The Lion of Reuben (Not Judah): Seeing Prophecy & if mistakes are possible

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,428
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟160,220.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Been going through Genesis as well as the Book of Joshua lately....and there've been many things which have been catching my eye of late. What I've noticed many times is that there are things within the Word that seem to be more of a descriptive nature rather than a prescriptive nature...and when seeing the actions of characters in the text, part of me naturally wonders how to renconcile their actions with certain concepts.


In example, all of the tribes provide symbols and typeology that points to the work of the Messiah...with many descendants coming from each of them that in some way God used in the preparation of sending His Son while adding something to the story of Redeemption. Its one of the reasons why scripture often notes the geneological background of many of the prophets/kings and historical figures in the tribes they hailed from. The same dynamic can be seen in the formation of the 12 disciples/apostles, seeing how radically different they were from one another and yet how they mirrored the 12 Tribes of Israel...as well as having 12 thrones in Revelation.

But when it comes to certain tribe members, what I've noticed is that they can often be overlooked in their work/contributions. In example, how do you feel that Reuben was used to impact the coming of the Messiah? For he lost the rights of the Firstborn and the Blessing that went alongside of it....though that does not mean that the man/his tribe was not used in any kind of way to impact God's work in Israel/redeemptive history...


With Reuben, I still find it noteworthy in examining the blessing that Reuben recieved from his father when he was told that he would be turbulent as the waters.

Genesis 49:3-4
3 “Reuben, you are my firstborn,
my might, the first sign of my strength,
excelling in honor, excelling in power.
4 Turbulent as the waters, you will no longer excel,
for you went up onto your father’s bed,
onto my couch and defiled it.

As seen in scripture, Reuben still did great things through his people on many occassions..even though he in many ways was shortchanged due to his sins. Its interesting that Jacob, in addressing him, never says that he is NOT the firstborn. That's significant since the firstborn still had duties to live out when it came not only to the inheritance, but leadership of the family......and we see that Reuben still arose to the occassion many times. He came through in seeking to protect Joseph from being killed and intended to rescue him. He also came through when promising to even give up his sons for the sake of Benjamin if the boy was harmed....and of course, there's again the many exploits that came through others in his family line. Nonetheless, due to Reuben's sin, it seems that he was placed in a gridlock.

For as the firstborn/eldest of the brothers, he was effectively responsible for leading them in one way or another......and legally, that can never go away unless the firstborn desires such. But he would not necessarily have the stability with the rights/double-portion of the firstborn that came when one had the Blessing to secure it...a Blessing that was given to Joseph. A best, Reuben would have a POSITIONAL power/influence rather than FUNCTIONAL power/influence---much as it was with Esau who lacked control/restraint needed to truly honor his birthright blessings.....and sold his birthright and lost the blessing needed to walk in the privelages of the Firstborn.



The imagery of "turbulent as the waters" is intriguing when considering the very nature of water. For in its natural form, its changing. I'ts harsh many times...and its untamable. It can be used for so many things, from generating electricity to providing nourishment to other creatures.....affecting the hydrolic cycle/eco-system and even destroying much when it gets wild/out of hand (i.e. tsunamis, flash floods, monsoon, hurricane, etc).

Water is key to literally everything that's done in this life---and when we mess with that, we inevitably damage ourselves. But on the same token, water that's not utilized can be limited in so many ways....the potential of it never being realized...and for practical demonstration of this, some excellent documentaries on this subject can be found at the following

Turbulent+Waters.JPG

Here

Here

Here






In the same manner that water is powerful/has potential to be destructive and yet can be controlled, it seems that's what occurred with Reuben. For he still had potential to do amazing things on behalf of his brothers----and as the firstborn, he'd be required to do so on many occassions. He could still look to/rely upon the Lord to come through.....but due to his father's restraining curse that came with the blessing, Reuben would never be able to do anything at his peak level on a long-term basis. Like water that has been largely tamed/domesticated (like a Dam) even though its powerful by its very nature---and at times, can STILL break out in radical/deadly ways---Reuben would struggle with the battle of having so much to offer and yet having hands tied that kept him from doing so. ...but still having moments where he surprise everyone. Jacob knows his son … knows his strength, loves him as his firstborn, knows his turbulent, uncontrolled, untamed nature.

A wild and undisciplined man, he never mastered his own impulses. In spite of his greatness, his power, and all his admirable qualities, Reuben dishonored his father....and so his punishment would be to live knowing that he'd never be able to access his full potential. What occurred later was that his descendants became a shepherd people east of the Jordan (Num. 32:1-33).

Its sad when considering how Reuben was Jacob's firstborn - his pride and joy...the beginning of his strength...carrying an "excellency of dignity," "power," rank, and authority above his brethren. ..and yet he lost it all due to his passionate nature. Because he had uncontrolled lusts in his life which were comparable to turbulent waters - being unruly and wild as the waves of the sea - he forfeited the "double portion" blessing on his life. ..much as it is with others who have great promise for their lives yet they are not experiencing it because they are given over to unruly lusts and passions. Its always a pity seeing when God had laid His hand upon others from an early age for greatness but they can never seem to reach that spiritual plateau because their flesh is too much in control..... "unstable as water" and so unpredictable....never being able to reach their God-given destination or purpose.

Nonetheless, despite Reuben's error, God seemed to still have his hand upon Reuben as it concerns the glorification of the Messiah/His Dominion over men when investigating Revelation 7:1-8 and witnessing how the tribe of Reuben is listed among the tribes who are promised the Seal of God for 12,000 of their members, alongside what 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.

And I think that what occurred with Reuben is possibly a mistake on the part of Jacob for a couple of reasons. Many assume that Judah was given the blessing he had with the Messianic title because of his work with Joseph--and being deemed the most "righteous" of his brothers. However, when seeing the person who had the greater error, it was Judah....with Reuben actually being the one who seemed to be more righteous than Judah in a number of places.

When Judah was younger, he showed NO regard for his brother Joseph or his father, Jacob. First he convinced his brothers to sell Joseph as a slave (Genesis 37:27); then he joined his brothers in lying to his father about Joseph's fate (Genesis 37:32). But he changed over the years. The man who sold one favored little brother into slavery now offered to become a slave himself to save another favored little brother (Benjamin). He was so concerned for his father and younger brother that he was willing to die for them. In Genesis 44:18-33, when Judah stepped forward to plead their case, it was risky since Joseph could have had him killed. But Judah courageously defended himself and his brothers in pleading for mercy.....offering to put himself in Benjamin's place. This should have been expected of him since he was largely the RING-Leader in choosing the fate of Joseph.

Its commendable to see how Judah took responsibility for his actions/sought to sacrifice himself.


Nonetheless, in context, it seems that it was Reuben who was willing to give of himself FIRST---consistently showing concern for Joseph...and that's consistent with Reuben's role.....the Firstborn and one who acted FIRST in looking out for Joseph. He was the one who sought to rescue Joseph later in Genesis 37:29 from being sold into slavery (though he came too late)---being the most tender toward Joseph, grieving for him (as tearing clothes was a sign of during times of sorrow) and noting later on how he warned that evil would occur if bloodshed happened and Joseph was sinned against (Genesis 42:22-24).


Genesis 37:19-25
19 “Here comes that dreamer!” they said to each other. 20 “Come now, let’s kill him and throw him into one of these cisterns and say that a ferocious animal devoured him. Then we’ll see what comes of his dreams.”
21 When Reuben heard this, he tried to rescue him from their hands. “Let’s not take his life,” he said. 22 “Don’t shed any blood. Throw him into this cistern here in the wilderness, but don’t lay a hand on him.” Reuben said this to rescue him from them and take him back to his father. 23 So when Joseph came to his brothers, they stripped him of his robe—the ornate robe he was wearing— 24 and they took him and threw him into the cistern. The cistern was empty; there was no water in it.
Genesis 37:29 29 When Reuben returned to the cistern and saw that Joseph was not there, he tore his clothes. 30 He went back to his brothers and said, “The boy isn’t there! Where can I turn now?”

To be continued in the next post...


 
Last edited:

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,428
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟160,220.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Easy G (G²);59508971 said:
.... seems that it was Reuben who was willing to give of himself FIRST---consistently showing concern for Joseph...and that's consistent with Reuben's role.....the Firstborn and one who acted FIRST in looking out for Joseph. He was the one who sought to rescue Joseph later in Genesis 37:29 from being sold into slavery (though he came too late)---being the most tender toward Joseph, grieving for him (as tearing clothes was a sign of during times of sorrow) and noting later on how he warned that evil would occur if bloodshed happened and Joseph was sinned against (Genesis 42:22-24).

Continuning from before..



The majority wanted to kill him, whereas Judah later changed his mind and said there was no real profit in killing him and they might as well get some money out of the endeavor. Genesis 37:26-27 is clear on that, concerning how the brothers were worried about bearing the guilt of Joseph's death...and Judah suggested an option that was not right, but would leave them guiltless of murder. ...just as we sometimes jump at a solution because it seems like the lesser of two evils, but still is not the right action to take. Although Joseph's brothers didn't kill him outright, they probably didn't expect him to survive for long as a slave. They were quite willing to let cruel slave traders do their dirty work for them. Joseph faced a 30-day journey through the desert, probably chained and on foot. He would be treated like baggage, and once in Egypt, would be sold as a piece of merchandise.

Only Rueben was the one who sought to rescue the boy and give him back to his father (Genesis 37:30), knowing full well that Joseph would tell on his brothers on what they did---just as scripture notes he was in the habit of doing since he had already given a bad report about them (Genesis 37:2)....a report which could have easily influenced Jacob in his view of the other siblings and made Joseph out to seem more favorable than the others.

For there's no indication that the bad report Joseph brought about before was necessarily true, just as it is the case that younger siblings always telling bad reports to their parents about their older brother/sister may not be accurate and yet the report is accepted by the parents.....with the older siblings being punished unfairly because of it. That Reuben was willing to deal with that possibly show his maturity as the Firstborn in the family----and concern for Joseph since he was greatly grieved that Joseph was gone.


Genesis 37:21 shows that ONLY Reuben was the one who NEVER was for killing Joseph. It says explicitly in the text, "
Genesis 37:12-24
Joseph Sold by His Brothers
12 Now his brothers had gone to graze their father’s flocks near Shechem, 13 and Israel said to Joseph, “As you know, your brothers are grazing the flocks near Shechem. Come, I am going to send you to them.”
“Very well,” he replied.
14 So he said to him, “Go and see if all is well with your brothers and with the flocks, and bring word back to me.” Then he sent him off from the Valley of Hebron.
When Joseph arrived at Shechem, 15 a man found him wandering around in the fields and asked him, “What are you looking for?”
16 He replied, “I’m looking for my brothers. Can you tell me where they are grazing their flocks?”
17 “They have moved on from here,” the man answered. “I heard them say, ‘Let’s go to Dothan.’”
So Joseph went after his brothers and found them near Dothan. 18 But they saw him in the distance, and before he reached them, they plotted to kill him.
19 “Here comes that dreamer!” they said to each other. 20 “Come now, let’s kill him and throw him into one of these cisterns and say that a ferocious animal devoured him. Then we’ll see what comes of his dreams.”
21 When Reuben heard this, he tried to rescue him from their hands. “Let’s not take his life,” he said. 22 “Don’t shed any blood. Throw him into this cistern here in the wilderness, but don’t lay a hand on him.” Reuben said this to rescue him from them and take him back to his father. 23 So when Joseph came to his brothers, they stripped him of his robe—the ornate robe he was wearing— 24 and they took him and threw him into the cistern. The cistern was empty; there was no water in it.

There's no escaping the fact that Reuben may've been amongst his brothers in envying Joseph (Genesis 37:9-12) and despising him for his arrogance/pride as well as special treatment (Genesis 37:4, Genesis 6-8)....but Reuben was NEVER supportative of them in their plans to KILL Joseph in cold blood. He was the only one who was supportative of Joseph and desiring to protect him---and though he knew that he'd not be listened to, he still tried to give something of a solution that would immediately satisfy the brothers in their desire for punishing Joseph (i..e throwing him in the pit) while also using that as a temporary means for SPARRING Joseph's life....coming back later on to rescue.


It'd be akin to an undercover cop being exposed in a gang and one of the close friends of the cop suggesting that others beat up the cop and leave him locked up somewhere as punishment.....knowing that saying outright sparring of the cop's life would NEVER be recieved and thus having to resort to saying things in ways that would at least give something of a cover so that they could come to the rescue later.


Reuben didn't leave Joseph alone knowing he'd not be protected, as they indeed WENT through with Reuben's plan and left him in the cistern. They could have killed Joseph and then thrown the body in the cistern (as was the original plan). However, they went through with Reuben's suggestion in Genesis 37:22 and then tossed Joseph into the pit---as seen in Genesis 37:24. Reuben's influence was clear....and as he had suggested the plan so that they'd obey and give him time to get things together to rescue him, its not necessarily an issue of Reuben not being concerned.

Bear in mind that cisters are EXTREMELY deep....and it takes alot to get one out. Jeremiah 38:1-13 is one example of such, as the prophet was once thrown into a cistern. A cistern was a large hole in the ground lined with rocks to collect rain water. The bottom would have been dark, damp, and in the case of Jeremiah, full of mud. Jeremiah could drown, die of exposure, or starve to death in the cistern. With the cistern that Joseph was in, he may've been in dire straights....but at least he had more of a chance for SURVIVAL/lasting longer than if Reuben had simply done nothing and allowed them to kill him. As Reuben did not necessarily have the tools needed to immediately get Joseph out, of course he would have had to go get them before he could go further.

Moreover, as he was trying to rescue Joseph without the brothers seeing, he would have had to wait for a time when they would not be noticing. Most scholars assume that in the time that passed before the slave traders came along, it could have been awhile........days, perhaps. Scripture does not always give dates/time when describing the transition of one event to another. But as it took awhile for even Joseph to get to the location they were herding Jacob's sheep at, it would have taken him SOME time to travel..

The Best Reuben could do was pray that his brothers would be content to leave Joseph in the cistern as he suggested and do no more. Reuben simply sitting there would do nothing. The stakes were HIGH---and there were NO easy options at play, as they could have killed Reuben outright for trying to fight them physically. That would have left Joseph with no one left to look out for him. Thus, Reuben had to play along (to a degree) with their desire to inflict punishment on Joseph but make a solution that would at least leave a door open for him to do the best he could in protecting the boy.

Reuben was not responsible for the murder, though he was grieved by it and vexed in not being able to save Joseph. Reuben was not the one who who sought to murder and sell Joseph into slavery---counter to Judah and the rest of the brothers. Reuben's guilt was in choosing to remain silent for years when the brothers tore Joseph's coat/made it seem as if he was killed by a wild animal (Genesis 37:31-36), as decieving Jacob into thinking he lost a son caused him to be in much sorrow continually. As Reuben also felt that he was an accessory to murder due to his "cistern" idea back-firing on him and him not being able to rescue Joseph as he had hoped, he was also willing to go back up to Egypt with the brothers-----with NO Real guarantee, mind you, that they'd automatically live if showing up.

Something else noteworthy about Reuben is that FAR before Judah ever mentioned anything about sacrificing himself for Joseph (Genesis 43:3-10, Genesis 44:11-34, etc), it was first Reuben who offered of himself to take responsibility.
Genesis 42:35-38
35 As they were emptying their sacks, there in each man’s sack was his pouch of silver! When they and their father saw the money pouches, they were frightened. 36 Their father Jacob said to them, “You have deprived me of my children. Joseph is no more and Simeon is no more, and now you want to take Benjamin. Everything is against me!”
37 Then Reuben said to his father, “You may put both of my sons to death if I do not bring him back to you. Entrust him to my care, and I will bring him back.” 38 But Jacob said, “My son will not go down there with you; his brother is dead and he is the only one left. If harm comes to him on the journey you are taking, you will bring my gray head down to the grave in sorrow.”

What a strange proposal made by a son to his father, concerning his grandchildre...but they show the honesty and affection of Reuben's heart. For he felt deeply for his father's distress, and was determined to risk and hazard everything in order to relieve and comfort him. There is scarcely a transaction in which Reuben is concerned that does not serve to set his character in an amiable point of view, except the single instance mentioned in Genesis 35:22. However, as he felt connected with his father losing a son and went along with the deception that brought his own father near death--and would definately kill him if Benjamin was lost, he was willing to inflict grief upon his own self just as significant by cutting off his family for the sake of justice so that it would not only be his father who was bereaved.

All of those things, IMHO, does give room for saying that perhaps Reuben got more of a bad reputation/blessing from his father than he deserved...


Again, when studying the narrative of who had greater error---again, it seems it was Judah. He organized it and suggested the idea to make profit off of Joseph, with it being a parallel for what happened to Christ when he was sold into bondage for silver (Matthew 26:14-16, Matthew 27:2-4, Mark 14:11, Zechariah 11:12, ) ---30 pieces of silver, to be exact, as that was the price of a slave (Exodus 21:32). He bore the weight of the issue, r.....whereas Reuben did what he could to rescue Joseph despite any feelings of ill-will he had toward him



Reuben seems to be the one in the story of Genesis that's the MOST consistent in desiring good will for Joseph even though he wanted to teach him a lesson by leaving him in a pit temporarily rather than spill blood. It reminds me of how older brothers may not be against beating up on a younger sibling who's arrogant/a "tattle tale" ....but they'll still try best to look out for their siblings. He was the only one who showed ANY grief when Joseph was lost---as seen in Genesis 37:29-30. For he truly was going to rescue the one whom all were angry at the point of murder.


And in Genesis 42:22-24, he was the ONLY one who dared to bring up the issue of Joseph and saying that it was Fate for them all to experience what he warned them about when they were younger. They may've not considered it--but he thankfully reminded his brothers that all their troubles and fears in Egypt were their just reward for mistreating Joseph (Gen. 42:22).

As Matthew Henry said best in his commentary:
The office of conscience is to bring to mind things long since said and done. When the guilt of this sin of Joseph's brethren was fresh, they made light of it, and sat down to eat bread; but now, long afterward, their consciences accused them of it. See the good of afflictions; they often prove the happy means of awakening conscience, and bringing sin to our remembrance. Also, the evil of guilt as to our brethren. Conscience now reproached them for it. Whenever we think we have wrong done us, we ought to remember the wrong we have done to others. Reuben alone remembered with comfort, that he had done what he could to prevent the mischief. When we share with others in their sufferings, it will be a comfort if we have the testimony of our consciences for us, that we did not share in their evil deeds, but in our places witnessed against them. Joseph retired to weep. Though his reason directed that he should still carry himself as a stranger, because they were not as yet humbled enough, yet natural affection could not but work.
Reuben seems to have shared guilt by initially involving himself with his brothers to teach Joseph a lesson by throwing him into a pit....but later felt heart-broken that things had gone too far before they could be stopped. It'd be like trying to have your little brother get beat up a bit to teach him a lesson when he's acting up, only to have the others take it too far where they either nearly kill him or let him get kidnapped willingly by others....and you're stuck with the burden of feeling as if you could have stopped it but didn't succedd...and now have to tell the parents how you as the oldest have failed in your duty


Continued in next post...
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,428
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟160,220.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Easy G (G²);59508977 said:
Something else noteworthy about Reuben is that FAR before Judah ever mentioned anything about sacrificing himself for Joseph (Genesis 43:3-10, Genesis 44:11-34, etc), it was first Reuben who offered of himself to take responsibility.
Genesis 42:35-38
35 As they were emptying their sacks, there in each man’s sack was his pouch of silver! When they and their father saw the money pouches, they were frightened. 36 Their father Jacob said to them, “You have deprived me of my children. Joseph is no more and Simeon is no more, and now you want to take Benjamin. Everything is against me!”
37 Then Reuben said to his father, “You may put both of my sons to death if I do not bring him back to you. Entrust him to my care, and I will bring him back.” 38 But Jacob said, “My son will not go down there with you; his brother is dead and he is the only one left. If harm comes to him on the journey you are taking, you will bring my gray head down to the grave in sorrow.”

What a strange proposal made by a son to his father, concerning his grandchildre...but they show the honesty and affection of Reuben's heart. For he felt deeply for his father's distress, and was determined to risk and hazard everything in order to relieve and comfort him..

Continued from before...

Reuben has been noted by most scholars to have noted what he did to Jacob (with sacrificing his sons) BECAUSE he understood from the jump that murder is ALWAYS wrong---no matter how much one may dislike someone. Its what got CAIN in trouble in the first murder (Geneis 4) and of course, other consequences come with murder that one may fear. God warned on that in Genesis 9:5-6, in light of how the previous creation that existed before was FULL of nothing but wickedness (Genesis 6:5-9).

Some say Reuben's willingness to sacrifice his sons must mean he didn't know what love was and only cared for himself. However, IMHO, his being fearful for his sons is NOWHERE NEAR as large as his concern for the grief it'd cause his father. For the man made clear he was willing to even kill his own sons/grand-children if Benjamin came to harm (Genesis 42:36-38). To lose others of his family would have brought MORE GRIEF rather than RELIEF to Reuben---but even he understood the principle of justice so well that he was willing to inflict pain upon himself and lose more of his own if it'd mean protecting the one whom Jacob loved (Benjamin). That's not a picture of someone who's only concerned about what would happen to his family line----and to note, if others trip about Reuben being willing to do that, it should be noted that a similar incident happened in 2 Samuel 21:1-14 when David realized he had to kill some of Saul's sons to avenge the blood shed of the Gibeonites that he shed. For in Near Eastern cultures, including Israel's, an entire family was held guilty for the crime of a father because the family was considered to be an indissoluble unity. Saul broke the vow that the Israelities made ot the Gibeonites (Joshua 9:16-20)..and that was a serious offense against God's Law (Numbers 30:1-2). The Lord was so frustrated that he caused a famine lasting for 3yrs...and David knew what he had to do. Either David was following the custom of treating the family as a unit, or Saul's sons (at least some of them) were guilty of helping Saul kill the Gibeonites

With that said, its of importance to see what Reuben was willing to do. As he was the only one who grieved/tore his clothes when Joseph was gone, he was not willing to lose another one of his father's favored sons. As he bore shame in Joseph being lost, its noteworthy to see what he'd be willing to do to his own family----for in many ways, it'd be akin to one deciding to punish themselves when seeing shame brought due to their failure to protect another loved one. Reuben could've easily been seeking to account for the Blood of Joseph being taken by taking that of his own---and that' striking..



With what occurred with Reuben, it seems he was the most willing to do whatever it took to take responsibility...and far earlier than all of his brothers....as he was the one who stood up for Joseph and Benjamin


And with that said, this brings the topic back to the question, "Was it right for Jacob to bless Joseph and not Reuben?"


Genesis 49:3-4
3 “Reuben, you are my firstborn,
my might, the first sign of my strength,
excelling in honor, excelling in power.
4 Turbulent as the waters, you will no longer excel,
for you went up onto your father’s bed,
onto my couch and defiled it.

The reason that's asked is due to how Jacob was in NO WAY a righteous man in his youth---just as Reuben was not righteous in his youth. As Jacob decieved his father to steal the blessing, so the Son of Jacob tried to decieve his father by sleeping with the maidservant of his father either out of love or entitlement since he was the firstborn. Yet Issac showed mercy to Jacob by blessing him anyhow (Genesis 28:1-5, etc). One would wonder why it was the case that Jacob seemed to not try showing the same kind of mercy to his own sin despite his short-comings.


For both Reuben and Jacob displayed the SAME tendency to look to themselves before God/take matters into their own hands if they felt that it was all apart of God's plan.....much like people sleeping around with their girlfriend/boyfriend due to them thinking that its okay since they're engaged/desire to get married anyway. Reuben truly was a reflection of who Jacob was on so many levels......and If Jacob could have recieved blessings despite his wrongdoings, why is it that he had to do differently with his own sons?


Something else interesting to note is how Joseph seemed to have JUST as many character issues as his brother, Reuben. As a yougstr, Joseph was HIGHLY overcofident. His natural self-assurance, increased by being Jacob's favorite son and by knowing of God's designs on his life, was unbearable to his ten older brothers, who eventually conspired against him. Growing up, I used to read the story of Joseph in Genesis 37 and assume that Joseph was innocent in all that occurred to him. However, as I grew older/saw similar dynamics of little braggarts in other families, I began to think more and more than what Joseph did was by no means something that caused him to be "innocent" in how his brothers hated him.


As seen in Genesis 37:6-11, Joseph's brothers were already angry over the possibility of being ruled by their little brother. Joseph then fueled the fire with his immature attitude and boastful manner. No one enjoys a braggart....and it seems that Joseph learned his lesson the hard way when his angry brothers sold him into slavery to get rid of him. In Egypt/slavery, after several years of hardship, Joseph learned that because our talents and knowledge come from God, it is more appropiate to thank him for them than to brag about them....and later, Joseph gave credit to God rather than himself (Genesis 41:16)

But in his youth, it seems Joseph was consumed with self--and that's sin that God hates ( Proverbs 11:1-3 , Proverbs 13:10, Proverbs 8:13
, Proverbs 8:13, Proverbs 29:23, Amos 6:7-8, Amos 8:6-8 , 1 John 2:15-17, etc )



In Genesis 37:3, Joseph recieved a very beautiful coat. In Joseph's day, everyone had a robe or cloak. Robes were used to warm oneself, to bundle up belongings for a trip, to wrap babies, to sit on, or even to serve as security for a loan. Most robes were knee length, short sleeved, and plain.


In contrast, Joseph's robe was probably of the kind worn by royalty---long sleeved, ankle length, and colorful. The robe became a symbol of Jacob's favoritism toward Joseph.....and it aggravated the already strained relations between Joseph and his brothers. Favoritism in families may be unavoidable, but its divisive effects should alwawys be minimized. However, Jacob chose to go counter to that.......no doubt due to his favoritism of Rachael and Joseph being a child of hers/his old age (Genesis 30:22-24, Genesis 44:20, etc). This was not godly on the part of Jacob ( Acts 10:33-35 , Romans 2:10-12 , Ephesians 6:8-10 , Ephesians 6:8-10 , 1 Timothy 5:21, James 2:1-3 , James 2:8-10, Proverbs 24:23, 2 Chronicles 19:7, Deuteronomy 16:19, Deuteronomy 10:17, Deuteronomy 1:17, etc)


In the same way that Esau held a grudge against Jacob because of the sin of decietfulness (Genesis 27:35) on his part and the blessing his father had given him despite how Isaac showed favoritism toward Easu (Genesis 27:41, Genesis 25:28, etc), with Jacob being placed into exile, it seems a generational curse repeated itself in the family of Jacob when he chose to show favoritism toward Joseph (Genesis 37:3-4)..with his own sons holding a grudge on the one whom Jacob had given his blessing--except that they chose to exile their own brother themselves and decieve Jacob in the SAME WAY that he had decieved his father (Genesis 37:31-35, etc).

Though blessed by God, he had to still face the consequences of his actions.......and on the issue, it really has me thinking as to whether Jacob really learned his lesson. His father, Isaac, was going to wrongly bless Esau and yet Jacob took matters into his own hands when favoritism was seen that was misplaced....as God said Jacob would be the one who would rule (Genesis 25:23-27). However, there seems to be NO INDICATION at all that the Lord ever said to Jacob as he had to his mother (Rebekah) that Joseph was the one who was destined to rule the family in ALL things.....


Granted, Joseph had dreams of his brothers bringings sheaves that bowed---and the same with the moon/stars bowing as well...and Joseph made clear that God blessed his work for the sake of the Lord's Glory (Genesis 39:1-6, Genesis 39:20-24, Genesis 41:15-16, Genesis 41:22-57, Genesis 45:1-15, Genesis 47, etc).


However, that does not necessarily have to imply that Joseph was MEANT to have the blessing of the Firstborn. For there have been many instances where God blessed believers to have more resources than others in IMMENSE Ways so that they can aid others, even though its still the case that another in the family has been given the blessing of leading the family/having a right of influence.....much like God blessing someone who's the youngest in a group of siblings to be a rich buisnessman so that they can provide for the family at hard times--even though there's still the eldest of the siblings who the younger one looks to for guidance and knows that God has blessed him with the family inheritance/double-portion so that he still has leadership in the group.

Jacob in addresseing him is obviously indignant with Reuben. His crime was lying with Bilhah, his father's concubine (Genesis 35:22)--counter to God's heart ( Leviticus 18:8)...and Jacob decided to denounce his own son.

By the withdrawal of the rank belonging to the first-born, Reuben lost the leadership in Israel; so that his tribe attained to no position of influence in the nation (compare the blessing of Moses in Deuteronomy 33:6). The leadership was transferred to Judah and the double portion to Joseph (1 Chronicles 5:1-2), by which, so far as the inheritance was concerned, the first-born of the beloved Rachel took the place of the first-born of the slighted Leah. That can't be coindicence, seeing how much Jacob actually DESPISED Leah many times.....and how often Leah actually hoped her husband would honor her ( Genesis 30:19-21 ).


Adding to that is the fact that it seems that Jacob NEVER confronted his son about this. Perhaps it is that he could not bear to look at Reuben, but turned himself to his brethren. And who's to say that it isn't possible....in fact, most likely very probable, that Reuben had repented of it, and had forgiveness of God.


I think its more than possible that perhaps Jacob was WRONG in what he chose to do when he decided to give the Sons of Joseph the Double-Portion blessing reserved for the Firstborn....and that Jacob's struggle with showing favoritism when its not warranted was something he never truly overcame. ....and it seemed that just as earlier in Joseph's youth, he had a tendency to lean toward always thinking the best of his son and the worst of sons who seemed to reflect him in more ways than one.


There doesn't seem to be any reason in saying that Reuben was not deserving of being the Firstborn in some kind of way-----yet once the Spoken word was given and blessing pronounced, that was it.


One's Word was binding (much like a written contract)---and in his offense, it seems that perhaps Jacob was not really willing to consider Reuben for all he had done and forgive him for any wrong doing. He seemed to make light of any errrors Joseph had done, but what Reuben did with his maidservant was something Jacob just didn't want to let go of.....and perhaps God decided to honor Jacob's choice regardless of whether it was right.


If it was possible that Hagar/Ishmael came up with Abraham (Genesis 16-17 ) where God chose to work it into His plans even when it was not originally what He ever intended, then why is it not possible that the same could be said of Genesis 49:22-26 when Jacob chose to bless Joseph with the Firstborn Blessing? Yes, Joseph was indeed fruitful, with some heroic descendants....among them being Joshua, who would lead the Israelities into the promised land (Joshua 1:10-11) and Deborah, Gideon, and Jephtah--judges of Israel (Judges 4:4, Judges 6:11-12, Judges 11:11, etc). But still, is it not possible that all of that was a matter of God working in SPITE of Jacob's pronouncements rather than because of it?

IMHO, I think many times we're prone to simply read the text and assume that all the actions done by the patriarchs are automatically good just because they did them---yet we may never stop to consider that perhaps much of what was recorded was just that.....a recording of what they actually did without necessarily saying that all actions of theirs are to be interpreted as right.

Just a thought......
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,428
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟160,220.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Easy G (G²);59508984 said:
Continued from before...

With what occurred with Reuben, it seems he was the most willing to do whatever it took to take responsibility...and far earlier than all of his brothers....as he was the one who stood up for Joseph and Benjamin


And with that said, this brings the topic back to the question, "Was it right for Jacob to bless Joseph and not Reuben?"

Something else that I was hoping to mention earlier was that many have said that Joseph's distinct blessing (which included the birthright Reuben had as the firstborn) was apart of the Lord's desire for him to have a distinct blessing. The scripture cited is the following:
Heb 11:21
By faith Jacob, when he was a dying, blessed both the sons of Joseph; and worshipped, leaning upon the top of his staff.
In processing over the issue, I've come to the conclusion that Blessing someone by Faith doesn't necessarily mean that the action itself is of God, as it concerns Jacob and Joseph.

Hebrews 11:19-21
By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau in regard to their future.
21 By faith Jacob, when he was dying, blessed each of Joseph’s sons, and worshiped as he leaned on the top of his staff.
Jacob was Isaac's son and Abraham's grandson. Jacob;s sons became the fathers of Israel's 12 tribes. Jacob in Genesis 48:1-4 is noted to have been dying....and at that point, he had little time left. Nonetheless, he knew he needed to bless the sons of Joseph...and so he "rallied his strength" (Genesis 48:2). Even when Jacob (also called "Israel") was dying in a strange land, he believed the promise that Abraham's descendants would be like the sand on the seashore and that Israel would become a great nation (Genesis 48:1-22). For true faith helps us to see beyond the grave.


When it came to Jacob exercising faith, this can also be seen in the fact that scripture notes that Jacob was nearly blind/"LOSING Sight" (Genesis 48:10-11)---and thus, he couldn't really tell who it was that he was blessing outside of simply being told such.

This can be seen clearly when Jacob has to ask Joseph "Who are these?" in Genesis 48:8-9----and there's no logical reason for Jacob to ask that as if he has never seen Joseph's children until that moment. For Genesis 47:28-31 notes that Jacob lived in Egypt for over SEVENTEEN YEars. In that amount of time, it would have been ridiculous for him to never have seen his grand-children by Joseph.


By the time he was becoming ill/dying and his sight going away, he may've seen Ephraim and Manasseah many times...but he could no longer recognized them easily. And in many ways, there could easily be a FEAR of having a similar circumstance occur to him like the one he did with his own father.

For when Isaac was old, he too could not see. His eyes were weak, as Genesis 27:1-4....and he could only go by what he heard or felt. But even that could be something one couldn't trust in fully---as Jacob grew up knowing how to DECIEVE. Even without having the same build as his brother or body texture, his father could not tell by his voice alone if it was Esau or Jacob (Genesis 27:11-25).

Isaac was uncertain for a GOOD bit...and had to ask a couple of times if it really was Esau---despite all of the times he had seen/heard his sons.
What Jacob was doing in blessing Joseph's sons----in light of how Jacob favored Joseph above all (even when it was unwarranted)---is very much similar to/parallel with what happened with Isaac and Esau when Isaac favored Esau above Jacob....and Jacob chose to act as the "favorite" son to get his father's blessing when he knew his father was determined to bless only one regardless of any other factors.....even if God already told Rebekah that Jacob would be the one to rule..and implying that Isaac should have really been giving the blessing to Jacob even if he didn't favor him as much as the other.

If understanding that, it is more than reasonable as to why Jacob was in faith at that moment. For the SAME thing he did could have EASILY happened to him with one of his Sons...and just as Isaac had blessed Jacob/Easu in faith despite uncertainty at points, so Jacob did the same. He trusted that the one before him that he desired to bless would be the one he expected---even if he could not verify for certain.

As it concerns the Blessing he gave to Joseph's sons, some things to consider are that he had already given a blessing WAY before it came time for him to bless all of his sons with inheritance. In Genesis 48:8-20, Jacob gave Ephraim the GREATER Blessing instead of Mannasseah. When Joseph objected, Jacob refused to listen because God had told him that Ephraim would become greater. He placed Ephraim AHEAD of Manneseh.

That by itself is more than enough verification that Jacob indeed blessed the sons of Joseph as Hebrews 11:21 notes. For indeed, it'd take faith to bless the sons of Joseph when he was near death.

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.

God could have easily HONORED it due to his relationship with Jacob/using it ultimately for His glory while still knowing it was NEVER what he desired above all.

One can easily be on a roll in making God-Ordained choices....and yet mess up at other points.

On the issue of patriarchs being able to make mistakes in actions, bear in mind that others were also included in the Hall of Faith that did horrendous things...and yet, they had the audacity to believe in the Lord---with God honoring that.

Examples coming immediately to mind are folks such as Samson (Hebrews 11:32).
Hebrews 11:31-36
31 By faith the prostitute Rahab, because she welcomed the spies, was not killed with those who were disobedient.[a] 32 And what more shall I say? I do not have time to tell about Gideon, Barak, Samson and Jephthah, about David and Samuel and the prophets, 33 who through faith conquered kingdoms, administered justice, and gained what was promised; who shut the mouths of lions, 34 quenched the fury of the flames, and escaped the edge of the sword; whose weakness was turned to strength; and who became powerful in battle and routed foreign armies.

He was included into the Hall of Faith, with many scholars saying that it was due to trusting in God to restore him/use him for His glory. They base this off of what Judges 16:28 when Samson, being blinded by the Philistines and made a prisoner of theirs. Again, the common view is that Samson, in spite of his past, still had his prayers answered by God and used Samson to destroy others. They say that God was willing to hear Samson's "prayer of confession and repentance"---and the common response/sentiment given by others...especially among a number of writers and preachers....is that Samson made alot of mistakes but finished well. They feel that since Samson sacrificed his life to wipe out a multitude of Philistines and died with a prayer on his lips, he must have gotten his act together at the very end.
However, that sentiment often ignores the reality of how Samson had FEW, if any, other options as he stood before the Philistine leaders. Even with his strength returning (Genesis 16:22) he was still blind, which made it impossible for him to plan an escape, let alone attempt one. He also knew that his heartless captors would never grow tired of mistreating and humiliating him for all he had inflicted upon them. Their cruelty had never known any limits, and it would surely be spurred to new heights of creativity, and it would surely be spurred to new heights of creativity as the months and years passed. Simply put, Samson knew that he was doomed to a life of misery. And its only natural that he would consider suicide. But even beyond that, what's more compelling/intriguing is the prayer that Samson offered.
Judges 16:28
Then Samson prayed to the LORD, “Sovereign LORD, remember me. Please, God, strengthen me just once more, and let me with one blow get revenge on the Philistines for my two eyes.”
For there were NO words of repentance...or any signs that Samson regretted his MANY transgressions...or even understood his transgressions.
What you see is a man who hadn't changed a bit. For after a lifetime of "me-first" living, Samson was still preoccupied with himself. Notice all of the personal pronouns in his prayer:
...remember me again...
...please strengthen me.....
...so that I may pay back the Philistines...
...for the loss of my eyes...
...let me die with the Philistines....
Sadly, Samson ended his life the way that he had lived it: selfishly. His actions were not born out of a heroic desire to fulfill his life's calling. They were simply an attempt to get revenge. He wasn't pushing against those pillars because he LOVED God. He was pushing against them because he hated the Philistines captors and wanted to pay them back for gouging out his eyes. After a life-time of matching wits, they had pulled a fast one on him and he was bound but determined to have the last laugh. Even if it meant taking his own life.
From day one, Samson's mission was clearly stated.

He was to"rescue Israel from the Philistines" (Judges 13:5). He was to get them fired up and organized and to lead a crushing revolt that would set them free and eliminate the Philistine threat against God's people forever. But he did not do that. As far as we know, he didn't even try....or care. The best we can say for Samson is that he carried on a lifelong feud with the Philistines. He aggravated and frustrated them---as seen in Judges 14, Judges 15, and Judges 16:1-3---and was constantly womanizing/sleeping with the girls from their camps...but he never did the thing he was supposed to do in pulling the Israelites together/wiping them out. His own people seemed to be highly disconnected from him in relationship.


Anyone studying Samson's life can seen how the man made MANY mistakes and yet the Spirit of the Lord chose to operate through him regardless. One example can be seen in how Samon's parents objected to his marrying the Philistine woman he fell "in love" with in Judges 14:1-11...seeing that (1) it was against God's law (Exodus 34:15-17, Deuteronomy 7:1-4, Judges 3:5-7, etc) and (2) the Philistines were Israel's enemies. Marriage to a hated Phillistine would be a disgrace to Samson's family.....and yet Samon's father gave in to Samson's demand and allowed the marriage. The text of scripture makes clear that despite Samon's error, the Lord used this NONETHELESS since he was seeking an opportunity to confron the Philistines...and God still chose to work it out (Judges 14:4).

The Lord came in power on Samson a number of times, even though what he did with that power was often questionable.

.....Though God's Spirit was upon Samson at other times, he often used his gift for the wrong purposes----as also seen when he torn down the gates of a city where he went to for having sex with prostitutes (Judges 16:1-3). It caught up with him eventually when the Lord eventually left him (Judges 16:19-20).....but God was still faithful. Although God did not completely abandon Samson (Judges 16:28-30), he ALLOWED Samson's decisions to stand...and the consequences of his decision to follow naturally (Judges 16:21)-----as God will often weave mistakes into his ultimate design. Samson didn't HAVE to be in the Dungeon as a slave--and he didn't choose to be captured....but he chose to be with Deliah and couldn't escape the consequences of his decision.
Hebrews 11:31-36
31 By faith the prostitute Rahab, because she welcomed the spies, was not killed with those who were disobedient.[a]
32 And what more shall I say? I do not have time to tell about Gideon, Barak, Samson and Jephthah, about David and Samuel and the prophets, 33 who through faith conquered kingdoms, administered justice, and gained what was promised; who shut the mouths of lions, 34 quenched the fury of the flames, and escaped the edge of the sword; whose weakness was turned to strength; and who became powerful in battle and routed foreign armies. 35 Women received back their dead, raised to life again. There were others who were tortured, refusing to be released so that they might gain an even better resurrection. 36 Some faced jeers and flogging, and even chains and imprisonment.
If I had been calling the shots, I probably would have blown Samson off somewhere around his twenty-fifth birthday. I would have grown completely frustrated and found another person to work through. Someone who would take the Nazarite vow seriously and follow orders. But God stuck with Samson..and in doing so, confirmed what Daniel said when saying "The Lord our God is merciful and forgiving, even though we have rebelled against him..." (Daniel 9:9). Of course, there's always the chance that someone might read Samson's story and feel emboldened to disobey God. 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..
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,428
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟160,220.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Easy G (G²);59508984 said:
... is it not possible that all of that was a matter of God working in SPITE of Jacob's pronouncements rather than because of it?..


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

And as it concerns counter-blessings, it's interesting to see what Moses says since it seems (during his final prophetic declarations/blessings) that he shared something in the attempt to change the fortunes of Reuben. As said before, prophecys/declaring blessings in scripture are truly POWERFUL :) And there are examples of where this has occurred many times before.

In example, Simeon and Levi had a sister who was raped--and given up in marriage to the rapist when he later came to love her. That's not something to easily get over. Surprisingly, Jacob was silent initially (Genesis 34:5-8)-and waiting for his son's reactions. Although Dinah had been defiled by the rape, in theory her honor and the family's honor could be restored if the man married her (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)...but this would be complicated by the prince of Shechem having a Hivite identity. When Jacob accepted the marriage proposal, Jacob's sons, showing their true heritage, answer decietfully as Jacob did in Genesis 27:25....with the sons becoming tricksters by proposing circumcision as their condition for acceptance....and when the men of Shechem were in pain from the procedure, they went up/murdered the entire town of Shechem due to their sister's defilment ( Genesis 34:24-26, Genesis 34:29-31, ), causing the entire nation of Israel to have to move/take another journey....a journey that Rachael would not survive after giving birth to Benjamin. Jacob already had a strong distaste for his sons by Leah--and it's possible that what Levi/Simeon did only highlighted that further.

But what's clear in the text is that he was furious about the violence they did toward an entire nation. He noted to them how the attack was foolish since it would cause Israel to be in bad rapport with other nations around them....and Jacob was fearful because of how small Israel was.

Levi and Simeon, however, were not concerned. For they were Leah's children and as such are responsible for their sister Dinah. They chose to exact revenge and rescue Dinah. Although the brothers despoil the city, their brutality served to restore the family's honor, but is unwise.....and yet they didn't care since they felt as if they did justice--and so, just as they weren't concerned about the dangers that could come upon a nation so few in numbers (Israel), so Jacob later cursed them with being without a nation at all...scattered amongst the others.
Genesis 49:4-6
7 Cursed be their anger, so fierce,
and their fury, so cruel!
I will scatter them in Jacob
and disperse them in Israel.
It's fascinating to consider some of the reasons Jacob cursed them on his deathbed--and some have actually noted where it was a curse meant to not only punish them...but to restrain them from ever having alot of power since they were so violent. Perhaps Jacob felt that scattering them would prevent another occurrence like Shechem from happening again. But the curse itself seemed to be reversed for good on some parts later. The tribe of Simeon was eventually absored into Judah, from where the Kingly/Messianic line would come forth. Situated at the brink of the Negeb desert and entirely surrounded by Judah, there is no trace of boundary descriptions for them in the time of Joshua's giving out territories. All they were given were certain towns--and Simeon's towns were listed in two districts, which are closely related to the second part of Judah's first district, the northern Negeb around Beer-sheba ( Joshua 19:1-3 / Joshua 19 )..and even more closely related to the Simeonite towns in I Chronicles 4:28-32. Although they had no benefit of having their own extensive territory, they were protected at all times by one of the greater nations---and included with them through eventual adoption..

With Levi's line, what's even more fascinating is seeing how the Lord worked it out--as he took a curse placed upon them and made it to be where the Levites would have the HIGHEST position in the community--with some of the greatest leaders in Hebrew History (Moses, Exodus 2:1-3 and Aaron, Exodus 4:13-15 ) leading and the Levites scattered throughout Israel as the landless tribe of priests/holy men ..ushering in the very prescence of the Lord/being the nearest to Him :) ( Numbers 2:32-34,, Numbers 3, Numbers 4, Numbers 8 , Numbers 16:7-9, Numbers 17:7-9 , Numbers 26:58-60, Numbers 35, Deuteronomy 27:8-10 , Joshua 8:32-34 , Joshua 13:32-33 , Joshua 18:6-8 , 1 Chronicles 15:14-16 , 1 Chronicles 23:13-15 ). Whereas Levi himself wasn't holy/set apart, the Lord ensured that his descendants would be otherwise...and while not revoking all aspects of Jacob's curse, He seemed to work around it for his benefit.


Interestingly enough, with the Levites, it was not the case that they didn't necessarily walk in the same violence as did their ancestor Levi---for with the Golden Calf issue, it has always amazed me to see what occurred when they were given power again:
Exodus 32:27-29
28 The Levites did as Moses commanded, and that day about three thousand of the people died. 29 Then Moses said, “You have been set apart to the LORD today, for you were against your own sons and brothers, and he has blessed you this day.”
And Moses prophetically blessed the Levities before he died in Deuteronomy 33:6 , giving them a glorious destiny (counter to what Jacob said on his deathbed).

It seems that there is a bit of "cause and effect" with prophecies/blessings---and there are other examples besides what occurred with Simeon or Levi. One can also study what occurred with Esau when his father blessed him..or they can study Ishmael in what occurred in that situation...and many more. All of that is noted for the simple fact of again emphasizing that it's possible for men to make choices that affect others negatively---and although those choices are mistakes, it's possible for others to reverse them in differing ways/turn them into blessings. With Reuben, I have to wonder if perhaps that was the case somehow...
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,428
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟160,220.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Easy G (G²);59509013 said:
Though his (Reuben's) life and his blessings have been forfeited by his transgression with his father's concubine (Genesis 49:3, Genesis 49:4) 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.



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 (even though Judah also committed GRAVE sexual immorality with Tamar and sought to harm his son--as discussed here in #61 ).


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" ( ):
The Mishor was suitable for the herds and flocks of the Reubenites. They grew wheat and barley crops in the fertile soil. The Reubenites and the tribe of Gad were friendly and intermingled with each other. Numbers 32:34 lists several cities within Reuben's territory built up by Gadites.

Verses 21-23 list the kings defeated by the Israelites in order to obtain the land. Scripture mentions the "entire realm of Sihon king of the Ammonites, who ruled at Heshbon" was within the Reubenites territory. Moses is also credited with defeating the Midianite chiefs Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur and Reba, "princes allied with Sihon".
The passage concerning the tribe of Reuben concludes by stating their boundary was the bank of the Jordan River. This boundary lay just west of the town of Beth-jeshimoth.


Israel and the Blessing of the Tribes
Tribe of Reuben Encampment
Numbers 2 lists the order God gave Moses in which the 12 tribes of Israel are to encamp around the Tent of Meeting, and the order which they are to break camp. The orders concerning Reuben are given in Numbers 2:10-16.

The tribe of Reuben is to camp on the south side of the Tent of Meeting. The leader of the "people of Reuben" is said to be Elizur, son of Shedeur.

His division is given as 46,500 men strong. The tribe of Simeon is to camp next to Reuben, and next to them is the tribe of Gad. Scripture relates all the men "assigned to the camp of Reuben" is 151,450 men. The Biblical list of the number of Israelites coming out of Egypt, and the subsequent lists of tribal numbers, are subjects of debate.

It is widely agreed upon these numbers are a result of a mistranslation in the King James Version.

The tribe of Reuben was to break camp second, behind the division assigned to the tribe of Judah. This would appear to mirror the future importance of the tribe of Judah.

It would also appear the Reubenites were already shrinking in significance.

Reuben, son of Jacob
Reuben was the firstborn son of Jacob and Leah. His birth is recorded in 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."
Scripture recorded in verse 31 the Lord opened Leah's womb because He "saw that Leah was not loved". Thus, his name translates, "see, a son".

Reuben first appears in Scripture outside of his birth in Genesis 30:14-17. In this passage, Reuben is said to have come in from the fields with some mandrakes, and given them to his mother, Leah. Mandrakes were an interesting fruit.

The mandrake was a small, orange colored fruit. In ancient times it was thought of as an aphrodisiac, and a promoter of fertility. Its large roots have also been used as a narcotic.

In this view, it is easy to understand why Rachel, the barren wife of Jacob, would seek to obtain the fruit thought to promote fertility. Leah, spitefully, held it over her head.

Rachel, thus, offered Leah to sleep with Jacob that particular night, in exchange for the fruit. Leah agreed, and the subsequent night resulted in the birth of Isaachar.

This would not be the only episode of a sexual nature involving Reuben. Genesis 35:21 records Reuben had gone in with Rachel's maidservant, Bilhah, and slept with her.

Jacob heard of it, and this would lead to Reuben being stripped of his birthright as eldest. Jacob's Blessing/Curse of Reuben was a direct result of this act.

Reuben, however, was the son of the Jacob responsible for convincing the other ten not to kill Joseph. Genesis 37:21 indicates Reuben swayed them from their original intention, and to instead throw him into a cistern.

Reuben, according to Scripture, did this in order to later come back and rescue Joseph. Only when he came back, Joseph was gone.

In the Joseph narrative, it was Reuben who guaranteed the safety of Benjamin to Jacob. In Genesis 42:37 Reuben offered the lives of his two sons if he failed to bring Benjamin back safely.

In the early narratives concerning Jacob's sons, it is Reuben mentioned most (Gen. 30:14; 35:22; 37:21; 42:22, 37). This is not surprising, as Reuben was the oldest son of Jacob.


However, upon the Exodus from Egypt, and the subsequent conquest, the tribe of Joseph seems to take on prominence over the tribe of Reuben. This is in fulfillment of Jacob's Blessing concerning Reuben and Joseph.

Tribe of Reuben
The tribe of Reuben received very little word of encouragement from both Jacob and Moses. The Song of Deborah also had very little good to say about the tribe of Reuben.
Judges 5:15b-16"...In the districts of Reuben there was much searching of heart. Why did you stay among the campfires to hear the whistling for the flocks? In the districts of Reuben there was much searching of heart."
This was an accusation against the tribe of Reuben for their failure to participate in Deborah's war against Sisera. Instead, they stayed "among the campfires", displaying an attitude of indifference towards their brethren.

The opening verses of Numbers 32 depict representatives from the tribe of Reuben and Gad going before Moses. Israel had previously defeated the Nephilim kings Og and Sihon , and their lands east of the Jordan.


Most recently, Moses had defeated Midianite kings, opening the land up east of the Jordan for occupation. The tribe of Reuben had large herds and flocks, and required much land for grazing. The lands of "Jazer and Gilead were suitable for grazing." (32:1)


Moses granted them this land only on the condition they would continue to fight for the land west of the Jordan River as well. His warning to them was stern in verse 32.

"But if you fail to do this, you will be sinning against the Lord; and you may be sure that your sin will find you out."
Scripture records nothing further of the tribe of Reuben and their involvement in further conquest. Taken in context with the Song of Deborah, and Moses' scant blessing, it would seem the tribe of Reuben had lost its significance.

The only exploits concerning the tribe of Reuben are mentioned in I Chronicles 5. The Reubenites, with the help of Gadites, and the half tribe of Manasseh, conquered the Hagrites during the reign of Saul. From the Hagrites, the tribe of Reuben seized: 50,000 camels; 250,000 sheep; 200,000 donkeys; 100,000 slaves.


Fate of the tribe of Reuben
Over time, all three tribes east of the Jordan River fell into apostasy. This brought forth God's judgment in a most severe way. The demise of the tribe of Reuben is found in I Chronicles 5:24-26.
"These were the heads of their families; Epher, Ishi, Eliel, Azriel, Jeremiah, Hodaviah and Jahdiel. They were brave warriors, famous men, and heads of their families. But they were unfaithful to the God of their fathers and prostituted themselves to the gods of the peoples of the land, whom God had destroyed before them. So the God of Israel stirred up the spirit of Pul king of Assyria, who took the Reubenites, the Gadites and the half tribe of Manasseh into exile. He took them to Halah, Habor, Hara and the river of Gozan, where they are to this day."
Pul is the Assyrian king Tiglath-Pilesar, mentioned above. Thus, the tribe of Reuben was conquered and exiled, one of the first of ten tribes to undergo such a fate.



 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,428
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟160,220.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Easy G (G²);59509266 said:
Though his (Reuben's) life and his blessings have been forfeited by his transgression with his father's concubine (Genesis 49:3, Genesis 49:4) 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

And as it concerns counter-blessings, it's interesting to see what Moses says since it seems (during his final prophetic declarations/blessings) that he shared something in the attempt to change the fortunes of Reuben. As said before, prophecys/declaring blessings in scripture are truly POWERFUL :) And there are examples of where this has occurred many times before.

In example, Simeon and Levi had a sister who was raped--and given up in marriage to the rapist when he later came to love her. That's not something to easily get over. Surprisingly, Jacob was silent initially (Genesis 34:5-8)-and waiting for his son's reactions. Although Dinah had been defiled by the rape, in theory her honor and the family's honor could be restored if the man married her (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)...but this would be complicated by the prince of Shechem having a Hivite identity. When Jacob accepted the marriage proposal, Jacob's sons, showing their true heritage, answer decietfully as Jacob did in Genesis 27:25....with the sons becoming tricksters by proposing circumcision as their condition for acceptance....and when the men of Shechem were in pain from the procedure, they went up/murdered the entire town of Shechem due to their sister's defilment ( Genesis 34:24-26/Genesis 34:29-31Genesis 34 ), causing the entire nation of Israel to have to move/take another journey....a journey that Rachael would not survive after giving birth to Benjamin. Jacob already had a strong distaste for his sons by Leah--and it's possible that what Levi/Simeon did only highlighted that further.

But what's clear in the text is that he was furious about the violence they did toward an entire nation. He noted to them how the attack was foolish since it would cause Israel to be in bad rapport with other nations around them....and Jacob was fearful because of how small Israel was.

Levi and Simeon, however, were not concerned. For they were Leah's children and as such are responsible for their sister Dinah. They chose to exact revenge and rescue Dinah. Although the brothers despoil the city, their brutality served to restore the family's honor, but is unwise.....and yet they didn't care since they felt as if they did justice--and so, just as they weren't concerned about the dangers that could come upon a nation so few in numbers (Israel), so Jacob later cursed them with being without a nation at all...scattered amongst the others.
Genesis 49:4-6
7 Cursed be their anger, so fierce,
and their fury, so cruel!
I will scatter them in Jacob
and disperse them in Israel.
It's fascinating to consider some of the reasons Jacob cursed them on his deathbed--and some have actually noted where it was a curse meant to not only punish them...but to restrain them from ever having alot of power since they were so violent. Perhaps Jacob felt that scattering them would prevent another occurrence like Shechem from happening again. But the curse itself seemed to be reversed for good on some parts later. The tribe of Simeon was eventually absored into Judah, from where the Kingly/Messianic line would come forth. Situated at the brink of the Negeb desert and entirely surrounded by Judah, there is no trace of boundary descriptions for them in the time of Joshua's giving out territories. All they were given were certain towns--and Simeon's towns were listed in two districts, which are closely related to the second part of Judah's first district, the northern Negeb around Beer-sheba ( Joshua 19:1-3 / Joshua 19 )..and even more closely related to the Simeonite towns in I Chronicles 4:28-32. Although they had no benefit of having their own extensive territory, they were protected at all times by one of the greater nations---and included with them through eventual adoption..

With Levi's line, what's even more fascinating is seeing how the Lord worked it out--as he took a curse placed upon them and made it to be where the Levites would have the HIGHEST position in the community--with some of the greatest leaders in Hebrew History (Moses, Exodus 2:1-3 and Aaron, Exodus 4:13-15 ) leading and the Levites scattered throughout Israel as the landless tribe of priests/holy men ..ushering in the very prescence of the Lord/being the nearest to Him :) ( Numbers 2:32-34 /Numbers 2, Numbers 3, Numbers 4, Numbers 8 , Numbers 16:7-9/ Numbers 16, Numbers 17:7-9 , Numbers 26:58-60, Numbers 35, Deuteronomy 27:8-10 , Joshua 8:32-34 , Joshua 13:32-33 , Joshua 18:6-8 , 1 Chronicles 15:14-16 , 1 Chronicles 23:13-15 ). Whereas Levi himself wasn't holy/set apart, the Lord ensured that his descendants would be otherwise...and while not revoking all aspects of Jacob's curse, He seemed to work around it for his benefit.


Interestingly enough, with the Levites, it was not the case that they didn't necessarily walk in the same violence as did their ancestor Levi---for with the Golden Calf issue, it has always amazed me to see what occurred when they were given power again:
Exodus 32:27-29
28 The Levites did as Moses commanded, and that day about three thousand of the people died. 29 Then Moses said, “You have been set apart to the LORD today, for you were against your own sons and brothers, and he has blessed you this day.”
And Moses prophetically blessed the Levities before he died in Deuteronomy 33:6 , giving them a glorious destiny (counter to what Jacob said on his deathbed).

It seems that there is a bit of "cause and effect" with prophecies/blessings---and there are other examples besides what occurred with Simeon or Levi. One can also study what occurred with Esau when his father blessed him..or they can study Ishmael in what occurred in that situation...and many more. All of that is noted for the simple fact of again emphasizing that it's possible for men to make choices that affect others negatively---and although those choices are mistakes, it's possible for others to reverse them in differing ways/turn them into blessings. With Reuben, I have to wonder if perhaps that was the case somehow...



To give more thoughts, on what occurred with Simeon's fate, there was a book I read earlier last year (recommended by another Messianic Jew) entitled "Arabs in the Shadow of Israel: The Unfolding of God's Prophetic Plan for Ishmael's Line" by Dr.Tony Maalouf, it was very insightful studying up on the bloodlines that the scriptures note---and showing how many of them blended (such as Ishmael's line and Easu's as well, for example) and why they often did so through the act of adopting members into the tribe....and making them one of the people just as it often occurred in Middle-Eastern/African culture. More on what he said on that can be seen here, including discussing where other tribes from the Israelite culture adopted others/blended for the sake of survival (as what occurred with the line of Simeon).



And with Levi/Simeon being redeemed by the Lord later, I was pondering with my family on how it's possible that what Levi/Simeon did was the correct action with taking vengence upon those damaging Israel---a precursor to others like Phineas, Aaron's son, recorded in Numbers 25:7-13 and how Phinehas is praised for his zeal for righteousness/God's glory....much as the Zealots did during the rise of Hasidim....and with the Lord seeing Jacob being displeased with them/cursing them, one of family members brought up how perhaps the Lord saw what was injustice..taking it to heart and redeeming them later on by exalting them later despite that curse.

In the case of Levi/Simeon, what they did wasn't the most politically sound move to make--but in many ways, if they didn't respond, their sister would've have been connected with a people that the Lord may've never desired His people to be connected with--and it could've been the case that the impression given by Israel was that they would tolerate certain things/be pushovers. Also, as one of my family members noted, the people of Shechem may've been concerned with trying to get ahold of Israel's resources and wanted to make an "alliance" that seemed generous---but would ultimately harm the people. With the sons recognizing that the Lord was with Israel and that Jacob should have done something rather than trying to play it safe, it's possible they felt they did what would honor the Lord.

Jacob should have been the most upset out of all of his family, seeing what happened to his own daughter---but as he seemed like he was too concerned with being a "people pleaser"/maintaining the status quo with the neighboring people and getting along to get along, his sons would have felt like they were doing what their father should've done.

And as there would be no doubt that they'd be cursed for their actions by their father, it seems they were willing to risk it just to maintain honor.

Again, just some thoughts to consider.....
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,428
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟160,220.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
You have put a lot of thought into this.. It is going to take me a while to absorb the impact of what you are saying..
Hey sis..

Thanks for taking the time to consider what was offered. Again, it's just one perspective amongst many...but in seeing the ways the Lord seems to interact with mankind and weave things together, I can't help but notice alot of things lately and think of the phrase "It is what it is...doesn't mean that's how it was meant to be...but it is."

As one being born out of wedlock myself, I've often had conversations with others on whether its ever the case where God sees a life born as a "mistake". My mindset is that even if the 16yr daughter of a pastor chooses to sleep around and gets pregnant, that situation may not be apart of God's best...but nonetheless, the child is not a mistake (Psalm 139, Jeremiah 1:1-11). That child's life is given by God---and as has happened many times in scripture, it can be paradoxical realizing that all of the events surrounding the existence of that child were somehow ordained even as the making of that child may've been error.....just like it was for Ishmael/Hagar when the Angel of the Lord came to her to assure her that He had a plan for her son....despite ANYTHING surrounding his birth that may've seemed like a mistake. They were right on time even when things were set back in some ways.

And the way scripture seems to treat the subject of destiny/fate and being bound by choice is rather fascinating. I'm reminded of Jephthah---as the Lord came upon him in power to do war (Judges 11:29) and yet he also made a rash vow about sacrificing his daughter in Judges 11:30-35...one which he was BOUND to honor. And later, after the great battle won, Israel instead went into pettiness and quarrelling----with Jephtah choosing to respond by killing 42,000 of the Tribe of Ephraim who spoke against him. He clearly was opertating wrongly in seeking personal revenge against the SAME group that gave Gideon trouble in Judges 8:1-3...and it cost his own people dearly. But he's included in the Hall of Faith. Gideon is another to consider (also in the Hall of Faith), as the man was very fearful---even making requests/using motives that were less than ideal since it was akin to testing God...and he knew his requests might displease him (Judges 6, Judges 6:37-39), even after witnessing the miraculous fire from the rock (Judges 6:21)---yet God still honored his action/request....and used him mightly to conquer the enemies of Israel (Judges 7).

However, Gideon was also known to have a massive complex---as right afterward in Judges 8, he is shown to have carried out revenge against his brothers in Israel that God NEVER commissioned him to do simply because they refused to aid him (Judges 8:7). Rather than leaving it to God, he took matters into his own hands---and later, he was noted for having an ephod set up (Judges 8:22-27) that caused MASSIVE Idolatry. An ephod was a linen garment worn by priests over their chests, considered holy (Exodus 28:5-35, Exodus 39:2-24, Leviticus 8:7-8). It could easily be made into a good luck charm....and sadly, after his rise to power, he ended up becoming too carried away with this accumulation of wealth. Additionally, as he also had MANY sons by differing wives and a concubine, that got everyone in trouble since the relationship between Gideon/his concubine prodcuced a son that tore apart Gideon's family/caused tragedy for the nation (Judges 9).

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.

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.


To a degree, you see the same concept of the Lord honoring man's choices even within the life of Jacob before anything came up of him blessing his sons.


Many are quick to say that Jacob's actions have no bearing on how his life turned out--for in their minds, Jacob was handpicked by the Lord, being chosen before he had done any good or bad, being yet in the womb. They base this on what Malachi 1:1-3 and Romans 9:12-14 / Romans 9 says:

10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; 11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
Later he received the blessing of the Angel which he wrestled with. Something that always interests me is why God chose Jacob. Romans 9:11-12 notes the same as what happened in Genesis 25:21-23. Was it right for God to choose Jacob, the younger brother, to be over Esau? On the issue, I'm reminded of Malachi and what he noted. For In Malachi 1:2-3, the statement "Jacob I loved but Esau I hated" also refers to the nations of Israel and Edom rather than to individual brothers alone. With the brothers themselves, it could be said that God chose Jacob to continue the family line of the faithful because he knew his heart was for God...and he chose Jacob as the one through whom the nation of Israel and the Messiah would come. But he did not exclude Esau from knowing and loving Him.

The phrase "Easu I have hated" does not refer to Esau's eternal destiny, as Esau was still blessed of God and others came from his line that the Lord used.... And His father still blessed Esau, as discussed more in-depth here...something that God Himself honored. Additionally, though Esau's choice of living was not the best, he still had a change of heart toward his brother in Genesis 33.

His godless living was by no means appropiate---as Hebrews 12:14-17 seems to make clear---but by no means was it the case that he had no sense of honor. Genesis 28:9 seems to indicate such when Esau chose to marry a daugther of Ishmael in Genesis 28:9 in the hopes that marriage into Ishmael's family would please his parents, Isaac and Rebekah. This was done in light of how the foreign women he married previously (Genesis 26:34) upset his parents greatly...

Something else to consider is how Jacob himself made numerous mistakes just bad as Esau did. It is true that Esau traded the lasting benefits of his birthright for the immediate pleasure of food..acting on impulse and satisfying his immediate desires without considering the long-range consequences of what he was about to do..."despising" his birthright and legally giving it up to Jacob. However, the birthright was not actually his until the blessing was pronounced--as the birthright could be taken away before the actual blessing was given.


And in Genesis 27:5-10, Rebekah took matters into her own hands by resoirting to doing something wrong (i.e. tricking Isaac into the blessing) to try to bring about what God had already said would happen...as the Lord told her at the children's birth that Jacob would become the family leader (Genesis 25:23-26). For her, the ends justified the means.

And with Jacob, when asked to participate in the plan, he was instead more afraid of getting into trouble while carrying it out (Genesis 27:11-12). He hesitated when he heard of Rebekah's decietful plan, yet went through with it anyhow.....and although Jacob got the blessing, decieving his father cost him dearly.

These are some of the consequences of that deceit:

(1) He never saw his mother again (Genesis 27:41-46)

(2) His brother wanted to kill him

(3) He was decieved by his uncle, Laban (Genesis 29:30)

(4) His family became torn by strife due to his two wives and mid-servants(Genesis 29:31-35, Genesis 30:1-24, Genesis 31, Genesis 34, Genesis 37, etc)

(5) Esau became the founder of an enemy nation

(6) He was exiled from his family for years.
Ironically, Jacob would have recieved the birthright and blessing anyway (Genesis 25:23) had he simply trusted God----and yet, like Sarah did with Hagar (Genesis 16, Genesis 21:8-20), he made things more difficult than necessary. Imagine how different his life would have been had he and his mother waited for God to work his way, in His time.......but God was nonetheless able to work it out.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,428
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟160,220.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
You have put a lot of thought into this.. It is going to take me a while to absorb the impact of what you are saying..
Some of the things processed have been on my mind for a year now in studying scripture--but the central theme of it all is whether or not one believes in Fate, Choice..or Providence.

Time and Chance..

As one of my brothers in the Lord said best:
...God's providence - we do not believe in luck or chance; nor fate, since God's providence (knowing all things before hand) takes into account the choice of our free will (e.g. God allows us to choose to sin).
......

In the words of the fantastic film 'The Mission': "Thus have we made the world."
Ecclesiastes 9:11

I have seen something else under the sun: The race is not to the swift or the battle to the strong, nor does food come to the wise or wealth to the brilliant or favor to the learned; but time and chance happen to them all.
Ecclesiastes 9:10-12 / Ecclesiastes 9

However long it takes you to process, by all means...
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Yahudim

Y'shua HaMoshiach Messianic
Supporter
Sep 30, 2004
3,877
541
Deep in the Heart of Texas
✟129,809.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Great thoughts. An interesting study. I too am still processing it. But I wanted to ask a couple of questions and offer a couple of thoughts.

Concerning the duties of the firstborn, the requirement to execute your duties faithfully is basically different than the person that does not have those duties in the first place. Especially if the latter is subject to the charge of the former. Judah was supposed to be subject to Reuben, his elder and the firstborn, when out of Jacob's presence. So the measure of righteousness might be different for those with the duties as opposed to the one that didn't. I remember something about this in Torah, but I can't quite place it. Can you?

I'm in an undetermined stages of CRS syndrome. Can't Remember Stuff. ;):p

Also considering the Blessing, didn't it go directly to Ephraim through the adoption by Jacob? Would that create a completely different dynamic in terms of your observations about Joseph?
 
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,428
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟160,220.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Great thoughts. An interesting study. I too am still processing it. But I wanted to ask a couple of questions and offer a couple of thoughts.

Concerning the duties of the firstborn, the requirement to execute your duties faithfully is basically different than the person that does not have those duties in the first place. Especially if the latter is subject to the charge of the former. Judah was supposed to be subject to Reuben, his elder and the firstborn, when out of Jacob's presence. So the measure of righteousness might be different for those with the duties as opposed to the one that didn't.
Great thoughts...although I'm not fully certain as to what you may mean on the issue. Are you saying that outside of Jacob's prescence (or in the event of Jacob's death) that Judah should have deferred to Reubens' people/treated him as if he was the leader---regardless of whether or not Jacob proclaimed before all that Judah would be greater? Or are you saying something different?

Also, would love to hear what exactly is it that you're still processing.

I remember something about this in Torah, but I can't quite place it. Can you?
I think I know what you're talking about, although what's coming to my mind is the issue of how the one with the rights of the firstborn had the ability to designate roles to others.
I'm in an undetermined stages of CRS syndrome. Can't Remember Stuff. ;):p
Right there with ya...:)

Also considering the Blessing, didn't it go directly to Ephraim through the adoption by Jacob? Would that create a completely different dynamic in terms of your observations about Joseph?
I'd think it would be the same on certain levels. To give more clarity as to why:
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.

As seen in I Chronicles 5, the ruler from the tribe of Judah refers to David and his royal line...and to Jesus the Messiah, David's Greatest descendant. Some of it gets even more interesting when seeing how Saul, descended from Benjamin ( I Samuel 9:1-7), was constantly at war with the house of David of Judah and David still chose to love/honor Saul (I Samuel 19, I Samuel 23-24, I Samuel 26, II Samuel 1:17-27, II Samuel 2-4, II Samuel 9, II Samuel 16:5-14, II Samuel 20, etc)......an parralel picture of what happened previously when Judah loved Benjamin and was willing to give his life for him.


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 you know I've 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" Again, I am still processing.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

yedida

Ruth Messianic, joining Israel, Na'aseh v'nishma!
Oct 6, 2010
9,779
1,461
Elyria, OH
✟25,205.00
Faith
Marital Status
In Relationship
Great thoughts. An interesting study. I too am still processing it. But I wanted to ask a couple of questions and offer a couple of thoughts.

Concerning the duties of the firstborn, the requirement to execute your duties faithfully is basically different than the person that does not have those duties in the first place. Especially if the latter is subject to the charge of the former. Judah was supposed to be subject to Reuben, his elder and the firstborn, when out of Jacob's presence. So the measure of righteousness might be different for those with the duties as opposed to the one that didn't. I remember something about this in Torah, but I can't quite place it. Can you?

I'm in an undetermined stages of CRS syndrome. Can't Remember Stuff. ;):p

Also considering the Blessing, didn't it go directly to Ephraim through the adoption by Jacob? Would that create a completely different dynamic in terms of your observations about Joseph?

I have CRS too. Here's my questionstatement to your last question. Whichever son was actually the firstborn, Jacob crossed his arms and placed his right (?) hand (the hand that was to be on the first born) on the younger of the two giving him the blessing of the birthright. Which was which (by name and whether left or right hand to the eldest) I don't remember, but I do remember that he conferred the firstborn's birthright blessiing on the younger, much to Yosef's immediate dismay.
 
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,428
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟160,220.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Concerning the duties of the firstborn, the requirement to execute your duties faithfully is basically different than the person that does not have those duties in the first place. Especially if the latter is subject to the charge of the former. Judah was supposed to be subject to Reuben, his elder and the firstborn, when out of Jacob's presence. So the measure of righteousness might be different for those with the duties as opposed to the one that didn't. I remember something about this in Torah, but I can't quite place it. Can you?
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)..

And with what occurred there, as I'm guessing they all confessed to their father Jacob eventually what occurred, it seems logical that Jacob should've punished Judah for instigating the entire ordeal instead of punishing Reuben who tried to fix it. 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 and so nae 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
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,428
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟160,220.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Whichever son was actually the firstborn, Jacob crossed his arms and placed his right (?) hand (the hand that was to be on the first born) on the younger of the two giving him the blessing of the birthright. Which was which (by name and whether left or right hand to the eldest) I don't remember, but I do remember that he conferred the firstborn's birthright blessiing on the younger, much to Yosef's immediate dismay.
Ephraim was the younger and Manesseh was the older one...and Joseph was very displeased with it.

Granted, with the firstborn rights, it seems that they could be in peril by committing a serious offense against the one able to bestow it when the person was angry enough to refuse it (Gn. 35:22; 49:4; 1 Ch. 5:1-2) ..and they could be given up by sale (Gn. 25:29-34), though paternal preference occasionally overruled in the matter of royal succession (1 Ki. 1-2; 2 Chronicles 11:22-23/ 2 Chronicles 11; 1 Chronicles 26:9-11 / 1 Chronicles 26 , etc ). There is also a marked interest, especially in Genesis, in the youngest son (Jacob, Ephraim, David; cf. Isaac, Joseph), but such cases were certainly contrary to expectation--especially in regards to the Lord choosing the younger to rule the older ( 1 Samuel 16:5-7 /1 Samuel 16, 1 Chronicles 3 , 1 Chronicles 22:8-10 /1 Chronicles 22 /1 Chronicles 28 ).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

visionary

Your God is my God... Ruth said, so say I.
Supporter
Mar 25, 2004
56,918
8,033
✟572,541.44
Faith
Messianic
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.
Is that how it went for Ismael and Isaac?
 
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,428
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟160,220.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Is that how it went for Ismael and Isaac?
With Ishmael/Issac, Hagar wasn't the wife of Abraham..but the maidservant of Sarah. In regards to polygamy (allowed under the law)...with wives, they were on equal level (even though some would be favored more than others )--but maidservants were a step below and not on the same playing field. Thankfully, Ishmael was blessed--and used by the Lord in a stunning myriad of ways (as seen here in #10, #18 , #19, #21 , #40 , here, here , here and here, here /here), including the Queen of Sheba who visited Solomon/was widely praised coming from that heritage and also being apart of the Magi/Wise men who came to honor the Messiah and look out for him. Others are often shocked by that since they deem everything of Ishmael to be wrong..but even Ishmael was included into the Covenant via Genesis 17. His role and purpose (as designed by the Lord) was meant to be different than his brother Issac. And Ishmael was still beloved by Abraham, burying his father right alongside Issac in Genesis 25:8-10 /and being in peace with his brother...as well as having lines come together.

What Issac recieved was the Blessing of a Covenant, whereas Ishmael recieved the Promise of a Blessing--both important to the work of the Messiah...for the older son (Ishmael) would be blessed in radical ways but he would be close to the work of what the Lord did through his brother (Issac), looking out for him in many ways and ensuring the job gets done. And with Ishmael, he was indeed included in one aspect of the Abrahmic Covenant as were all others apart from the Covenant God made with Abraham through Issac.

The first covenant community was Abraham's household. It did not include only his immediate family but also slaves and strangers. They were all members of the household BEFORE they were circumcised. Gen. 17:14 says: " And the uncircumcised male child, who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be CUT OFF FROM HIS PEOPLE; he has broken my covenant." For in Genesis 17:1 (also seen in Acts 7:7-9 ), God was making a covenant, or contract, between Himself and Abraham. The terms were simple: Abraham would obey God and circumcise all the males in his household----and interestingly, those also who were NON-Jewish as well...including servants like Eleazer of Damascus ( Genesis 15:1-3, Genesis 15 ).......which is an Arab nation the last I checked...and of course, with Ishmael--the father of the Arab Nations ( Genesis 16 , Genesis 17:19-21 , Genesis 21, Genesis 25:8-10, Genesis 25, Genesis 28:8-10, Genesis 36:2-4, 1 Chronicles 1:27-29, 1 Chronicles 1 Romans 9:7, Galatians 4:21-31)--him being circumcised as well. Much of it very similar to what occurred in Joshua 5 with the people being included/considered as apart of the Lord's people even before they were circumcised.....and much as Romans 4 and I Corinthians 7 note with circumcision. As Dr. Tony Maalouf notes wonderfully, there are numerous scriptures showing where even Ishmael was apart of the Covenants the Lord made with Abraham (as there were multiple Abrahamic covenants or parts of them--but the promised seed of the Messiah was meant to come through Issac.

For places that provide good research, one may wish to consider examining the following:

There can be no escaping the reality of how the OT shows that the Lord was Ishmael's God..and the only reason he was sent away was due to Sarah not liking how he represented competition with Isaac. But there's nothing showing where Isaac and Ishmael were enemies. The Angel of the Lord Himself spoke to Hagar and sustained her in the desert place. Couple this theophany to the religiousity of Abraham's clan of 300+ and IMHO, I don't see how Ishmael in any way or manner could not be a believer, at least in appearance in regards to religious protocols. The God of the Bible blessed and kept Ishmael and brought through him 12 princes.

But the God of the Bible purposely choose Isaac as the line to bring the Messiah through.
1. Ishmael was under the covenant of which Abraham was the covenant head.

2. Ishmael was not chosen as the line to bring the Messiah through.
I believe when God speaks of "Covenant", it is not by any means static. I believe there is "The Covenant", vs Other Covenants.

Abraham was specifically called out for "The Covenant". What "The Covenant" entailed was separation and the creation of a nation that would carry the oracles of God which would culminate in the Messiah. It is through "this Covenant", the world has been blessed. All blessings that were afforded to mankind was because of "The Covenant".

It was "The Covenant", that God told Abraham that Isaac would inherit. This in no way nullified any possibility or God's electing purpose in saving Ishmael, Midian, Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Ishbak, Shuah (Abrahams's other sons--all noted in Genesis 25 from his wife, Keturah.....as. Abraham didn't have only 2 sons and he blessed all of his children), Abraham's servants especially Eleazar, Job and Lot. All people who are saved are saved by God's electing decree, but God's electing decree is justified by "The Covenant" through Abraham culminating in Jesus our Lord.

Because Abraham covenanted with God, and was the covenant head of his household which included 300+ it follows by necessity everyone under him had to partake of the religious protocols that Abraham partook of. Even Ishmael, Zimran and Midian had to be circumsized, offer prayers and sacrifices to God. Abraham had to instruct all under him the counsel of God and how to live Godly etc. A major manifestation of this was when Abraham went to war to rescue Lot. Abraham's going to war to rescue Lot was in many ways apart of his religious duties by which he taught by practice to his household godliness.

In speculating the state of Ishmael and others under Abraham's headship.
1. Abraham being the covenant head automatically disseminated and diffused the knowledge of the true God to those under him. This was their religion. We see this being manifested in God even appearing to Hagar thereby confirming exactly what Abraham taught to those under him. The honor and respect and the imbuing of this is manifested when Ishmael went with Isaac (as the two eldest of Abraham's children) and buried Abraham when he died. This alone shows that they were still in contact and had a homogeneous culture between them.

2. Jethro a descendent of Midian (Midian is one of Abraham's sons) was from all appearances a believer in God. It was his daughter whom Moses married. And we know that Jethro was a Priest. This is overwhelming proof that the religious instruction that Abraham gave to his household was so intense and highly concentrated that 400 years later his descendants through Midian had a religious institution to the true God and God did not establish his covenant through Midian, only through Isacc...And what of Melchizidek? In Genesis 14, he was a Priest to God and we see of no covenants being established with him, but yet he for all purposes is considered saved

3. When one puts all these pieces together it is unfair, IMHO, for anyone to conclude that because God did not establish "The Covenant" through Ishmael that Ishmael was not saved because God likewise did not establish "The Covenant" with Job, Melchizedek, Jethro, Midian and we see them saved.

As one excellent study source said best:
The promise to Abraham. Abraham himself is promised that he would be the father of a great nation (Gen 12:2), compared to the dust of the earth and the stars of the heaven in number (Gen 13:16; 15:5 ), and including kings and nations other than the “seed” itself (Gen 17:6). God promises His personal blessing on Abraham. His name shall be great and he himself shall be a blessing. All of this has had already the most literal fulfillment and continues to be fulfilled.

The promise to Abraham’s seed. In addition to the promises to Abraham, the covenant includes blessings for Abraham’s seed. The nation itself should be great (Gen 12:2) and innumerable (Gen 13:16; 15:5 ). The nation is promised possession of the land. Its extensive boundaries are given in detail (Gen 15:18-21). In connection with the promise of the land, the Abrahamic Covenant itself is expressly called “everlasting” (Gen 17:7) and the possession of the land is defined as “an everlasting possession” (Gen 17:8). It should be immediately clear that this promise guarantees both the everlasting continuance of the seed as a nation and its everlasting possession of the land.

Miscellaneous promises are included in the covenant. God is to be the God of Abraham’s seed. It is prophesied that they would be afflicted, as fulfilled in the years in Egypt, and that afterwards they would “come out with great substance” (Gen 15:14). In the promise to Abraham, “In thee shall all families of the earth be blessed,” it is anticipated that the seed should be a channel of this blessing. In particular this is fulfilled in and through the Lord Jesus Christ.

All the promises to the “seed” in Genesis are references to the physical seed of Abraham. General promises of blessing to Abraham’s seed seem to include all his physical lineage, but it is clear that the term is used in a narrower sense in some instances. Eliezer of Damascus, while according to the customs of the day regarded as a child of Abraham because born in his house, is nevertheless disqualified because he is not the physical seed of Abraham (Gen 15:2). Further, not all the physical descendants of Abraham qualify for the promises to the seed. Ishmael is put aside. When Abraham pleads with God, “O that Ishmael might live before thee!” God replies, “Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him” (Gen 17:18-19). The line of the seed and its promises is narrowed to the one son of Abraham. Later when Jacob and Esau are born, God in sovereign choice chooses the younger as the father of the twelve patriarchs and confirms the covenant to Jacob. The particular Abrahamic promises and blessings are thereafter channelled through the twelve tribes.

While the promises to the “seed” must be limited in their application according to the context, it is clear that much of the general blessings attending the Abrahamic Covenant such as the general blessing of God upon men is larger in its application. Thus the sign of circumcision (Gen 17:10-14, 23-27) is administered not only to Isaac later, but also to Ishmael and the men in Abraham’s house either born in the house or bought with money. Circumcision is wider in its application than the term seed, as far as the use in Genesis is concerned.

 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Yahudim

Y'shua HaMoshiach Messianic
Supporter
Sep 30, 2004
3,877
541
Deep in the Heart of Texas
✟129,809.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Easy G (G²);59512447 said:
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)..

And with what occurred there, as I'm guessing they all confessed to their father Jacob eventually what occurred, it seems logical that Jacob should've punished Judah for instigating the entire ordeal instead of punishing Reuben who tried to fix it. 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 and so nae 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:
What I was talking about brother, is the order that is typical of a family in this culture. There is a strictly enforced seating order at the table, for instance. Judah was a younger brother to Reuben in an authority conscious society. Judah may have had a divergent opinion, but in the end he would submit to Reuben's positions and authority.

So from that perspective, Reuben would be accounted as less righteous for simply doing what was expected as the firstborn than Judah would be for submitting to Reuben. If Judah improvised within the general concept of ways to deal with Joseph, the sceme and responsibility would still lie squrely at the feet of Reuben. Further, Reuben would be considered even less righteous in the matter for contravening the orders of Jacob concerning Joseph and then deceiving Joseph about the outcome. Josephs safety was Reuben's responsibility, no matter the cooperation of the brothers.

Is that how it went for Ismael and Isaac?
Vis, Hagar was not the wife of Abram, she was his wife's servant and given to Abram as a servant. In that way, the mother and child would belong to Sarah even though born by Hagar. Besides, Torah was not written or ratified yet. It was not the covenant of Abraham.
 
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,428
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟160,220.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Whichever son was actually the firstborn, Jacob crossed his arms and placed his right (?) hand (the hand that was to be on the first born) on the younger of the two giving him the blessing of the birthright. Which was which (by name and whether left or right hand to the eldest) I don't remember, but I do remember that he conferred the firstborn's birthright blessiing on the younger, much to Yosef's immediate dismay.

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)?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

yedida

Ruth Messianic, joining Israel, Na'aseh v'nishma!
Oct 6, 2010
9,779
1,461
Elyria, OH
✟25,205.00
Faith
Marital Status
In Relationship
Is that how it went for Ismael and Isaac?

Also along with Tal's answer, there's the matter of the Promise, and of the birthright belonging to the child Promise, the child of Abraham AND Sarah.
 
Upvote 0