|
Post by michelle on Apr 1, 2007 21:07:14 GMT -8
I just finished reading Genesis 48 where Jacob blesses Joseph's sons. This is the 3rd time (Isaac/Ishmael & Jacob/Esau being the first 2) that we have seen the younger son, in this case Ephraim, receive the promise of becoming a greater nation than the first born, Manasseh. I know that culturally the eldest son should be receiving the blessings. What is the biblical significance of the second son receiving blessings over the first son? Why is it that this would be the way?
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Apr 2, 2007 17:54:34 GMT -8
It is a very peculiar theme. I suppose there's more to it than what I'm going to suggest, but maybe this is one of the peices:
I think God likes the underdog. And I think the Israelites felt like the underdog a lot of the time (compared to Egypt and Babylon, etc..), so it stood out to them that God repeatedly:
|
|
|
Post by michelle on Apr 3, 2007 21:11:44 GMT -8
That's a tasty nibble, but I still fell a nagging of this question. Maybe I feel the nagging because I don't feel like the three younger sons were weak, although I guess they would be considered underdogs since they weren't supposed to receive the blessing. I'm not saying it's not the right answer, it just hasn't satisfied my curiousity.
A couple thoughts that I had tonight, let me know what you think about this.
1) Could it have something to do with the greatest "nation", the "nation" of Christians, coming "from" Jesus, the first son of God?
2) Could it have something to do with Cain killing his brother? I'm leaning more towards no on this one since (it appears) that both Noah and Abraham are the first born in their families.
3) Does it mention in the OT that many nations will come from Moses, or does he just lead them out of Egypt? Could it have something to do with Abraham being the last of the first sons to have a great nation come from until Jesus reign?
4) Does this pattern continue throughout the OT?
|
|
|
Post by michelle on Apr 3, 2007 21:35:19 GMT -8
Ooh, I was laying in bed thinking about this and had a really interesting thought about the second child receiving the blessings over the first child. Perhaps it is symbolic of the second "batch" of God's chose people, Christians. It is not that God's first "child" [ie the nation of Israel], it's that God's second childs [ie Christians] receive the true blessing because of Jesus. I know I'm probably not articulating this well as my mind is racing at a thousand miles a minute right now and I just really wanted to get this out before I lost it.
|
|
|
Post by michelle on Apr 3, 2007 21:49:50 GMT -8
Ok, I have clarification on my last thought now that my brain has slowed down a little. When Jacob blesses Joseph's sons, giving the second oldest the blessings, here is the dialogue that happens between them.
Genesis 48:17-19 (CEV) Joseph did not like it when he saw his father place his right hand on the head of the younger son. So he tried to move his father's right hand from Ephraim's head and place it on Manasseh. Joseph said, "Father, you have made a mistake. This is the older boy. Put your right hand on him." But his father said, "Son, I know what I am doing. It's true that Manasseh's family will someday become a great nation. But Ephraim will be even greater than Manasseh, because his descendants will become many great nations."
I see the first son, Manasseh, as Israel. God called Israel His chosen people, therefore, Israel should be the receiver of the blessing of the father. However, Israel is the first born and by tradition "should" receive the blessings from the father. The second son, Ephraim, is representative of Christians. Christians are the ones that receive God's blessing, even though they are the second son. When Jacob says to Joseph "Son, I know what I am doing. It's true that Manasseh's family will someday become a great nation. But Ephraim will be even greater than Manasseh, because his descendants will become many great nations." it is like God say, "Yes, Israel will be a great nation, but Christians will be even greater"...because we have accepted Jesus. I think this is God's way of saying early on, it may appear that Israel is my chosen people because they were my firstborn, but actually, my secondborn (Christians) are the true receivers of my inheritance.
I hope that makes more sense, although I still don't feel like I have it articulated well.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Apr 4, 2007 10:13:53 GMT -8
I think that's a great approach to interpreting this theme (comparing the nation of Israel as the firstborn to the eventual true and full Israel, the Church, as the second child who receives the greater inheritence).
In fact, that interpretation is SO early Church fathers. I dig it.
Of course, in all of this, because "jewish" or "hebrew" can mean a variety of things (race, religion, culture, etc..) just to be clear to anyone reading this, we're not making any racial or cultural distinctions. The true Church is the followers of Jesus (Y'shua), both Jew and Gentile.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Apr 4, 2007 20:47:17 GMT -8
Interestingly, I don't think Moses' direct family line is mentioned after the Exodus. It almost seems like his kids went back to live with Jethro (unless I'm mistaken). Joshua, not Moses' son, becomes the new leader. This is rather strange. As far as Moses' family, it's Aaron's line that seems much more in focus.
|
|
|
Post by michelle on Apr 5, 2007 20:43:14 GMT -8
Just ran across this...
Exodus 4:22 (NIV) "Then say to Pharaoh, 'This is what the LORD says: Israel is my firstborn son"
|
|