The Sons of Jacob

“Now the sons of Jacob were twelve: The sons of Leah: Reuben, Jacob’s first-born, and Simeon, and Levi, and Judah, and Issachar, and Zebulun; the sons of Rachel: Joseph and Benjamin; and the sons of Bilhah, Rachel’s handmaid: Dan and Naphtali; and the sons of Zilpah, Leah’s handmaid: Gad and Asher: these are the sons of Jacob, that were born to him in Paddan-aram” (Genesis 35:23-26, scriptures from ASV).

— David Stein

The list of Jacob’s twelve sons is clear; we would expect them to comprise the 12 tribes of Israel. However, this is not how it worked out! Later, God gave Moses a slightly different list of the 12 tribes of Israel – Those who were to communicate with Moses (Numbers 1:5-15).

(1) Reuben
(2) Simeon
(3) Judah
(4) Issachar
(5) Zebulun
(6) Ephraim
(7) Manasseh
(8) Benjamin
(9) Dan
(10) Asher
(11) Gad
(12) Naphtali

The tribe of Joseph is associated with the tribes of Manasseh and Ephraim; however, Manasseh and Ephraim are not among the twelve sons of Jacob. Furthermore, the tribe of Levi is missing. What is the explanation?

Levi

We often speak of the twelve tribes of Israel. Concerning the land of Israel, there were only twelve tribes with land inheritance. The tribe of Levi, the priestly tribe, did not have an inheritance in the land. “Jehovah said unto Aaron, Thou shalt have no inheritance in their land, neither shalt thou have any portion among them: I am thy portion and thine inheritance among the children of Israel” (Numbers 18:20).

This explains the conspicuous absence of Levi in maps of Israel. Jehovah is their inheritance, and that is much better than land inheritance. This is a prophetic type of the heavenly inheritance of the church, which is much better than an earthly inheritance.

Ephraim and Manasseh

The list from Numbers Chapter One connects Joseph with Ephraim and Manasseh. And well it should, because they are the two sons of Joseph. “Unto Joseph in the land of Egypt were born Manasseh and Ephraim, whom Asenath, the daughter of Poti-phera priest of On, bare unto him” (Genesis 46:20).

So, it appears that Joseph’s two sons were each made into tribes of Israel with land inheritances. But why should Joseph’s sons get this special treatment? The answer to this question brings us to the Law of Inheritance of the firstborn.

Under the patriarchal system, the birthright of the oldest son meant that the son would get a double portion of the father’s inheritance. For example, in a family of four sons, the inheritance is divided into five portions:

● 1st born: 2 portions — the double portion
● 2nd born: 1 portion
● 3rd born: 1 portion
● 4th born: 1 portion

There was also a special blessing of the father sanctioning the family headship to come upon the first-born son, a recognition of the leadership in worshipping Jehovah, and a spiritual blessing. We see this in the blessing that Isaac gave to Jacob, thinking he was Esau. He said: “God give thee of the dew of heaven, And of the fatness of the earth, And plenty of grain and new wine: Let peoples serve thee, And nations bow down to thee. Be lord over thy brethren, And let thy mother’s sons bow down to thee: Cursed be every one that curseth thee, And blessed be every one that blesseth thee” (Genesis 27:28, 29).

There is no reference to a double portion in this blessing. It was special in a way that promised spiritual benefits.

To a certain extent, this arrangement continued under the Mosaic Law. A clarification was given when more than one child-bearing wife was involved. “If a man have two wives, the one beloved, and the other hated, and they have borne him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the first-born son be hers that was hated; then it shall be, in the day that he causeth his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved the first-born before the son of the hated, who is the first-born: but he shall acknowledge the first-born, the son of the hated, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath; for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his” (Deuteronomy. 21:15-17).

This did not mean the right of the firstborn blessing could not be lost under any circumstances. If the firstborn was demonstrably unworthy in any way, the right might be relinquished and given to another.

Our first example of this is in the case of Jacob and Esau. While Esau was the firstborn and legitimate owner of the firstborn blessing, he did not cherish this right. Esau put his fleshly need of hunger before the firstborn blessing. “Jacob boiled pottage: and Esau came in from the field, and he was faint: and Esau said to Jacob, Feed me, I pray thee, with that same red pottage; for I am faint: therefore was his name called Edom. And Jacob said, Sell me first thy birthright. And Esau said, Behold, I am about to die: and what profit shall the birthright do to me? And Jacob said, Swear to me first; and he sware unto him: and he sold his birthright unto Jacob. And Jacob gave Esau bread and pottage of lentils; and he did eat and drink, and rose up, and went his way: so Esau despised his birthright” (Genesis 25:29-34).

There was nothing fraudulent in this transaction. It met all the requirements of a valid contract.¹ Jacob named his price, and Esau accepted it. The account adds he “despised” his birthright. And so, he lost it. The Apostle Paul additionally explains his unworthiness of the birthright: “lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one mess of meat sold his own birthright” (Hebrews 12:16).

The Choosing of Joseph (for Ephraim and Manasseh)

This same dynamic is in operation concerning Joseph. There is no question that Joseph distinguished himself among his brothers early in their lives. Their jealousy, which turned to hatred, manifested itself in a terrible act against Joseph when they sold him into slavery (Genesis 37:18-20). His brothers demonstrated their unworthiness of blessings by selling Joseph into slavery. Their behavior contrasts with Joseph’s nobility, which is shown later when he saved the entire family. Some may argue that Reuben acted nobly to save Joseph’s life and, therefore, should have retained the firstborn’s right (Genesis 37:21-22). That may be true, but Reuben disqualified himself for something entirely different. He committed an atrocious act of immorality with Jacob’s concubine, Bilhah (Genesis 35:22). This action disqualified him from the special firstborn blessing.

(1) Elements of a valid contract: (1) Offer and Acceptance: made by Jacob, accepted by Esau. (2) Legality: this contract violated no other law. (3) Consideration: the price of the contract was clearly stated.
(4) Capable parties: everyone understood what they were doing. (5) Mutual assent: Esau swore with an oath to carry out the transaction. http://www.nolo.com/legalencyclopedia/contracts-basics-33367.html

What about the next two sons, Simeon and Levi? Could not the first-born blessing pass to them just as it did with second-born Jacob, when Esau demonstrated his unworthiness?” No, for two reasons. Both Simeon and Levi exhibited behavior that excluded them from consideration. They acted deceptively and murderously in connection with Shechem, who loved their sister, Dinah. In Jacob’s deathbed prophecy, he condemned both: “Simeon and Levi are brethren; Weapons of violence are their swords. O my soul, come not thou into their council; Unto their assembly, my glory, be not thou united; For in their anger they slew a man, And in their self-will, they hocked an ox. Cursed be their anger, for it was fierce; And their wrath, for it was cruel: I will divide them in Jacob, And scatter them in Israel” (Genesis 49:5-7).

The second reason is paramount — Joseph was, in fact, a first-born! He was the firstborn of Rachel. So, the rejection of Reuben would directly lead to the first-born blessing for Joseph.

Thus did Joseph receive the firstborn inheritance, and his two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, became sons of Israel. Notice how Jacob clearly expresses this: “Now thy two sons, who were born unto thee in the land of Egypt before I came unto thee into Egypt, are mine; Ephraim and Manasseh, even as Reuben and Simeon, shall be mine” (Genesis 48:5).

Jacob gave Joseph the double portion inheritance, each of his two sons being the eventual recipients. This is appropriate since Joseph’s love and mercy exalted him above his brothers. This arrangement is explained in the following scripture: “The sons of Reuben the first-born of Israel (for he was the first-born; but, forasmuch as he defiled his father’s couch, his birthright was given unto the sons of Joseph the son of Israel; and the genealogy is not to be reckoned after the birthright)” (1 Chronicles 5:1).

In this case, the firstborn blessing of a double portion is material, the inheritance of land by Ephraim and Manasseh. But there is also a spiritual part of this blessing; Joseph does not receive it, but Judah does. Notice the following verse: “For Judah prevailed above his brethren, and of him came the prince; but the birthright was Joseph’s” (1 Chronicles 5:2).

This exaltation of Judah is also seen in Jacob’s deathbed prophecy. “The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, Nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet, Until Shiloh come; And unto him shall the obedience of the peoples be” (Genesis 49:10).

In both texts we see the prophetic reference to the Messiah, who would come out of the tribe of Judah. How is it that Judah was chosen for this blessing, rather than Joseph? The 1 Chronicles text clearly states that Judah “prevailed” above his brethren. Several indicators in the Genesis narrative demonstrate Judah’s eventual superiority among his brothers.

We must first seek to explain the apparent heartlessness of Judah in suggesting that Joseph be sold as a slave (Genesis 37:26, 27). Judah’s action can be seen in another, more positive light. Reuben, the firstborn and evident leader of the brothers, did not want Joseph to die. The narrative tells us that he had planned to rescue Joseph later. Reuben then leaves the scene. Evidently, Judah did not know of Reuben’s plan. If Judah did not want Joseph to die, what could he do in the face of the murderous hate of his brothers? If Joseph’s life was to be saved, some action must be taken to deflect the murderous intentions of the others. Judah would save his brother’s life by suggesting that Joseph be sold as a slave.

Admittedly, Judah’s suggestion can be seen in two ways. But since Judah is so highly spoken of later, we would prefer to portray Judah here as a lifesaver with purer motives, like Reuben, who did not want to kill Joseph.

A further illustration of the growth of Judah’s righteousness is seen in Judah’s willingness to remain in Egypt instead of Benjamin. “Judah said unto Israel his father, Send the lad with me, and we will arise and go; that we may live, and not die, both we, and thou, and also our little ones. I will be surety for him; of my hand shalt thou require him: if I bring him not unto thee, and set him before thee, then let me bear the blame for ever:” (Genesis 43:8-9).

While Judah does not use the word, he essentially volunteers to be a “ransom” for Benjamin if required, like his descendant, Jesus, who became a ransom for all. Thus, Joseph was given the material part of the firstborn blessing, a double portion of the land of the tribes of Israel. Still, Judah was given the spiritual part of the firstborn blessing, becoming an ancestor to Jesus. “For Judah prevailed above his brethren, and of him came the prince; but the (double portion) birthright was Joseph’s” (1 Chronicles 5:2).

The account of Joseph and his brothers shows us that sin has its consequences. Joseph and Judah are examples of devotion to God, and both are rewarded with splendid, material and spiritual blessings.