The Chronicler rehearses the historical events that led up to the fact that Reuben could not be enrolled as the oldest son (1 Chronicles 5:1). Reuben was indeed the firstborn son of Jacob (bekor; Genesis 35:23), a position that normally brought immense privilege and blessing because of his birthright or the rights of the firstborn (bekora(h); see Deuteronomy 21:17). This position brought immense benefits (rights) in terms of prosperity and headship (Genesis 25:23; Genesis 27:27–29; Deuteronomy 21:15–17). His sin of incest committed with his father’s concubine disqualified him, thus opening the way, one would think, for the second in line, who was Simeon. But that was not to be the case either. Both he and his brother were excluded for murdering the inhabitants of Shechem for defiling their sister Dinah (Genesis 34:1–31).

In this way Judah legally became the firstborn heir of Jacob. But at this very time, another sovereign choice was made. The sons of Joseph, Ephraim and Manasseh, would receive the birthright comprising the double portion of the inheritance. The Chronicler has at times been said to regard as the true people of God the line of David and the kingdom of Judah and to have no real interest in the Joseph tribes and the northern kingdom. But he is quick to point out that though Judah became strong among his brothers and a chief came from him (1 Chronicles 5:2), yet the birthright, taken away from the eldest brother Reuben, was transferred to and then always belonged to Joseph (1 Chronicles 5:2).¹ The double share inherited by Ephraim and Manasseh underscores the fact that the northern tribes had not lost their ancient privileges (2 Chronicles 28:5–15; 2 Chronicles 30:1–12).

Perhaps another factor that influenced the Chronicler in dropping Reuben from his place in the tribal list in favour of Joseph was that Joseph was the firstborn son of Rachel, Jacob’s favourite wife. Fathers could determine who was the eldest son, especially when the normal heir had committed an offence. The spiritual blessing as bearer of the messianic hope remained with Judah (1 Chronicles 5:1–3). From Judah, however, though not the eldest son, would arise one who would be a chief/ruler/prince (Heb. nagid; 1 Chronicles 5:2).

This is a description often used of David, especially as the anointed one, the messianic leader (1 Samuel 13:14; 1 Samuel 25:30; 2 Samuel 5:3; 2 Samuel 6:21; 2 Samuel 7:8; 1 Chronicles 11:2). The two epithets, nagid and mashiyach (anointed one, Messiah), frequently appear alongside one another. Of special interest is the fact that nagid is used in Chronicles only of David, thus interpreting the term as it is used in the present genealogy.² It is here where the difference between birthright and messianic blessing becomes very clear; Judah is recipient of the messianic blessing; Joseph (through his sons) is the recipient of the birthright.³

The Chronicler makes the subtle observation in 1 Chronicles 5:1 that genealogy is not to be presumed as birthright (1 Chronicles 5:1). The Chronicler’s special interest in the loss of privilege of firstborn sons (cf. also 1 Chronicles 2:3; 1 Chronicles 26:10) may be intended to emphasise that status before God was a matter of benefit rather than right. The same principle was also applicable to Israel as God’s firstborn son ( Exodus 4:22; Jeremiah 31:9).⁴ As always, God’s elective grace rises above the ordinary norms of cultural custom.

The Chronicler was concerned that the two-and-a-half tribes who had moved east of the Jordan be remembered. They were easily excluded for a variety of major and minor issues.

First, the long-term geographical separation by the river. Reuben, Gad, and the half-tribe of Manasseh had requested special permission from Moses to grant them land to the southeast of the Jordan (see Numbers 32:1–42; Deuteronomy 3:12–20; Joshua 1:12–15; Joshua 12:6; Joshua 22:1–9).

Second, the Transjordanian tribes were subjugated to foreign powers very early during the years of the divided kingdom. Hazael of Syria overran their lands in around 837-36 BC (2 Kings 10:32–33) and the Transjordanians were further separated from national life.

Third, the Chronicler states that the Assyrian king Tiglath-Pileser III carried these tribes into exile around 734 BC, twelve years before he did the same to the other northern tribes (1 Chronicles 5:6, 1 Chronicles 5:26). Their early exile made it easy to exclude them from the national vision of post-exilic Israel.⁵

The Chronicler has grouped the three previously independent tribes into a unified record of Israelite occupation of the Transjordanian territories. But the fact that these three tribes lay alongside one another, logically connected them in a sociological context, in other words, there was an intermingling of interests and experiences. So, for example, Next to the Reubenites, the descendants of Gad lived in the land of Bashan as far east as Salecah (1 Chronicles 5:11; NLT). Furthermore, the frequent reference to the three tribes together (1 Chronicles 5:18, 1 Chronicles 5:26) highlights the common heritage and shared experience of Reuben, Gad, and east Manasseh. More tragically, the destinies of the three tribes were also historically connected since all three were exiled by the Assyrians (1 Chronicles 5:6, 1 Chronicles 5:22, 1 Chronicles 5:26).⁶

The literary structure of each tribal record here is similar to that of the genealogy of Simeon, featuring a three-part pattern: the genealogical register, related geographical materials, and select historical notes.⁷ The four sons of Reuben listed in 1 Chronicles 5:3 correspond with the parallel passages in Genesis 46:9, Exodus 6:14, and Numbers 26:5. The later pronouncement of Moses over the tribe of Reuben contained a mixed blessing: Let Reuben live, and not die, but let his men be few (Deuteronomy 33:6). The oracle calls for historical continuity but not the proliferation of the tribe. The Reubenites’ history is divided into three periods and is recorded in reverse chronological order.