Jesus Christ is the Son of the Covenant. Being the Firstborn of the Father in the spirit and the Only Begotten of the Father in the flesh, Jesus Christ is the rightful heir of all that the Father has bestowed upon him. In Jehovah only is to be found Salvation, Jehovah Is Salvation. He is the New and the Everlasting Covenant of Heaven and Earth. He is the Son of the Covenant.

Again, to fulfill all righteousness, Jesus Christ must be the descentant of Him upon whom the Covenent did come and did remain in the earth. That covenant and those promises of the fathers beginning from the very primevil realm of our preexistence, did come from the Father down to and through the likes of father Adam, Enoch, Noah, Melchizedek, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph. These are they by whom the promises of the fathers, the promise of the everlasting covenant did remain in the earth (D&C 27:10).

And it is through this lineage of the covenant promises by whom and through whom the right of the covenant did remain, even until Christ who was born in Bethlehem, the city of David, in the land that was rightfully that of Elimelech, Mahlon, Obed, and Jesse, those Ephrathites whose land it was.

Is it little wonder that Jehovah speaking as the Father, did proclaim, in Jeremiah 31:9 that Ephraim was to considered His Firstborn? It was from Jacob through Joseph to Ephraim that the promises of the covenant did remain. And so it was also stated in 1 Chronicles 5:1-2, that the birthright was given unto the sons of Joseph, the son of Israel. Now in the bloodline of Christ, did Judah take part in the surrogate parenthood of Boaz in his marriage according to the Law of Moses to Ruth, the wife of Mahlon. And Boaz did raise up seed unto the dead Mahlon and the house of Elimelech, which was the house of Ephraim (Ephrathite), the son of Joseph by who did the birthright of the covenant come unto the house of David and thus unto Jesus Christ.

Now from the words of Joseph Fielding Smith, 'Origins of the Reorganized Church', page 73, let me recite the following statement he made. He makes it in considering that Joseph and his sons did obtain the birthright as reported by the Jews in 1 Chronicles 5:1-2.

"Before we leave this chapter in Chronicles let me state that if Joseph received the birthright, and if the birthright and the Presidency of the Church were inseparable, then it should have been through Joseph that the Messiah should have come; but we learn that Judah prevailed above his brethern in this particular."

Now, while Joseph Fielding Smith uses this argument to thwart the concept that the next president and prophet of the true Church had to be a descendant of Joseph or Hyrum Smith, he need not have resorted to such which tends to confuse this separate issue, which is not the same issue, before us now. For the New Testament clearly estabished that the Presidency of the Chruch of Jesus Christ, that is its 'Prophet' and 'President' need not follow the Patriarchal Order, for Jesus Christ Himself did place Peter, who was totally unrelated to the line of the Savior or Ephraim, to be the President of the Church in the Lord's day. And thus, the argument of the birthright being associated with the right to ancestry of the Christ can come back to be fully considered.

The 'Presidency of the Church' and the right of 'Presidency of the Kingdom of God' are not the same matter. Thus 'YES', the 'birthright' does have everything to do with the 'Presidency of the Firstborn' in respect to the fulfilling of the proper order of the covenant of the fathers and that of the Covenant of Abraham. That association is patriarchal after the order of the Firstborn. Joseph Smith was a pure Ephraimite, the linage of the 'Firstborn' and if D&C 113 is to be considered, Joseph Smith was of the same descent from Jesse as well as was Jesus Christ, implying that either Joseph Smith was not a pure Ephraimite as Brigham Young taught, or that Jesse was 'that Ephrathite' meaning Ephraimite, and legally and rightfully of the House of Ephraim and of Joseph as set out in this presentation.

Once again, the concept the 'Judah prevailed over Joseph' is one from the Jewish perspective who prepared the Old Testament text. The only tribe of Israel which did remain in the land of Palestine was Judah. King David had of his own accord, not of the Lord, selected Judah and Jerusalem over Ephraim and Israel, despite his ancestry, as set out in items 21 and 22. From a purely Jewish perspective, Jesus was of the blood of Boaz, though they chose to ignore his legal Law of Moses descent. It is of little wonder that from the Jewish perspective that they would report the 'Judah did prevail' over his brothern. Judah is the only one who is left to so prevail from their so framed mind set.

But Ephraim is God's Firstborn and the rightful heir of the birthright. And to fulfill all righteousness, despite King David's personal preference, Joseph did prevail from the perspective of Jacob's Spirit inspired blessing. And human perspective or personal selection of man can change that. It is Joseph who did prevail and does prevail in fulfilling all of the covenant of God. Judah's role was but surrogate, despite their self-proclaimed prevailance. And the laws of Heaven and the fulfillment of righteousness does set forth that Christ is of Ephraim, he is of the seed of Joseph. He is Messiah ben Joseph.