Easy G (G²);61938434 said:
in Genesis 37:29-30. For he truly was going to rescue the one whom all were angry at the point of murder.
....Continued in next post...
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?"
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 fathers 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......
__________________