Levi/Simeon Cursed by Jacob & Yet Blessed by God: Did God Reverse Jacob's Judgement?

[Gxg (G²)]

A man might say, "If Samson can fool around and still be saved, why can't I?"...but anyone doing so misses the point of the narrative. For its not so much about what he did----but what he could have done.

The same could've been the case with Jacob in what he did...for just because he chose to bless Joseph doesn't necessarily mean that all actions done by him were in the perfect will of the Lord..
__________________

Concerning what happened with Jacob choosing to bless Joseph more so than others, Joseph didn't need the inheritance...as the Lord had already provided for him in a manner that fulfilled his dream as a young man. Makes you wonder if Joseph didn't seem to say anything about recieving the firstborn inheritance instead of Reuben..especially being amongst the youngest and knowing that it was supposed to go to the older. With Genesis 48:3 ,As powerful as the blessing was and as valuable as it was to have it, one must wonder where the sense of honor would come in with realizing something doesn't really belong to them. It seemed he was simply eager to take it--and upset that his oldest son, Manesseh, didn't get it rather than being upset Jacob would even give him that rather than to his brothers before Jacob pronounced blessings on all of them in Genesis 49:5.

Would it have been possible to turn down a birthright/defer it to another (or give it away to another once it was given by the parent)? That's something to consider in reading the story.

Also, as it concerns the ways that Judah was blessed more so than Reuben, others may claim that He deserved it - but as said before, he was essentially the ringleader of Joseph's demise and Reuben tried to stop him. Concerning the younger being subject to the older/elder one, something that stuck out to me was seeing how all of the brothers (Judah included) submitted to Reuben when he suggested to them that they should throw him into a pit rather than murder ( Genesis 37:21-23 (Genesis 37 ) in order to save Joseph/return him to Jacob ( Genesis 37:28-30 /Genesis 37 )....but once Reuben left to get the supplies, Judah took over the brothers/reversed his brothers command by suggesting that they sell Joseph into slavery ( Genesis 37:25-27 )--an evil act since they wouldn't kill him outright...but they wouldn't expect him to survive long as a slave with cruel slave traders doing their dirty work for them. Joseph faced a 30-day journey through the desert, probably chained and on foot--and he would be treated like baggage..and once in Egypt, would be sold as merchandise.

In some ways, it seems that Judah was already akin to a bit of a usurper...like like the renegade brother in a pack of siblings that always is causing trouble and the oldest has to do his best to keep in line since he's the most mature (despite any issues the oldest has with being a bit of a maverick himself)..

Some of the things Jacob was upset at his own sons for are odd seeing his own background. Jacob had alot of flaws as well as alot of strengths..devout on some things and on others still acting like a trickster or according to his own wits rather than what the Lord wanted. In a culture where the younger sons responsible for wrong-doing were to be checked, it is interesting to see what appears to be a bit of silence on the part of Jacob with Judah and Reuben...and in some ways, it's possible that Jacob's choosing to punish Reuben would be more of a personal preference rather than a reflection of Divine Justice since there was already the case of him being the younger brother causing mischief/being blessed while his older brother, Esau, was punished for it. Granted, Esau willingly gave the birthright away to Jacob ( Hebrews 12:15-17 / Hebrews 12 , Genesis 25:33-34 / Genesis 25 )..and yet, even though Jacob was chosen by the Lord to lead, his methods of attaining leadership were far from appropriate and he decieved his own father to get it ahold of power rather than trusting the Lord.


Within that culture, there's also the reality that knowing the order of things didn't always equate to doing things in order. There were many cases where families had rebellious sons who were younger and refused to submit to the positions/authority of the older ones...and there were serious consequences for that, beginning with punishing the younger sibling for failing to honor the position of others.

Other times, however, it would be overlooked...and in some cases, the parents would even upset that order by aiding younger children in essentially taking the roles of the older ones while simultaneously blamming the older ones for the outcome if it went bad. In the case of Judah and Reuben, there's nothing in the text that would seem to exclude that reality--and in fact, seems to be even more apparent in the actions of Judah who went counter to his brother's instructions.

The most glaring of issues that Reuben had was that he slept with his father's concubines. On what Reuben did in .Genesis 35:22, The text only indicates that Reuben went in and slept with his father's concubine. Some suppose it was rape due to other books that describe it as such...and for more one can go/look up a work known as the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs. Many have considered it to be legitimate---but IMHI, if going to the Testament of Reuben, one must show where the book is either to be trusted or trustworthy.

For the Testament of Reuben is apart of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (seen here ). The ancient Hebrews commonly gave a "testimony" to their children just before they died. In the Biblical text we have Abraham's, Isaac's and Jacob's "testimonies" to their children recorded. The book of "The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs" is apparently the attempt at showing the testimonies of Jacob's twelve sons to their children. It had been believed that this work was a product of a very late authorship, sometime after the second or third century CE. But, fragments of this work were found within the Dead Sea caves proving a much older origin than previously thought. While it is probable that this book was first written between 500 and 100 BCE, it is very probable that its origins are much older. In the ancient Hebrew culture oral traditions were very important. The stories and teachings in this work may be the actual words of the twelve patriarchs that were passed down from generation to generation until finally recorded in writing. ...but again, there's no way of knowing for certainty.

As it stands, the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs is a constituent of the apocryphal scriptures connected with the Bible. It is a pseudepigraphical work, meaning that it is apart of falsely attributed works, texts whose claimed authorship is unfounded...and a work, simply, whose real author attributed it to a figure of the past.

They're subcanonical: valuable for reading, but not part of the Scriptures.


With Reuben's case, to suppose rape would be unqualified (IMHO), as the scripture uses that term specifically whenever it comes to situations in which that happened. And this already happened in Genesis right before the Reuben/Bihah incident in Genesis 34:2-17 with Dinah being raped.


Other incidents of the word "Rape" can be seen in Deuteronomy 22:25, Deuteronomy 22:27-29, Deuteronomy 28:29-31 , Judges 19:24-26 , Judges 20:4-6, 2 Samuel 13:1-15, 2 Samuel 13:31-33, and Zechariah 14:2.

Moving on, the text of scripture indicates that while Reuben's actions may have been promted by inappropiate lust, it challenged Jacob's position as head of the household. As the firstborn son, Reuben may also have viewed his action as establishing his own authority over his brothers. For more, one can see II Samuel 16:20-23 concerning Abaslom taking his fathers concubines who had been left behind when David left to "keep the house" (II Samuel 15:16). Such an outrageous action would have indeed strengthened his house.....claiming the throne.


Reuben's actions had the opposite effect of establishing authority over his brothers. For although initially Jacob takes no immediate action against Reuben---implied by the narrarator's brief comment in Genesis 35:22-23, Israel heard of it-----and he later DENIED Reuben his preeminence as the firstborn (Genesis 49:3-4/Genesis 49:3-4 )

Although Jacob's actions run counter to the provisions for inheritance in Deuteronomy 21:15-17, the unseemly behavior of Reuben means that he would not inherit what he otherwise would have recieved.

1 Chronicles 5

Reuben
1 The sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel (he was the firstborn, but when he defiled his father’s marriage bed, his rights as firstborn were given to the sons of Joseph son of Israel; so he could not be listed in the genealogical record in accordance with his birthright, 2 and though Judah was the strongest of his brothers and a ruler came from him, the rights of the firstborn belonged to Joseph)
​

As the text makes clear, on account of Rebuen's grave sin against his father, he forfeited his birthright as Israel/Jacob's firstborn to Joseph's sons Ephraim and Manasseh (Genesis 35:22, Genesis 49:3-4), while leadership passed to Judah, from whose tribe David (a chief) arose. The double portion of the inheritance (of the land) went to Joseph through his two sons (Ephraim and Manasseh), each being given a portion of the land. Gen. 48:21-22 reads: “Then Israel said to Joseph, ‘Behold, I am about to die, but God will be with you, and bring you back to the land of your fathers. I give you one portion more than your brothers, which I took from the hand of the Amorite with my sword and my bow.’" The priestly service was given to the tribe of Levi ( Num. 1:47-51; Deut. 33:8-10) and the position of authority was allotted to Judah, the tribe from which the Messiah, the future King, would arise ( 1 Chron. 5:2. )

As it concerns who the sons of Reuben were, one can see that he indeed had them----as seen in Genesis 42:36-38, Genesis 46:8-10, and Exodus 6:13-15 and 1 Chronicles 5:2-4. Deuteronomy 11:5-7 mentions that Reuben had a son named Eliab who was the father to Dathan and Abiram---individuals whom the Lord later destroyed alongside Korah in the wilderness during the rebellion (Numbers 16:1-35).

Numbers 16Korah, Dathan and Abiram
1 Korah son of Izhar, the son of Kohath, the son of Levi, and certain Reubenites—Dathan and Abiram, sons of Eliab, and On son of Peleth—became insolent[a] 2 and rose up against Moses.
​

The Reubenites (Numbers 32:1-3 ), due to their ancestors sin, had to be connected with other tribes for the sake of survival since they had not much. For Reuben's tribe was not very numerous nor very considerable in Israel ---and indeed, their lifestyle was one of being "turbulent as the waters" and unstable like Jacob had prophesied over Reuben since they were very much in motion/suspense due to not having much--though they later had their inheritance beyond beyond Jordan, later being able to settle in Gilead ( Deuteronomy 3:11-13, Deuteronomy 3:15-17 , Deuteronomy 29:7-9, Joshua 1:11-13, Joshua 12:5-7, Joshua 13:7-9, Joshua 13:22-24, Joshua 22:8-10, Joshua 22:9-11 , 1 Chronicles 26:31-32, 1 Chronicles 27:15-17 , etc )


In light of how the Reubenites later gained inheritance, something to keep in mind is when Moses blesses the Tribes in Deuteronomy 33:

Deuteronomy 33:6
6 “Let Reuben live and not die,
nor[d] his people be few.”
​

While the verse promises that the tribe shall endure and prosper, it is so worded as to carry with it a warning. The Reubenites, occupied with their herds and flocks, appear, soon after the days of Joshua, to have lost their early energy, until in later times its numbers, even when counted with the Gadites and the half of Manasseh, were fewer than that of the Reubenites alone at the census of Numbers 1. For an example, compare 1 Chronicles 5:18 with Numbers 1:20. Initially, he was more numerous than several other tribes (Nu 1:21; 2:11). Yet gradually he sank into a mere nomadic tribe, which had enough to do merely "to live and not die." No judge, prophet, or national hero arose out of this tribe.


Though his (Reuben's) life and his blessings have been forfeited by his transgression with his father's concubine (Genesis 49:3) and in his rebellion with Korah in Numbers 16:1-3, Reuben never became extinct as a tribe in Israel,....though again, as Jacob prophesied, they did not excel, because of the sin of their progenitor. Moses's words may have a special regard to the preservation of them, of their families on the other side Jordan, while they passed over it with their brethren into Canaan, and of them in that expedition to help the other tribes in the conquest of the country and the settlement of them in it.... which Jacob by a spirit of prophecy foresaw, and in a prayer of faith petitioned for their safety.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

On Though his (Reuben's) life and his blessings have been forfeited by his transgression with his father's concubine (Genesis 49:3) and in his rebellion with Korah in Numbers 16:1-3, Reuben never became extinct as a tribe in Israel,....though again, as Jacob prophesied, they did not excel, because of the sin of their progenitor. Moses's words may have a special regard to the preservation of them, of their families on the other side Jordan, while they passed over it with their brethren into Canaan, and of them in that expedition to help the other tribes in the conquest of the country and the settlement of them in it.... which Jacob by a spirit of prophecy foresaw, and in a prayer of faith petitioned for their safety

Thankfully, Reuben's descendants did not perish due to what may possibly be an error on the part of Jacob in refusing to not bless him for defiling his bed

During 420 years in Egypt, the descendants of Reuben increased from four sons to 46,000 men of war (Num. 1:20-21). From what seems to be apparent (IMHO), his descendants took part in Korah's revolt..a conspiracy against Moses as described in Numbers 16:1-3. As representatives of the tribe, Dathan and Abiram tried to assert their legal rights a descendants of Jacob's oldest son to a role of leadership in Israel (Num. 16:1-3), but their efforts failed. And the loss of life from that rebellion helps to explain why the population of the Tribe of Reuben dropped from 46,500, to 43,730 during the time between the two censuses that were taken in Numbers 1:21 and Numbers 26:7.

The Reubenites were a pastoral people. The tribe requested an early inheritance east of the Jordan River where the land was suitable for cattle (Num. 32:1-33). They helped the other tribes claim their land, however, and Joshua commended them for their efforts (Josh. 22:9-10). The tribe also built an altar - along with the tribe of Gad and the half-tribe of Manasseh - in the Jordan Valley as a witness to their unity with the tribes west of the Jordan (Josh. 22:11-34). During the period of the Judges, it seems that the tribe of Reuben is not represented by any judge....and it is blamed by Deborah for having abstained from taking part in the war with Sisera (Judges 5: 15-16).

On the other hand, it is indirectly indicated as having participated in the war with the Benjamites (Judges 20:29). In the time of Saul the Reubenites are stated to have made war with the Hagarites, who fell by their hand (I Chronicles 5:10)---and in verses 18-22 of the same chapter, the war with and the victory over the Hagarites are ascribed to Reuben and his neighbors. For the armies of Reuben, Gad, and Manasseh suceeded in battle because they had trusted God and sought his direction....despite the instinct/skill they had as soldiers naturally.

After the assassination of Ishbosheth it seems the Reubenites joined all the other tribes in proclaiming David king of all Israel. The number of the armed men sent jointly by the eastern two and one-half tribes to Hebron on this occasion is stated to have been 120,000 (1 Chronicles 12:36-38). Afterward David appointed 2,700 Levites of the Hebron family as ecclesiastical and civil chiefs over the same tribes (1 Chronicles 12:31-32).

It's noteworthy that among David's mighty men was a Reubenite, Adina, son of Shiza, chief of thirty warriors (1 Chronicles 11:41-43 )---and that's interesting in light of how the "Thirty" and "The Three" were two elite groups of men (II Samuel 23:18-23, I Chronicles 11:1-25, etc) that were the equivalent of David's "Special Operations" organization......and to become a member of such a group a man had to show unparalleled courage in battle as well as wisdom in leaderhsip. To see a man included amongst those assigned to protect the one from whom the Messiah would come seems a trip, IMHO..

Later the Reubenites are mentioned only twice—in 2 Kings 10:32-34, where their country is said to have been ravaged by Hazael, King of Syria ; and in 1 Chronicles 5:18-22 where it is recorded that they, like their neighbors, dwelt east of the Jordan till they were carried away into captivity by Tiglathpileser, their chief at that time being Beerah, son of Baal of the Joel family ( 1 Chronicles 5:5-7, 1 Chronicles 5:25-26 , etc )

As it concerns Christ, in Revelation 7:1-8, the tribe of Reuben is listed among the tribes who are promised the Seal of God for 12,000 of their members. ...and its interesting (IMHO) that the prophet Ezekiel notes how Reuben will have a portion in the new kingdom to come, as seen in Ezekiel 48:5-7 and Ezekiel 48:30-32. While never prominent, the tribe of Reuben was never forgotten..

For some other thoughts which may be noteworthy, as said best by another at a ministry known as "Israel-a-history-of.com"

Many of the same leaders God used in faith to do things also made actions that God allowed for them to do......affecting the course of history while we later catch up with it/assume that it all went down the way it was MEANT to go down. And yet mistakes made do not necessarily preclude the Lord from working powerfully on the behalf of others. Reuben made mistakes and sadly it impacted him negatively via Jacob's cursing.

1 Chronicles 5:6

Reuben

The sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel (he was the firstborn, but when he defiled his father’s marriage bed, his rights as firstborn were given to the sons of Joseph son of Israel; so he could not be listed in the genealogical record in accordance with his birthright, 2 and though Judah was the strongest of his brothers and a ruler came from him, the rights of the firstborn belonged to Joseph)— 3 the sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel:

Hanok, Pallu, Hezron and Karmi. 4 The descendants of Joel:
Shemaiah his son, Gog his son,
Shimei his son, 5 Micah his son,
Reaiah his son, Baal his son,
6 and Beerah his son, whom Tiglath-Pileser[ king of Assyria took into exile. Beerah was a leader of the Reubenites.
​

The purpose of this epitaph was not to smear Reuben's name, but to show that painful memories aren't the only results of sin. As the oldest son, Reuben was the rightful heir to both a double portion of his father's estate and the leadership of Abraham's descendants, who had grown into a large tribe. But his sin stripped away his rights/privelages and ruined his family.

Seeing what Jacob did to Reuben by giving his birthright away to Joseph's sons is interesting when examining

On Genesis 27:36/Genesis 27:36/Genesis 27 , it is interesting when seeing how Jacob was considered by Esau (Firstborn) to have supplanted him 2 times---even though on one occassion he already gave away the birthright/inheritance in Genesis 25:27-34---and in the same way that the younger brother Jacob supplanted Esau in light of Esau's recklessness, so the rights as "Firstborn" were given to the 2 sons of Joseph because of the recklessness of Reuben (Firstborn)..as I Chronicles 5:1-7 indicates. Something of note is that Joseph's sons recieving a Blessing doesn't take away from the fact that Judah would be used as a prominent channel of God's blessing.

For I Chronicles 5:2 makes clear that a ruler would come forth from Judah---Strongest of the Brothers, the one who tried to defraud his daughter-in-law (Genesis 38), the One who suggested Joseph be sent into slavery (Genesis 37:25-34) and who offered up himself in Benjamin's place to rescue him from a similar fate (Genesis 43:7-14, Genesis 44:18-34, etc)......and indeed, as Jacob had prophesied over Judah in Genesis 49:8-13, he became great. God had chosen Judah to be the ancestor of Israel's line of kings. This may have been due to Judah's dramatic change of character.....and possibly due to the imagery that would be sent by God using one so full of mistakes/error to bring forth the promised Messiah who'd rescue his people from spiritual slavery in the same way that Judah sought to rescue his brother, Bemjamin.

With that said, from where I stand, its more than reasonable that the blessings given to each of the 12 sons were not necessarily MEANT to go to each of them as they did...though God was prepared regardless. It could have easily been that we'd be having Christ come from the line of the Tribe of Reuben or Gad if Jacob had chosen to give the blessing to one of them.....and God would have had NO issue with that. For Genetics alone were not a factor for the Lord in which tribe he'd send the Messiah through. It could easily be the case where chance/time was at work....and whomever Jacob chose to give a cetain blessing to, God would honor Jacob's response and work accordingly. As Jacob gave the blessing of kings to Judah, that's where God chose to send the Messiah to.

Concerning the issue of favoritism by Jacob and wrongly discounting his other sons, counting Ephraim/Manasseah was the ones who had the blessing would still be seen as giving Joseph the power he may not have deserved...all at the expense of his brothers. I think it's possible for Ephraim/Manesseh to be still be adopted/blessed mightily as Jacob did--but with some of the other blessings he gave to Joseph, I still wonder. For Gentiles to be included into the people of the Lord (as was the case with Ephraim/Manesseh), I don't think it required anything of giving away the rights of the Firstborn to make the inclusion powerful. If what occurred with Ephraim/Manesseh was a type of what the Lord would do with Gentiles and Jews (As shared on here in #11, #40 ,#41 ,#56 , & #59 ), it would still be beautiful to witness how the Lord worked in that situation

Joseph's blessing was substantial enough by itself--and the scenario would've been perfect (IMHO) with Ephraim/Manesseh being adopted into the Hebrew world and the oldest son (Reuben) being able to look out for his nephews/Joseph better than he was able...with Reuben being given more power to do the job and mighty exploits by having the rights of the firstborn given---and with Judah serving as the strongest support to all of them while also being the one whom the Messiah came through. However, what you ultimately have is Joseph being given far more than necessary....Reuben disinfranchised---and Judah being given more credit than he perhaps warranted.

Alot of it I am leaving up to Providence...and saying that in the sense that the Lord saw all that was coming down the pike, noted it, and sovereignly worked with it the best he saw fit. Permissive Will dynamics in action or seeing what folks like John Sanders note when discussing the Lord in terms of "The God Who Risks"
__________________

And that all goes back to the issue of how some curses are not deserved in the ways they are - and yet the Lord still works through it.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Reviling and scoffing are two common "white" curses. Even hate is a curse. In essence, unless you truly love everyone (and everything,) you can curse or be cursed. This is why I said I am glad God has the authority over all blessings and curses. He is the one that allows them if He chooses. For example, people would be much worse off if every curse that has been expressed was granted.

Thankfully, God does not condone or allow every negative word or curse spoken by others to come to pass.

 

[sevengreenbeans]

Nonetheless, the BLESSING given to the Sons of Joseph in that instance is not necessarily the same as the Blessing given to Joseph in Genesis 49:22-26...and just because Jacob blessed the sons of Joseph doesn't mean it was RIGHT for him to give the does the blessing of the Firstborn/Double portion to him as well---nor does that mean that God approved of it when it was done.

What????! EG, you consider the entire OT along with the NT, so based on your statement above, how do you reconcile the following verse?


Jeremiah 31:9 "They shall come with weeping, and with supplications will I lead them; I will cause them to walk by rivers of waters, in a straight way wherein they shall not stumble; for I am become a father to Israel, and Ephraim is My first-born."

 

[Gxg (G²)]

What????! EG, you consider the entire OT along with the NT, so based on your statement above, how do you reconcile the following verse?


Jeremiah 31:9 "They shall come with weeping, and with supplications will I lead them; I will cause them to walk by rivers of waters, in a straight way wherein they shall not stumble; for I am become a father to Israel, and Ephraim is My first-born."

Jeremiah 31:9 notes how God is a Father - and Israel is designated as the Lord's firstborn, a designation of election )Exodus 4:22). Ephraim, being the most considerable, is often put for the whole of the ten tribes...and in this context, others have noted how it speaks of Ephraim in the sense that the ten tribes are at that point no longer severed from Judah, but forming one people with it. The allusion, perhaps, is to Joseph's having the birthright, and whose younger son, Ephraim, was preferred to Manasseh the elder, 1 Chronicles 5:2. Ephraim intends the same as Israel, the ten tribes, and includes the whole body of the Jewish nation.

That said, if taking Jeremiah 31:9 and saying it must automatically mean God always wanted Ephraim to be dominant, I'd say that isPOST-Blessing, Seven. After Jacob chose to honor Joseph's sons above all others and God - consistent with honoring what his people do with blessings/prophecy - worked with it. Nothing there shows that God always intended for Ephraim to be who he was nor does it show that the Lord calling Ephraim such meant that it was proper for the first born blessing to go to Joseph rather than the original individual it was meant for. It simply means that is what it was and God included it into the plan afterwards - with the titles/claims given to those his servants chose (even though the Lord already showed precedent of finding ways around undude curses given and misplaced blessings).

Jacob was in direct violation of what the Firstborn principle called for. With Joseph, even though he was the son of Jacob's favored wife, the Lord did speak on how the firstborn of a wife not loved was to be respected rather than having his rights taken/given to the child of a loved wife:

Deuteronomy 21:15-17/Deuteronomy 21

The Right of the Firstborn

15 If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love, 16 when he wills his property to his sons, he must not give the rights of the firstborn to the son of the wife he loves in preference to his actual firstborn, the son of the wife he does not love. 17 He must acknowledge the son of his unloved wife as the firstborn by giving him a double share of all he has. That son is the first sign of his father’s strength. The right of the firstborn belongs to him.


​

It may be the case that the Lord formalized this rule in the Mosaic code later due to the fact that there was precedent for other things occurring counter to it which were damaging--just as it was with many other things going on in the book of Genesis (i.e. sleeping with parents, incest, prostitution, etc) that His people often did...and that He had to work through regardless. And with Rebuen (Firstborn son of Leah, the unloved wife) being wrongfully shafted by his dad possibly, it's probable the Lord made it plain in the Law to avoid ever having that again--and in a way, giving a means of showing that those looking back would know in an informal way that Jacob was wrong. It's not coincidence that Reuben was named as he was by Leah because she felt she'd always be considered unworthy. In her words:

Genesis 29:32
Leah became pregnant and gave birth to a son. She named him Reuben, for she said, “It is because the LORD has seen my misery. Surely my husband will love me now.”
Genesis 29:31-33
​

__________________

 

[sevengreenbeans]

That said, if taking Jeremiah 31:9 and saying it must automatically mean God always wanted Ephraim to be dominant, I'd say that isPOST-Blessing, Seven. After Jacob chose to honor Joseph's sons above all others and God - consistent with honoring what his people do with blessings/prophecy - worked with it. Nothing there shows that God always intended for Ephraim to be who he was nor does it show that the Lord calling Ephraim such meant that it was proper for the first born blessing to go to Joseph rather than the original individual it was meant for.

Here's PRE-Blessing for you...

Who gave Joseph his dreams????

 

[yedida]

Here's PRE-Blessing for you...

Who gave Joseph his dreams????

Agreed. And don't you think Hashem had some imput on what the blessings were to begin with? I do. I don't think Jacob just spoke and then Hashem had to scramble/struggle to bring the blessings to pass....that's just reversed and gives an altogether different spin on Him.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Here's PRE-Blessing for you...

Who gave Joseph his dreams????

God - and those dreams were FULFILLED by him ruling over his brothers in Egypt/stewardship of the entire land and having authority.

That, however, has nothing to do with the rights of the Firstborn - as God fulfilled his purpose for him by placing him in the position he did. It was never the case that all things Jacob did for him - including the undue favoritism - were a means of that...nor is it the case that all curses/blessings were ever said in scripture to automatically be of God simply because one did so. There's the principle of God honoring what men do even if it's not the best...

Again, scripture with scripture. Joseph's blessing of rulership/leadership over all of Egypt, with his brothers bowing down to him when they met him again (just as his dream indicated with the sheaves and stars/sun and moon), all was fulfillment of his dream LONG before anything remotely occurred with Jacob blessing him. And even if one tries to argue "Well, Jacob fulfilled Joseph's dream by blessing him with the firstborn blessing", it'd still be against the accepted custom/requirement in that culture for how to treat your firstborn children - something God took time to note and which Jacob violated due to the role Leah had - with him treating Rachel's sons more favorably than those of his unloved wife Leah even though he should have honored the others.

Deuteronomy 21:15-17/Deuteronomy 21

The Right of the Firstborn

15 If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love, 16 when he wills his property to his sons, he must not give the rights of the firstborn to the son of the wife he loves in preference to his actual firstborn, the son of the wife he does not love. 17 He must acknowledge the son of his unloved wife as the firstborn by giving him a double share of all he has. That son is the first sign of his
father’s strength. The right of the firstborn belongs to him.

​

don't you think Hashem had some imput on what the blessings were to begin with? I do. I don't think Jacob just spoke and then Hashem had to scramble/struggle to bring the blessings to pass....that's just reversed and gives an altogether different spin on Him.

One would think that if God never had to work things out, then the conclusion in scripture is that every action of the patriarchs and mankind when it comes to prophecy, curses/blessings or choices made were all ordained - and thus, no mistakes occurred. Essentially, David was meant to be married to Bathsheba to have Solomon/be pronounced as the one God chose to have as an heir - even though adultery/murder followed from it - and the same thing goes for others such as Jepath when he made a vow/the Lord honored his request - even though his daughter was harmed in the process:

Judges 11:27
29 Then the Spirit of the Lord came upon Jephthah. He crossed Gilead and Manasseh, passed through Mizpah of Gilead, and from there he advanced against the Ammonites. 30 And Jephthah made a vow to the Lord: “If you give the Ammonites into my hands, 31 whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites will be the Lord’s, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering.”

32 Then Jephthah went over to fight the Ammonites, and the Lord gave them into his hands. 33 He devastated twenty towns from Aroer to the vicinity of Minnith, as far as Abel Keramim. Thus Israel subdued Ammon.

34 When Jephthah returned to his home in Mizpah, who should come out to meet him but his daughter, dancing to the sound of tambourines! She was an only child. Except for her he had neither son nor daughter. 35 When he saw her, he tore his clothes and cried, “Oh! My daughter! You have made me miserable and wretched, because I have made a vow to the Lord that I cannot break.”

36 “My father,” she replied, “you have given your word to the Lord. Do to me just as you promised, now that the Lord has avenged you of your enemies, the Ammonites. 37 But grant me this one request,” she said. “Give me two months to roam the hills and weep with my friends, because I will never marry.”

38 “You may go,” he said. And he let her go for two months. She and the girls went into the hills and wept because she would never marry. 39 After the two months, she returned to her father and he did to her as he had vowed. And she was a virgin.

From this comes the Israelite custom 40 that each year the young women of Israel go out for four days to commemorate the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite.
​

 

[sevengreenbeans]

Then why was Joshua, of Ephraim, chosen to lead the House of Israel?

Even Caleb, a chief of Judah, showed deference to Joshua's authority.

So, if all things from beginning to end are found within the Torah, what are we shown by this example?

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Then why was Joshua, of Ephraim, chosen to lead the House of Israel?


Even Caleb, a chief of Judah, showed deference to Joshua's authority. So, if all things from beginning to end are found within the Torah, what are we shown by this example?
__________________

Joshua chosen as leader of Israel (and with Egyptian background due to where Ephraim/Manasseh came from due to their mother) - who came after Moses who passed (from the house of Levi ) - is a matter of his being an AIDE to Moses and having a different spirit than others ( Exodus 24:12-14 , Exodus 24:12-14 , Numbers 11:27-29, Numbers 14:29-31 / Numbers 14 Numbers 27:17-19 , Deuteronomy 34:8-10 , Joshua 1:1-3 ). Same with Caleb (from Easu's line and later adopted into Judah), who chose to help him and stand out as Numbers 32:11-13 notes (more discussed here in #11 , #23 and#24.#54 #59 ).

Being chosen to lead has nothing to do with the laws God gave on how sons were to be treated by their fathers when it came to not neglecting First-Born issues - and Joshua being chosen (just as others from differing tribes were also chosen to lead in authority of Israel - be it from Dan like Samson or Benjamin like Ehud inJudges 3:26-30 and others) is not the same as saying that it was proper to give the firstborn blessing to Joseph...or that others chosen to lead Israel from Joseph's line did so simply because of the First-Born blessing.

What the examples of Joshua and Caleb do show are the realities of God using others from differing cultures to glorify Him - especially as it concerns symbolism of what would occur in the future when taking those from the Gentile cultures/using them to aid His people (as many Jewish believers have noted when pointing out that Caleb/Joshua are a type of the Body of Christ with Jew/Gentile).

 

[sevengreenbeans]

Being chosen to lead has nothing to do with the laws God gave on how sons were to be treated by their fathers when it came to not neglecting First-Born issues - and Joshua being chosen (just as others from differing tribes were also chosen to lead in authority of Israel - be it from Dan like Samson or Benjamin like Ehud inJudges 3:26-30 and others) is not the same as saying that it was proper to give the firstborn blessing to Joseph...or that others chosen to lead Israel from Joseph's line did so simply because of the First-Born blessing.

I believe Joseph's dreams were not just speaking to what would happen in Egypt, but I believe it was YHWH speaking to him about the birthright, as well. I believe if Joseph had been dead, as Jacob believed he was, the birthright would have passed to Benjamin. I also believe this is why the cup was placed in Benjamin's bag, as something to symbolize that which was "stolen" from Joseph by Benjamin, but Judah claims the responsibility for. Benjamin would have had to return the birthright to Joseph, for he was still living, and Judah was ultimately responsible for the birthright going to Benjamin since it was his idea to sell Joseph into slavery. I also believe this is why we see Judah and Benjamin mentioned together so often, as it goes all the way back to this event. Looking to the events of Joshua leading the people into the Land.... Joseph was the only firstborn of the womb (of Rachel) to stand upon Mount Gerizim (Blessing). The other 3 firstborns of the womb (of Leah, Bilhah, and Zilpah) stood upon Mount Ebal (Curse).

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I believe Joseph's dreams were not just speaking to what would happen in Egypt, but I believe it was YHWH speaking to him about the birthright, as well. I believe if Joseph had been dead, as Jacob believed he was, the birthright would have passed to Benjamin. I also believe this is why the cup was placed in Benjamin's bag, as something to symbolize that which was "stolen" from Joseph by Benjamin, but Judah claims the responsibility for. Benjamin would have had to return the birthright to Joseph, for he was still living, and Judah was ultimately responsible for the birthright going to Benjamin since it was his idea to sell Joseph into slavery.

I also believe this is why we see Judah and Benjamin mentioned together so often, as it goes all the way back to this event.

I can understand why one would believe the dreams had to speak about the birthright - although seeing how God was very clear on what He expected of his children when it came to the firstborn (especially from the wife of the unloved - as was the case with Leah), it seems more logical to see it as God working things out and setting a precedent. Seeing how Judah and Benjamin are eternally linked afterwards (even though Judah and Joseph's tribes often fought intensely with one another and Judah was later favored over Joseph in the Exile with the Southern Tribes returning whereas the North was exiled in II Kings 17 due to the idolatry/other things going back as far as the time of the Judges), a lot of parallels are a trip

Looking to the events of Joshua leading the people into the Land.... Joseph was the only firstborn of the womb (of Rachel) to stand upon Mount Gerizim (Blessing). The other 3 firstborns of the womb (of Leah, Bilhah, and Zilpah) stood upon Mount Ebal (Curse).

There were plenty of good places men stood even though they were cursed later for their actions and still wrong - just as other men stood at places known to be barren and the Lord blessed them. Thus, focusing on Mounts isn't the best option of showing which firstborn was blessed. As it is, Rachel lied about stealing the household gods from her father and Jacob called down a curse saying the one doing so would not live ( Genesis 31:31-33/ Genesis 31 ) - and although she was able to hide them effectively, the curse came to pass via her premature death in child labor.

Leah's sons were still well, of course. And Reuben was always the firstborn son.

 

[mercy1061]

Incorrect, seeing the other examples within the Word where the Canaanites did not act favorably toward the Hebrews. What happened for Isaac and the Philistines plugging up his wells/harming property is one example amongst others - and the same goes for others being sold into slavery by other Cannanites.

I was speaking with reference to marriage, but then of course the land still belonged to the Canaanites during the time of Abraham. The cannanites always allowed for intermarriage; I thought that is what we were discussing?

There's no escaping the fact that God outlined in plain terms that he did not want any type of voluntary seeking out of marriage to other Canaanites who did not serve Him...and avoiding that is avoiding the command of GOD for the sake of supporting an point.

Genesis 28:1
So Isaac called for Jacob and blessed him and commanded him: “Do not marry a Canaanite woman.
Genesis 28:1-3

​

History wise, Genesis 24 contains the account of how Abraham sent his servant to get Abraham’s son Isaac a wife, Rebekah, from among Abraham’s relatives back in Mesopotamia. The servant had to swear that he would not take a wife for Isaac from the Canaanites among whom Abraham lived (verse 3). This has been seen by some as Abraham being against racial intermarriage as such. But understanding what God was doing in Abraham’s life and family reveals Abraham’s real motive.

God had promised Abraham that He would give the land of Canaan to his descendants (Genesis 15:18–21; 17:8).

These descendants were the Israelites. Obviously, to give the land of Canaan to the Israelites, also meant God would take it away from the Canaanites. Before Abraham fully understood what God was doing, he and his wife Sarah agreed—because they were at that time childless—to have a child (Ishmael) with Sarah’s handmaiden, Hagar (Genesis 16). Hagar was an Egyptian (verse 1), of a different ethnicity than Abraham; yet Abraham apparently had no personal qualms about this. But after the birth of Isaac to Sarah and Abraham, and after Abraham better understood what God was doing, he was careful not to allow Isaac to marry a woman from among the peoples whom God would cast out of the land when He brought the Israelites into their inheritance.


The reason for this is quite simple. If the difference between Abraham’s family and the people of the land of Canaan became indistinct through intermarriage (which brought about issues of religious practices), God could not kick the Canaanites out and give the land to the Israelites; they would be one, indistinct people. If intermarriage began as far back in the lineage as Abraham, God would be giving the land as much to people of Canaanite religions as to Abraham’s seed.

Abraham married his sister which was also forbidden, shall we ignore this detail? Could it be possible Sarah was barren because Abraham had married his niece? Now if it was "common" or "lawful" for a man to marry his sister, why did the king assume that when Abraham claimed that Sarah was his sister that she was not his wife. Even in those days marrying your close relative was unlawful.

This explains why Isaac and Rebekah were grieved by Esau’s marrying women from Canaan (Genesis 26:34–35; 28:8). But, even though he was the elder, Esau did not inherit. The Promised Land was not to be his inheritance; it was to go to the descendants of his younger brother, Jacob. And Jacob took wives, Rachel and Leah, from Abraham’s family, again keeping the line pure for the sake of the inheritance.

Jacob and Esau were born around the same time; yet which son was formed first from his mother's womb? The son YHWH formed first in his mother's womb deserved the birthright. What does YHWH say to their mother?

Gen 25
23 The Lord said to her,
“Two nations are in your womb,
and two peoples from within you will be separated;
one people will be stronger than the other,
and the older will serve the younger.”


YHWH determines the firstborn, because he has formed him first in his mother's womb. Jacob always served Esau, Esau never served Jacob; what does Cain the elder brother say "am I my brother's keeper"?

Jer 1:5
5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew[a] you,
before you were born I set you apart;
I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”

Of course YHWH knows whom he formed first in his mother's womb. YHWH makes it clear that Jacob was created first.

Ex 4
22 Then say to Pharaoh, ‘This is what the Lord says: Israel is my firstborn son,

A generation later, however, we see Judah take a Canaanite wife (Genesis 38:2). She bears him three sons. Two of them die as described in Genesis 38. The third son, Shelah lives. We don’t know who he married, but he did have children (1 Chronicles 4:21–23). Joseph married an Egyptian (Genesis 41:45, 50). Even Moses married an Ethiopian woman (Numbers 12:1). Significantly, God did not consider this interracial marriage justification for Moses’ brother and sister (Aaron and Miriam) to speak against him (see Numbers 12). And Salmon married Rahab of Jericho (Joshua 2), a mixed marriage that we find in the ancestry of Jesus Christ (Matthew 1:5). However, a common theme with all of the other marriages (except for Judah's marriages to Cannanite) was that they were followers of the Lord and thus there was no issue.

It is interesting that Judah married a Cannanite woman whom bore him descendents yet none of them were chosen or counted to bear the Seed; only Tamar who played the harlot never married to Judah did YHWH choose to bear his Seed. Considering that Rahab was a well known harlot, it is unclear whether or not Salmon truly married her. Rahab could have become Boaz mother through harlotry like Tamar; it was not uncommon for the priests to go after harlots.

Just because someone follows YHWH it does not change YHWH's law. The Moabites were forbidden specifically because they had persecuted Israel. Unlike the Canaanites Israel were not allowed to make war with them.

Later, marriages between the Israelites and Canaanites became common, but with bad results that had nothing to do with race/ethnicity and everything to do with religion (Judges 3:6). The mixed marriages caused the Israelites to serve the Canaanites’ gods. When the faithful Israelites returned to their land after the captivity, marriage with the Canaanites was again forbidden (Ezra 9–10). The reason is clearly stated as being because the marriages had caused the Israelites to do "according to their abominations.... For they have taken of their daughters for themselves, and for their sons: so that the holy seed have mingled themselves with the people of those lands" (Ezra 9:1–2). It was not because of racial concerns, but because of religion that the marriages were forbidden; the non-Israelite spouses were causing the Israelites to turn away from God.

Seeing that no one disagreed with the fact that the sons (Simeon/Levi) included were out in the fields and didn't tell Jacob anything since they DID NOT KNOW until they got home/the matter was discussed, there was no need to even focus on it as if it was an issue.
Please with the attempt at argument via exaggeration, as it doesn't deal with the discussion and is really beneath anyone to try attempting - as if disagreeing with you on an issue means that I (or anyone else) would see it differently if my children were raped. If my child was violated and I didn't know about it fully except through the grapevine, I'd not assume that my other children automatically knew....as they could be just as clueless. I would also not agree at ANY point in giving my daughter in marriage to the one who raped her to try to make it less of an issue. Sin is sin and the rapist would go to jail - or, in the event that I find out who did it, the rapist would be seriously injured afterward. Period.

Who told Jacob that Dinah was defiled? I never said that Levi and Simeon told him. You keep naming Levi and Simeon as the source of what Jacob heard. Since we know that they were not the "source" or witnesses; who told Jacob what happened? In order for someone to be convicted of a heinous crime there must be at least two witnesses. The father of the witness told Jacob.

Yes you have..and at multiple points. But that's besides the point..

Seeing that the witnesses need to have been present and one must also have evidence of what happened rather than hearsay alone, the same principles apply. Criminal cases have the same circumstances where a woman is raped and evidence is either ignored or people later testify to it later on - with family members often clueless as to what occurred and the woman who was raped not saying anything immediately except to a few friends ..or even not saying anything at all due to being afraid of what would happen if they told on the rapist/the rapist came back to harm them. Already have had friends who were raped and noted that on the issue.

The father of the witness told Jacob what happened, but Jacob heard that his daughter was defiled.

 

[yedida]

I was speaking with reference to marriage, but then of course the land still belonged to the Canaanites during the time of Abraham. The cannanites always allowed for intermarriage; I thought that is what we were discussing?




Abraham married his sister which was also forbidden, shall we ignore this detail? Could it be possible Sarah was barren because Abraham had married his niece? Now if it was "common" or "lawful" for a man to marry his sister, why did the king assume that when Abraham claimed that Sarah was his sister that she was not his wife. Even in those days marrying your close relative was unlawful.



Jacob and Esau were born around the same time; yet which son was formed first from his mother's womb? The son YHWH formed first in his mother's womb deserved the birthright. What does YHWH say to their mother?

Gen 25
23 The Lord said to her,
“Two nations are in your womb,
and two peoples from within you will be separated;
one people will be stronger than the other,
and the older will serve the younger.”


YHWH determines the firstborn, because he has formed him first in his mother's womb. Jacob always served Esau, Esau never served Jacob; what does Cain the elder brother say "am I my brother's keeper"?

Jer 1:5
5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew[a] you,
before you were born I set you apart;
I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”

Of course YHWH knows whom he formed first in his mother's womb. YHWH makes it clear that Jacob was created first.

Ex 4
22 Then say to Pharaoh, ‘This is what the Lord says: Israel is my firstborn son,




It is interesting that Judah married a Cannanite woman whom bore him descendents yet none of them were chosen or counted to bear the Seed; only Tamar who played the harlot never married to Judah did YHWH choose to bear his Seed. Considering that Rahab was a well known harlot, it is unclear whether or not Salmon truly married her. Rahab could have become Boaz mother through harlotry like Tamar; it was not uncommon for the priests to go after harlots.

Just because someone follows YHWH it does not change YHWH's law. The Moabites were forbidden specifically because they had persecuted Israel. Unlike the Canaanites Israel were not allowed to make war with them.



Who told Jacob that Dinah was defiled? I never said that Levi and Simeon told him. You keep naming Levi and Simeon as the source of what Jacob heard. Since we know that they were not the "source" or witnesses; who told Jacob what happened? In order for someone to be convicted of a heinous crime there must be at least two witnesses. The father of the witness told Jacob.



The father of the witness told Jacob what happened, but Jacob heard that his daughter was defiled.

You have some strange theology and you leave out a lot or just plain change it. I can't follow it.

 

[mercy1061]

You have some strange theology and you leave out a lot or just plain change it. I can't follow it.

What specifically did I change or leave out, that you are not able to follow?

 

[mercy1061]

Jeremiah 31:9 notes how God is a Father - and Israel is designated as the Lord's firstborn, a designation of election )Exodus 4:22). Ephraim, being the most considerable, is often put for the whole of the ten tribes...and in this context, others have noted how it speaks of Ephraim in the sense that the ten tribes are at that point no longer severed from Judah, but forming one people with it. The allusion, perhaps, is to Joseph's having the birthright, and whose younger son, Ephraim, was preferred to Manasseh the elder, 1 Chronicles 5:2. Ephraim intends the same as Israel, the ten tribes, and includes the whole body of the Jewish nation.

That said, if taking Jeremiah 31:9 and saying it must automatically mean God always wanted Ephraim to be dominant, I'd say that isPOST-Blessing, Seven. After Jacob chose to honor Joseph's sons above all others and God - consistent with honoring what his people do with blessings/prophecy - worked with it. Nothing there shows that God always intended for Ephraim to be who he was nor does it show that the Lord calling Ephraim such meant that it was proper for the first born blessing to go to Joseph rather than the original individual it was meant for. It simply means that is what it was and God included it into the plan afterwards - with the titles/claims given to those his servants chose (even though the Lord already showed precedent of finding ways around undude curses given and misplaced blessings).

Ephraim is the firstborn as YHWH told the prophet Jeremiah.

Jer 31:9
Tears of joy will stream down their faces,
and I will lead them home with great care.
They will walk beside quiet streams
and on smooth paths where they will not stumble.
For I am Israel’s father,
and Ephraim is my oldest child.


Ephraim and Manasseh were born around the same time, Ephraim was formed first in his mother's womb. Naturally Ephraim the firstborn would share in his father's occupation and inheritance, consequently Jacob blesses him. Joseph is Ephraim's father; Jacob his grandfather; it is not necessary for John to mention him as being sealed, since it is common for the firstborn to share in his father's or grandfather's blessing; Ephraim would be "hidden" or naturally included in Joseph. Thus, Manasseh is listed in John's vision so that Joseph could rightly receive a double portion for his trouble as Jacob had prophesied; 1/2 tribe of Manasseh had a seperate inheritance before crossing the Jordan River.

Joshua 22:7

Moses had given the land of Bashan, east of the Jordan River, to the half-tribe of Manasseh. (The other half of the tribe was given land west of the Jordan.) As Joshua sent them away and blessed them,

Jacob was in direct violation of what the Firstborn principle called for. With Joseph, even though he was the son of Jacob's favored wife, the Lord did speak on how the firstborn of a wife not loved was to be respected rather than having his rights taken/given to the child of a loved wife:

Deuteronomy 21:15-17/Deuteronomy 21

The Right of the Firstborn

15 If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love, 16 when he wills his property to his sons, he must not give the rights of the firstborn to the son of the wife he loves in preference to his actual firstborn, the son of the wife he does not love. 17 He must acknowledge the son of his unloved wife as the firstborn by giving him a double share of all he has. That son is the first sign of his father’s strength. The right of the firstborn belongs to him.

​

If Rachel was Jacob's favorite wife, why did Jacob request from his sons to be buried with Leah? The elder shall serve the younger; what did John say:

John 1
15 John testified about him when he shouted to the crowds, “This is the one I was talking about when I said, ‘Someone is coming after me who is far greater than I am, for he existed long before me.’”

The one who comes out of his mother's womb after, existed long before. In other words, the elder shall serve the younger, Jacob is the firstborn like YHWH told Moses who told Pharoah.

It may be the case that the Lord formalized this rule in the Mosaic code later due to the fact that there was precedent for other things occurring counter to it which were damaging--just as it was with many other things going on in the book of Genesis (i.e. sleeping with parents, incest, prostitution, etc) that His people often did...and that He had to work through regardless. And with Rebuen (Firstborn son of Leah, the unloved wife) being wrongfully shafted by his dad possibly, it's probable the Lord made it plain in the Law to avoid ever having that again--and in a way, giving a means of showing that those looking back would know in an informal way that Jacob was wrong. It's not coincidence that Reuben was named as he was by Leah because she felt she'd always be considered unworthy. In her words:

Genesis 29:32
Leah became pregnant and gave birth to a son. She named him Reuben, for she said, “It is because the LORD has seen my misery. Surely my husband will love me now.”
Genesis 29:31-33
​

__________________

It is interesting that Leah felt like she was unloved by Jacob, yet she was his first wife. Jacob did not intend to marry Leah but married Leah instead of Rachel first; consequently Jacob married Rachel after he married Leah. Much in the same way Isaac considered Esau the elder brother, yet Joseph is the firstborn like YHWH told Moses who told Pharoah, yet Jacob proved it when he served Esau at the dinner table. The elder shall serve the younger as YHWH said.

 

[sevengreenbeans]

Surprise...I have a totally different view of Leah and Rachel. Laban deceived Jacob when he presented Leah in place of Rachel. Leah, as a bride, was given by deception. Rachel, as a bride, was given by promise. Rachel was the woman found at the well of mayim chaim (living water), she was the one Jacob made covenant arrangements for with Laban (betrothal/ketubah). He worked to receive Rachel. Leah, Bilhah, and Zilpah were not an expected part of the deal, it seems. We most likely see how Jacob's children were affected by the dynamics of these relationships through their actions and how they relate to their father, as well as how they relate to Joseph. Yet, Jacob richly provided for all of them. The children should not have to pay for the sins of their uncle/grandfather, Laban, after all. However, they do have to be held accountable for their own sin. Thus, they are left to choose teshuva, and sometimes it takes a long time to break generational curses, to turn it around for the blessing.

So, EG, even though we haven't seen eye to eye throughout this entire thread... I consider you my brother...

And...as noted previously, I'm unconventional... what can I say? It is what it is.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I was speaking with reference to marriage, but then of course the land still belonged to the Canaanites during the time of Abraham. The cannanites always allowed for intermarriage; I thought that is what we were discussing?

The focus was intermarriage and seeing the ways God didn't allow it.

Abraham married his sister which was also forbidden, shall we ignore this detail? Could it be possible Sarah was barren because Abraham had married his niece? Now if it was "common" or "lawful" for a man to marry his sister, why did the king assume that when Abraham claimed that Sarah was his sister that she was not his wife. Even in those days marrying your close relative was unlawful.

It is nowhere conclusive that Abraham married his sister - and to claim such is to go past the text and what is made evident (except in the claims of Abraham, who already had a history of lying multiple times). Anything else is speculative.

Jacob and Esau were born around the same time; yet which son was formed first from his mother's womb? The son YHWH formed first in his mother's womb deserved the birthright. What does YHWH say to their mother?

Gen 25
23 The Lord said to her,
“Two nations are in your womb,
and two peoples from within you will be separated;
one people will be stronger than the other,
and the older will serve the younger.”


YHWH determines the firstborn, because he has formed him first in his mother's womb. Jacob always served Esau, Esau never served Jacob; what does Cain the elder brother say "am I my brother's keeper"?

Jer 1:5

5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew[a] you,
before you were born I set you apart;
I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”

Of course YHWH knows whom he formed first in his mother's womb. YHWH makes it clear that Jacob was created first.

There's never a need to make up theology or scripture where scripture does not say anything - for nowhere in Jewish culture or Jewish theology is it the case that the one who is formed first is automatically the first born. It is whoever comes OUT first that is the FIRST Born and has been that way since the beginning. Seriously, no need playing with the text since the phrase "older will serve the younger" dealt with the reality of how Esau (who was the firstborn) was going to serve Jacob and God ordained it as such. It was never a matter of Jacob being born first in the womb and one creates out of nothing to argue such since the entire battles of getting the Firstborn RIGHTS from Esau (as he did with the Bowl of Soup as Hebrews 12:14-18 and Genesis 25:19-34) is why the firstborn issue was in focus. The struggle in Rebekah's womb is centered on how the children were always destined to have a theme of struggle between them - Jacob and Esau, which is a major theme of Jacob's story. The goal of the struggle was not yet clear when Rebekah had the Lord tell her what he did - but it is hinted at in the Lord's oracle: the elder shall serve the younger.

The method of Rebehah's in inquiry is obscure, but God's response sketches the future of the children to be born -- they will be two nations -- much like the angelic oracle forecasting the prenatal Ishmael's future in Genesis 16:1-12. The ascent of the younger son is a repeated theme in Genesis (Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Ephraim, even Abel) and later (David). As seen in Genesis 25:24-27, the birth and youth of the twins show many of their defining traits. Gripping Esau's heel is a matter of Jacob trying to pull Esau back so that he can be the firstborn, showing his ability to scheme and plan, with this act foreshadowing his more successful attempts to supplant his brother.


As it is, Esau learned to serve his brother just as the Lord prophesied when examining what's directly seen in Genesis 33 with Esau blessing Jacob/seeking to serve him when they met up again. He harbored no ill will to Jacob and in his exchange, Esau shows virtue and eloquence and apparently has prospered in spite of the loss of his blessing.

Genesis 33:17
Jacob looked up and there was Esau, coming with his four hundred men; so he divided the children among Leah, Rachel and the two maidservants. 2 He put the maidservants and their children in front, Leah and her children next, and Rachel and Joseph in the rear. 3 He himself went on ahead and bowed down to the ground seven times as he approached his brother. 4 But Esau ran to meet Jacob and embraced him; he threw his arms around his neck and kissed him. And they wept. 5 Then Esau looked up and saw the women and children. “Who are these with you?” he asked.Jacob answered, “They are the children God has graciously given your servant.”6 Then the maidservants and their children approached and bowed down. 7 Next, Leah and her children came and bowed down. Last of all came Joseph and Rachel, and they too bowed down.8 Esau asked, “What do you mean by all these droves I met?”“To find favor in your eyes, my lord,” he said.

9 But Esau said, “I already have plenty, my brother. Keep what you have for yourself.” 10 “No, please!” said Jacob. “If I have found favor in your eyes, accept this gift from me. For to see your face is like seeing the face of God, now that you have received me favorably. 11 Please accept the present that was brought to you, for God has been gracious to me and I have all I need.” And because Jacob insisted, Esau accepted it. Then Esau said, “Let us be on our way; I’ll accompany you.”

13 But Jacob said to him, “My lord knows that the children are tender and that I must care for the ewes and cows that are nursing their young. If they are driven hard just one day, all the animals will die. 14 So let my lord go on ahead of his servant, while I move along slowly at the pace of the droves before me and that of the children, until I come to my lord in Seir.”15 Esau said, “Then let me leave some of my men with you.” “But why do that?” Jacob asked. “Just let me find favor in the eyes of my lord.” 16 So that day Esau started on his way back to Seir. 17 Jacob, however, went to Succoth, where he built a place for himself and made shelters for his livestock. That is why the place is called Succoth.[a]
​

Ex 4
22 Then say to Pharaoh, ‘This is what the Lord says: Israel is my firstborn son,

Scripture has nothing to do with the discussion, m. Being the firstborn, as the Lord says over Israel, is centered on metaphor. Firstborn is the metaphor of Israel's election as the Lord's firstborn son (Jeremiah 31:9, Hoseas 11:1) - and it led to the tenth plague having a quality of poetic justice when all of the firstborn in Egypt died.

It is interesting that Judah married a Cannanite woman whom bore him descendents yet none of them were chosen or counted to bear the Seed; only Tamar who played the harlot never married to Judah did YHWH choose to bear his Seed. Considering that Rahab was a well known harlot, it is unclear whether or not Salmon truly married her. Rahab could have become Boaz mother through harlotry like Tamar; it was not uncommon for the priests to go after harlots.

Tamar didn't need to marry Judah in order for his seed to be considered as a part of her heritage since he fulfilled the principle of the Levirite marriage. And there's no historical, credible or logical basis in saying Rahab was not married to Salmon. To do speculation on the text where it is clear isn't honoring what God's word said.

Only one person of the name is known in the Old Testament (the “Rahab” of Psalm 87:4, etc., being a poetical designation for Egypt); and Matthew mentions a person of that name, living at the same epoch, as the well-known woman, without further description, as though everyone would know who was meant. This seems to point clearly to Rahab of Jericho. In the book of Ruth only three generations are given—Boaz, Obed and Jesse—between Salmon, the prince of Judah, who married Rahab, and David.

1 Chronicles 2:10-12 /1 Chronicles 2

From Ram Son of Hezron

10 Ram was the father of
Amminadab, and Amminadab the father of Nahshon, the leader of the people of Judah. 11 Nahshon was the father of Salmon,[a] Salmon the father of Boaz, 12 Boaz the father of Obed and Obed the father of Jesse.

Matthew 1:4-6
Ram the father of Amminadab,
Amminadab the father of Nahshon,
Nahshon the father of Salmon,
5 Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab,
Boaz the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth,
Obed the father of Jesse,
6 and Jesse the father of King David.
​

Assuming that someone is automatically of the Royal line because of genetics alone doesn't do much since there were already cases where kings had children by prostitutes and they were deemed to be illegitimate kids....and thus, for one to have a child deemed to be in the Royal line of scripture by Rahab meant that Rahab's child/birth were by legitimate marriage connection. The story of Ruth does not come chronologically after “Judges,” but as v. i of chap. i. tells us, is embedded in its history—”in the days when the judges ruled.” Salmon may have married Rahab many years after the taking of Jericho. The 450 years of the judges begin at the partition of the land and go on to Saul (Acts 13:20). Possibly Boaz was the son of the old age of Salmon and we know he was himself elderly when he married Ruth. There are still serious difficulties, but no doubt if we knew all, all would be plain. Perhaps the desire to find a second Rahab is due to a feeling as to her antecedents. The other women mentioned along with her in our Lord’s genealogy had all some disability. At least Rahab and Ruth were trophies of divine grace; and what are we to say of the wicked men in the genealogy, Rehoboam, Ahaz, Joram, Jehoiakim, etc.? Indeed, of the best of the links in the chain we must say, “All these once were sinners defiled in His sight.” Not one was worthy to be an ancestor of our Lord. But our Lord, though truly man by virgin birth, was completely detached from any inherited taint of the sin of Adam, by the fact of His miraculous conception by the Holy Spirit. He was “that Holy Thing” from His mother’s womb. He knew no sin, neither was sin in Him. Let go that, and Christianity must go at once, as far as we are concerned.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

.
Just because someone follows YHWH it does not change YHWH's law. The Moabites were forbidden specifically because they had persecuted Israel.

God's law is consistent when examining/dealing properly with the Context, as the Moabites were forbidden only for a time

The Moabites were the descendants of a terrible union. After Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed, Lot was afraid to stay in the city of Zoar. So he headed up to the mountains and stayed with his two daughters in a cave. Thinking that this was their only chance to continue the family line, Lot's daughters got him drunk and conceived children with him (Gen. 19:37 ) and this is where the Moabites came from. Later, when the nation of Israel camped next to the land of the Moabites and the Midianites, they tried to get Balaam to curse the Jews. When he was unable, they listened to his plan for causing Israel to stumble, by tempting them into idolatry and immorality with their women (Genesis 25).

Under the rule of King Eg-LAWN, they oppressed the Israelites for 18 years back in Judges 3. That oppression ended when the judge Ehud, the left-handed Benjamite, killed the hugely fat king. Apparently, the events of the book of Ruth occurred some time after this oppression. Deut. 23:3 says "No Ammonite or Moabite shall enter the assembly of the LORD; none of their {descendants,} even to the tenth generation, shall ever enter the assembly of the LORD"Later, when Nehemiah came to rebuild the wall around Jerusalem, he wrote in Neh. 13:23-27 "In those days I also saw that the Jews had married women from Ashdod, Ammon, {and} Moab. As for their children, half spoke in the language of Ashdod, and none of them was able to speak the language of Judah, but the language of his own people. So I contended with them and cursed them and struck some of them and pulled out their hair, and made them swear by God, "You shall not give your daughters to their sons, nor take of their daughters for your sons or for yourselves. Did not Solomon king of Israel sin regarding these things? Yet among the many nations there was no king like him, and he was loved by his God, and God made him king over all Israel; nevertheless the foreign women caused even him to sin. Do we then hear about you that you have committed all this great evil by acting unfaithfully against our God by marrying foreign women?"

Most Moabites were polytheist (idolaters) who worshiped many gods and goddesses, but they were widely referred to by the Israelites as “the people of Chemosh” (Numbers 21:29, Judges 11:24). Chemosh, most likely means, destroyer, subduer, or fish god, and was the Moabites national deity which they honored with horribly cruel rites much like those of Molech, to whom children were sacrificed in fire (2 Kings 3:26-27). The Moabites were such devoted followers of Chemosh that they developed a common practice which was to send their daughters out to cultivate friendly relations with the Israelites in order to entice them to join their idolatrous services (Numbers 25:2). The Ammonites and the Moabites strictly forbade their men to marry Israelite women, but permitted their women to marry Israelite men. In other words, their women were allowed to convert to Judaism, but their men were not.

As a Moabite, Ruth was aware of her country’s oppression towards their Israelite relatives and perhaps grew up knowing nothing different. She was born into a religious culture that was widely different from that of the Israelites. It was thick in idolatry and heavy in the worship of Chemosh. She may in fact have lived under the fear, and rightly so, of becoming an object of human sacrifice. After all the king of the Moab himself did not have any remorse in sacrificing his own son as a burnt offering (2 Kings 3:27). As a woman in her culture, Ruth would have known of the restrictions of Mosaic Law as well as the guidelines of the Levirate Marriage - a Hebrew custom that when a married male Israelite died without leaving a male heir, his nearest relative was obligated to marry the widow, and the widow was obligated to marry her deceased husband’s nearest relative..

Under Mosaic Law, when Ruth married Mahlon (an Israelite) she was required to convert to Judaism. This meant that she willingly gave up polytheism, the practice of idolatry and the worship of Chemosh. She then became a monotheist, the worship of one God, in particular the Hebrew God, Jehovah. Also by converting to Judaism, she exchanged her Moabite culture, which was everything that she had ever known, and embraced the lifestyle and culture of the Israelites. No one is sure how long Ruth was married before becoming a widow, but her devotion to Naomi conjures thoughts that it was long enough for her to developed a deep level of love and commitment, but not long enough to have produced a child.

Who told Jacob that Dinah was defiled? I never said that Levi and Simeon told him. You keep naming Levi and Simeon as the source of what Jacob heard.

Wrong - as I've already said repeatedly that I do not see anywhere that Jacob saw Levi and Simeon as the source of what he heard - as I already stated plainly that Jacob knew on the matter long before. Bring it up again and it'll be noted as either spinning past what was asid - or sharing outright falsehood...and at the least, simply failing to pay attention to what was noted.

Since we know that they were not the "source" or witnesses; who told Jacob what happened? In order for someone to be convicted of a heinous crime there must be at least two witnesses. The father of the witness told Jacob.

The father of the witness told Jacob what happened, but Jacob heard that his daughter was defiled.

There's no remote evidence of the father of the witness telling Jacob and thus (as with other things) you're making it up as you go along.

Ephraim is the firstborn as YHWH told the prophet Jeremiah.

Jer 31:9
Tears of joy will stream down their faces,
and I will lead them home with great care.
They will walk beside quiet streams
and on smooth paths where they will not stumble.
For I am Israel’s father,
and Ephraim is my oldest child.

Already addressed that earlier. As said before, Jeremiah 31:9 notes how God is a Father - and Israel is designated as the Lord's firstborn, a designation of election )Exodus 4:22). Ephraim, being the most considerable, is often put for the whole of the ten tribes...and in this context, others have noted how it speaks of Ephraim in the sense that the ten tribes are at that point no longer severed from Judah, but forming one people with it. The allusion, perhaps, is to Joseph's having the birthright, and whose younger son, Ephraim, was preferred to Manasseh the elder, 1 Chronicles 5:2. Ephraim intends the same as Israel, the ten tribes, and includes the whole body of the Jewish nation.

It never had anything to do with God saying that Ephraim (as it concerns Joseph's tribe) was meant to be the firstborn over All of Israel.

Ephraim and Manasseh were born around the same time, Ephraim was formed first in his mother's womb. Naturally Ephraim the firstborn would share in his father's occupation and inheritance, consequently Jacob blesses him. Joseph is Ephraim's father; Jacob his grandfather; it is not necessary for John to mention him as being sealed, since it is common for the firstborn to share in his father's or grandfather's blessing; Ephraim would be "hidden" or naturally included in Joseph. Thus, Manasseh is listed in John's vision so that Joseph could rightly receive a double portion for his trouble as Jacob had prophesied; 1/2 tribe of Manasseh had a seperate inheritance before crossing the Jordan River.


Joshua 22:7

Moses had given the land of Bashan, east of the Jordan River, to the half-tribe of Manasseh. (The other half of the tribe was given land west of the Jordan.) As Joshua sent them away and blessed them,

Already addressed that directly before (as said in #89 )- as it concerns both what John said on him and what history said as well. As said there:

In regards to the 12 tribes of Israel being represented, something that's interesting is to consider how not all of the tribes were ever listed...specifically, the tribe of Dan:

Revelation 7

144,000 Sealed

1 After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth to prevent any wind from blowing on the land or on the sea or on any tree. 2 Then I saw another angel coming up from the east, having the seal of the living God. He called out in a loud voice to the four angels who had been given power to harm the land and the sea: 3 “Do not harm the land or the sea or the trees until we put a seal on the foreheads of the servants of our God.” 4 Then I heard the number of those who were sealed: 144,000 from all the tribes of Israel.

4 Then I heard the number of those who were sealed: 144,000 from all the tribes of Israel.


5 From the tribe of Judah 12,000 were sealed,
from the tribe of Reuben 12,000,
from the tribe of Gad 12,000,
6 from the tribe of Asher 12,000,
from the tribe of Naphtali 12,000,
from the tribe of Manasseh 12,000,
7 from the tribe of Simeon 12,000,
from the tribe of Levi 12,000,
from the tribe of Issachar 12,000,
8 from the tribe of Zebulun 12,000,
from the tribe of Joseph 12,000, from the tribe of Benjamin 12,000.



​

Its interesting to consider how the Tribes of Dan and Ephraim are missing from the list. Though there are some who feel it is a translation error and more is there when studying the text. One Messianic, know as Steve Collins, actually spoke more in-depth on the matter---as seen here.

Of course, others are of the mindset that the tribe of Dan was not included because of how they may've fallen into extreme idolatry/immorality....and thus, the Lord wiped them out. The tribe of Dan as a whole was guilty of gross idolatry—even to the point of stealing the idols they used to practice their religion (Judges 18:14-31).

Theirs was the first organized idolatry in ancient Israel, and the longest in duration..and it continued "until the day of the captivity of the land," nearly 500 years later (Judges 18:30). Some say that Ephraim and Dan are connected in their being not listed, as idolatry is the same thing that Ephraim fell into like Dan (compare Judges 17:1-3 and Hosea 4:17). However, that may not be a valid argument since both the tribe of Manasseh and the tribe of Joseph are listed. Ephraim and Manasseh were the two sons of Joseph (Genesis 48:1). Since Manasseh is one of the two tribes descended from Joseph, "the tribe of Joseph" mentioned in Revelation 7:8 must refer to Ephraim. From this, we can learn that Ephraim, being the leading tribe of the house of Joseph, sometimes bore the name "Joseph"--and thus, it may not be the case that Ephraim was wiped out.

​

There's no evidence WHATSOEVER that Ephraism was formed first in the mother's womb and it is pure assumption divorced from the text/Jewish understanding of what it means to be firstborn. History wise, Ephraim took precedence over that of Manasseh by virtue of Jacob's blessing (Gen 41:52; Gen 48:1). The descendants of Joseph formed two of the tribes of Israel, whereas each of the other sons of Jacob was the founder of only one tribe. Thus there were in reality thirteen tribes; but the number twelve was preserved by excluding that of Levi when Ephraim and Manasseh are mentioned separately (Num 1:32; Jos 17:14, Jos 17:17; Ch1 7:20). Territory of. At the time of the first census in the wilderness this tribe numbered 40,500 (Num 1:32, Num 1:33); forty years later, when about to take possession of the Promised Land, it numbered only 32,500.

During the march, Ephraim's place was on the west side of the tabernacle (Num 2:18). When the spies were sent out to spy the land, "JOshea the son of Nun" of this tribe signalized himself. The boundaries of the portion of the land assigned to Ephraim are given in Jos 16:1. It included most of what was afterwards called Samaria as distinguished from Judea and Galilee. It thus lay in the centre of all traffic, from north to south, and from Jordan to the sea, and was about 55 miles long and 30 broad. The tabernacle and the ark were deposited within its limits at Shiloh, where it remained for four hundred years.

During the time of the judges and the first stage of the monarchy this tribe manifested a domineering and haughty and discontented spirit. It was not till the close of the first period of Jewish history that God 'refused the tabernacle of Joseph, and chose not the tribe of Ephraim, but chose the tribe of Judah, the Mount Zion which he loved' (Psa 78:67, Psa 78:68). When the ark was removed from Shiloh to Zion the power of Ephraim was humbled. Among the causes which operated to bring about the disruption of Israel was Ephraim's jealousy of the growing power of Judah. From the settlement of Canaan till the time of David and Solomon, Ephraim had held the place of honour among the tribes. It occupied the central and fairest portions of the land, and had Shiloh and Shechem within its borders. But now when Jerusalem became the capital of the kingdom, and the centre of power and worship for the whole nation of Israel, Ephraim declined in influence. The discontent came to a crisis by Rehoboam's refusal to grant certain redresses that were demanded (1 Kings 12).

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Originally Posted by mercy1061
If Rachel was Jacob's favorite wife, why did Jacob request from his sons to be buried with Leah?

Again, context - as the scriptures already make clear that Jacob loved Rachael more than any others.

Genesis 29:30
Jacob lay with Rachel also, and he loved Rachel more than Leah. And he worked for Laban another seven years....[ Jacob’s Children ] When the LORD saw that Leah was not loved, he opened her womb, but Rachel was barren.
Genesis 29:29-31 /Genesis 29

Genesis 29:32
Leah became pregnant and gave birth to a son. She named him Reuben, for she said, “It is because the LORD has seen my misery. Surely my husband will love me now.”
Genesis 29:31-33

Genesis 29:33
She conceived again, and when she gave birth to a son she said, “Because the LORD heard that I am not loved, he gave me this one too.” So she named him Simeon.
Genesis 29:32-34

Genesis 29:34
Again she conceived, and when she gave birth to a son she said, “Now at last my husband will become attached to me, because I have borne him three sons.” So he was named Levi.
Genesis 29:33-35

Genesis 29:35
She conceived again, and when she gave birth to a son she said, “This time I will praise the LORD.” So she named him Judah. Then she stopped having children.
Genesis 29:34-35
​

Genesis 30:20
Then Leah said, “God has presented me with a precious gift. This time my husband will treat me with honor, because I have borne him six sons.” So she named him Zebulun.
Genesis 30:19-21
​

There is no escaping what scripture notes plainly on Leah being unloved. And the fact that she named her children the names she did out of desiring for her husband to love her are proof of that ( Genesis 29:31-33 , Genesis 30:19-21 ).

Son #1 — Reuben – mean­ing, ‘See a son’, she believed the Lord had seen her afflic­tion and now her hus­band would love her – but to no avail!
Son #2 — Shi­mon (Simeon) – mean­ing ‘God heard I was hated’ she now believed Jacob would love her after the 2nd son because the Lord heard she was hated — but to no avail!
Son #3 — Levi – mean­ing ‘joined/attached’ she believed her hus­band would now be attached to her in love — to no avail!
​

Jacob showed NO love for Leah. But she loved him DESPERATELY and ACHED for his love and ATTENTION. Con­trary to RACHEL, Leah was very fertile and hoped that giving Jacob sons would win his love — it didn’t.

Rachel dies giving birth to her second child Benjamin before reaching Jacob's father house, 'before reaching Ephrath' - Bethlehem (Genesis 35:19). Jacob buries her where she died, in her own tomb (Gen 35:20; 48:17) and not in the ancestral tomb at Machpelah. And just before the entrance to the city of David, whose ancestor is Judah, Leah's fourth son. Jacob tells us that 'when I came from Paddan, Rachel, to my sorrow, died in the land of Canaan . . . and I buried her there' (48:7). Why does Jacob not carry Rachel's body the twenty or so miles south from the alleged place of her demise to the cave at Machpelah which Genesis states as the proper burial site for members of Abraham's family. Jacob himself tells us he buried Leah in the Machpelah (Gen.49:31) and he requests that he himself be buried there as well (50:13). So why does Jacob not bury his beloved Rachel at Machpelah, but rather in a roadside grave? According to a midrash because she dishonored her father by stealing (on the Ten Commandments)...and according to another midrash Jacob knew of that the Babylonian exiles would pass by and Rachel could pray for mercy (midrash Rabbah Gen. 82:10). Her early death is attributed by the Rabbis to Jacob's curse over the teraphim as seen in Genesis 31:31-33 and Genesis 31:17-20. Despite women dying in childbirth seemingly a common event, it was considered in numerous cultures a cursed and unnatural death. Women were often seperated during childbirth due to the fear of being cursed, a form of ritual pollution

The simultaneous birth of Benjamin and death of Rachel set the stage for Jacob's deep attachment to Rachael's sons, Joseph and Benjamin, in the Joseph story. As Rachael was the beloved wife, so her sons will be the beloved sons. But even with that present, Jacob himself learned how to honor Leah - and his requesting to be buried next to her in death symbolizes such. Although Rachel even­tu­ally had two sons, the sis­ters’ hand­maids had sons for Jacob, and Leah had two more boys and a girl. How­ever there is no direct nar­ra­tive stat­ing that Jacob came to love Leah..but there is indirectly where we can see Jacob’s one act of integrity/honor. The logical reason why he chose to do so - despite the fact that he loved Rachael more and showed during her life how he went out of his way to treat her more favorably - was that Leah was his COVENANTED wife. And Jacob came to know that in the end.

Although not cho­sen by Jacob, Leah was cho­sen by God to be his WIFE.....and although one could say she became his wife through deception, there's again context. The issues of the rights of the firstborn, trickery between father and sons, divisions in who loves whom, and even the ability to see echo the story of the deception of Isaac in Genesis 27 when Jacob stole the blessing from father by acting as if he was Esau with hairy skin. With Leah and Laban, the roles were reversed and Jacob became the trickster tricked, paying a price for his previous deeds. Jacob thus was decieved by his father-in-law into marrying the firstborn daughter, because he cannot see who she is during the night....just as Issac couldn't see who Jacob was when Jacob decieved his father into giving the firstborn blessing. It is thus poetic justice for Jacob's deception earlier.

Genesis 29:17
22 So Laban brought together all the people of the place and gave a feast. 23 But when evening came, he took his daughter Leah and gave her to Jacob, and Jacob lay with her. 24 And Laban gave his servant girl Zilpah to his daughter as her maidservant.25 When morning came, there was Leah! So Jacob said to Laban, “What is this you have done to me? I served you for Rachel, didn’t I? Why have you deceived me?”
26 Laban replied, “It is not our custom here to give the younger daughter in marriage before the older one. 27 Finish this daughter’s bridal week; then we will give you the younger one also, in return for another seven years of work.”
​

Laban's resonant reply to Jacob upon his discovery of the deception ("This is not done...giving the younger before the firstborn in marriage" ) makes the relationship between the two deceptions clear...as Laban prevailed by marrying off both daughters to Jacob, the firstborn and then the younger, and recieving fourteen years' labor for the bride-price, twice what Jacob had bargained for.



For more:

• Rachel: Midrash and Aggadah | Jewish Women's Archive
• God's Unlikely Path to Success: How He Uses Less-Than-Perfect People
  
  

John 1
15 John testified about him when he shouted to the crowds, “This is the one I was talking about when I said, ‘Someone is coming after me who is far greater than I am, for he existed long before me.’”

The one who comes out of his mother's womb after, existed long before. In other words, the elder shall serve the younger, Jacob is the firstborn like YHWH told Moses who told Pharoah.

Again, no need misuing scripture when the text doesn't support the idea you're trying to import into it....for Christ coming after John (although Christ is ETERNAL and thus always pre-existed John/others) is not a logical basis for trying to argue that all children are formed as firstborn in the womb and thus reading backwards by claiming Jacob was born first. That's pure speculation/violence to the text - and it's not proper.

It is interesting that Leah felt like she was unloved by Jacob, yet she was his first wife. Jacob did not intend to marry Leah but married Leah instead of Rachel first; consequently Jacob married Rachel after he married Leah. Much in the same way Isaac considered Esau the elder brother, yet Joseph is the firstborn like YHWH told Moses who told Pharoah

God never said Joseph was the firstborn, m. Although Isaac considered Esau the firstborn and treated him as such since he was born first/came out of the womb first (as that's what makes one firstborn) - even though he honored Jacob after he stole the blessing from Issac via deception and stole the birthright from Esau for a bowl of soup (making it legal). Both actions cost him dearly.