead the plot to kill Joseph. And when Rueben stepped in and made it so that Joseph would not be killed, Judah came up with the next best he could and promoted that they sell Joseph into slavery, thinking to be rid of him forever and that thus he Judah would become the heir of Jacob. And so it was, when the sons of Jacob came down to Egypt, Judah had asumed to be their leader and spokesman. His plan had worked to that point. But Joseph was alive and all was Joseph's again. Now, the tribe of Judah once again to fain claim the whole of it again. Again the heir was gone, Ephraim and the whole Israel was gone from them. And only Judah was left to so claim it through David who had preferred Judah over Israel. A summary from the beginning is given in the first of Chronicals, including the Genealogies In the Jewish prepared Bible there is a conflict as to which tribe prevailed above which tribe. It states in one place that Judah prevailed over his brethren. This of course is the one which is from the Jewish perspective of themselves. Yet in another palce it states that Ephraim had prevailed.

"And also with Joseph and Jacob, and Isaac, and Abraham, your fathers, by whom the promises remain;" D&C 27:10

Yea! The blessings of fathers have prevailed and do remain as they were, have been and are on the head of Joseph, that son of Jacob of the covenant birthright which includes the blessing of being the rightful and legal progenitor of the Messiah, even Messian ben Joseph, even Messiah ben David, who is but one and the same Messiah of all of Israel, the Lord's covenant people. Jacob pronounced it upon the head of Joseph in that patriarchal blessing bestowed upon him. And modern revelation as given through that promised prophet of the latter days of the seed of Joseph of Egypt has so declared it.

"It was, I am informed, on the third day of April, 1836, that the Jews in their homes at the Paschal feast, opened their doors for Elijah to enter. On that very day Elijah did enter — not in the home of the Jews to partake of the Passover with them — but he appeared in the house of the Lord, erected to his name and received by the Lord in Kirtland, and there bestowed his keys to bring to pass the very things for which these Jews, assembled in their homes, were seeking" ~ (Joseph Fielding Smith Doctrines of Salvation, 2:100-101).

Perhaps the most pointed evidence as to Christ's relationship to Ephraim and that Ephraim does prevail over Judah in and through Christ are the events associated with this Land of Joseph, this America, the Promised Land of the Lord unto the salvation of the earth and Joseph's seed, particularly Ephraim, which does prevail in the Lord upon this land. As just cited, the Jews still wait upon the return of Elijah the prophet. Elijah DID NOT return unto the Jews as they have imaged. But Elijah did return to Israel in that Ephraim is Israel. It was unto those of Ephraim upon the land of Joseph to whom Elijah has returned.