SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
It is both.
ECT They Will Not Receive Thy Testimony: Acts 22: 17-21
- Thread starter northwye
- Start date
It is both.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Not from the standpoint of modern history.
According to Deut 21, the birthright was to be allotted to Reuben.
Deuteronomy 21 KJV
(16) Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn:
(17) But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his.
Jacob had children with 4 women. (2 wives, 2 concubines)
He was not in love with Leah but married Leah first.
He loved his other wife, Rachel.
But the double portion was to go to his son that was born 1st, despite any favoritism Jacob had.
In other words, the double portion going to the 1st born son was standard practice of law, and not done by election (choosing).
His son that was born 1st was Reuben.
And 1 Chronicles tells us point blank that it was Reuben's birthright that was given to the sons of Joseph.
1 Chronicles 5:1 KJV
(1) Now the sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel, (for he was the firstborn; but, forasmuch as he defiled his father's bed, his birthright was given unto the sons of Joseph the son of Israel: and the genealogy is not to be reckoned after the birthright.
"When twins Jacob and Esau were born, Esau came first, technically making him the firstborn. As the firstborn son, Esau automatically held the birthright.
A birthright was an honor given to the firstborn, bestowing head of household status and the right to inherit his father’s estate. The son with the birthright would receive a double portion of whatever was passed down (see Deuteronomy 21:17). Yet, even before the twins were born, the Lord predicted that Esau would serve Jacob (Genesis 25:23).
https://www.gotquestions.org/blessing-birthright.html
A birthright was an honor given to the firstborn, bestowing head of household status and the right to inherit his father’s estate. The son with the birthright would receive a double portion of whatever was passed down (see Deuteronomy 21:17). Yet, even before the twins were born, the Lord predicted that Esau would serve Jacob (Genesis 25:23).
https://www.gotquestions.org/blessing-birthright.html
Right.
Jacob was elected (chosen).
That's grace, not law.
By law it went to Esau.
Which is why Jacob bought his brother's birthright.
(No need to purchase it from Esau unless it belonged to Esau in the first place to sell.)
And the sons of Joseph could not receive the birthright of Reuben (1 Chr 5:1) unless it belonged to Reuben in the first place (which according to Deut 21 and 1 Chr 5, it did belong to Reuben).
Good point. And that's why Reuben is the leader of the free world, right?
And it's because you think Jacob was governed by the Mosaic law, right?
"We see from the above that most clans of Reuben were to be identifiable with the Franks who settled in France and gave France its name. Before the Franks the area of France had been known as Gaul, in Hebrew Gallia. Gaul had been settled by peoples of Celtic Culture especially the Galatae. The Galatae (Galatians) were also known as Galadi. This is another form of the Hebrew name Gilead. Gilead was both the name of a clan of Manasseh as well as of an area east of the Jordan in which elements of Manasseh and Reuben dwelt. [The Tribe of Reuben had settled in both the regions of Bashan and Gilead east of the Jordan.] Since additional factors indicate strongly that the Israelites in France were to be predominantly from Reuben we may suppose that the Galatae (Galadi) in Gaul were also from Reuben and had been so named after the region their forefathers had dwelt in."
http://hebrewnations.com/articles/tribes/reuben2/reubenclans.html
http://hebrewnations.com/articles/tribes/reuben2/reubenclans.html
Factual point.
Silliness.
Reuben died thousands of years ago.
More silliness.
Moses was the 4th generation after Jacob.
Jacob was dead before Moses received the Mosaic law at Sinai.
That does not mean the tribes of Israel did not previously have any standard of law.
Except Reuben, you said he died.
The elder shall serve the younger.
:chuckle:
Kidding aside, what do you mean?
Rom. 5:8
Was the birthright going to any son, instead of the 1st born son, the exception or the norm within the tribes of Israel?
That's one question.
Another question would be, Did Jacob disregard the instructions of Deut 21:16-17 by giving Reuben's birthright to the sons of Joseph in 1 Chr 5:1 ?
Jacob never heard of Deuteronomy.
The birthright normally went to the firstborn son.
Without exception there are always exceptions.
The principle was already well established in the time of Jacob, otherwise there would be no reason to say Reuben's birthright was given to the sons of Joseph. 1 Chr 5:1
Right.
I think that was a well established standard long before the Deut passage recorded it as law.
Yep, when it comes to rules there is always an exception or exemption.
.
.
.
Here's a followup question if you are interested in fine tuning the birthright standard.
Was Jacob requested or commanded by GOD to give the birthright of his son Reuben over to the sons of Joseph?
Or was that Jacob's decision?
(Let me intervene here to say I am not asking if that's the way GOD wanted it to turn out. I'm asking if Jacob did so by GOD's command or not.)
I ask this because we know that Isaac really wanted to bless his son Esau, but was tricked by Jacob.
So, even though that may be the way GOD wanted it to turn out, it still wasn't Isaac's choice/decision to bless Jacob over Esau.
So we know that GOD did not request or command Isaac to pick Jacob (unless one dares to take the stance that Isaac chose to disobey GOD).
So is there any evidence in scripture that determines if it was Jacob's decision to turn Reuben's birthright over to the sons of Joseph, or was he following a command of GOD?
"Also God said to him: 'I am God Almighty. Be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall proceed from you, and kings shall come from your body. The land which I gave Abraham and Isaac I give to you; and to your descendants after you I give this land.' Then God went up from him in the place where He talked with him." (Genesis 35:11-13)
"Now when Joseph saw that his father laid his right hand on the head of Ephraim, it displeased him so he took hold of his father’s hand to remove it from Ephraim’s head to Manasseh’s head. And Joseph said to his father, 'Not so, my father, for this one is the firstborn, put your right hand on his head.'
But his father refused and said, 'I know, my son, I know. He also shall become a people, and he also shall be great, but truly his younger brother shall be greater than he and his descendants shall become a multitude of nations.'" (Genesis 48:17-19)
Jacob complied with God's will that Manasseh would become a great nation and Ephraim would become a multitude of nations.
That is a conclusion with no substance other than what you prefer the conclusion to be.
There was nothing in Gen 35 that says which of His descendants would culminate the promise, nor does it say anything about that promises being a 'birthright' promise.
And between Gen 35 and Gen 48, when Jacob gives Reuben's birthright to the sons of Joseph, there is not a word about GOD revealing to Jacob whom he should give that birthright to.
I don't know why you would even want to insist "Jacob somehow knew who he was supposed to pick" because we already know that GOD did not need to reveal to Isaac whom he should pick for it to turn out how GOD wanted.
In fact Isaac ended up choosing to bless Esau, and only through Jacob's deceptive trickery did Isaac unknowingly choose Jacob over Esau.
Can't we just stick with the facts presented in scripture and not add speculation to it?
We can certainly discus speculation, but it shouldn't be added with the facts.
Then maybe we can move on to the next person GOD called His "firstborn" --- David from the tribe of Judah.
Jacob was called GOD's "firstborn",
Years later Ephraim was called GOD's "firstborn".
Years after that, David was called GOD's "firstborn".
It would be through the tribe of Judah that the royal line culminating with the King of Kings would be a descendant of, not the tribe of Ephraim or Manasseh.
Interplanner
Well-known member
North wrote:
And - now we are seeing a rise of the Hebrew Roots movement, Sacred
Name Theology and Messianic Judaism, which, along with some of the
cults mentioned above, believe that the Old Covenant teaching that the
physical descendants of Abraham remain the chosen people of God.
These people will not hear any message from the New Testament which is
different from their theology that they are the chosen people, or
that those who claim descent from a tribe of Israel are the chosen
based on genetics.
This used to be a helpful thread.
Back to the topic. In Jn 12:11, some trans use 'falling away' to describe those Jews who believed on Christ. The verb is simply 'upogo' which is nothing special compared to 'apostasia' in 2 Th 2:3. But the 'falling away / departure / rebellion' Paul means in 2 Th 2 was already underway, v7. The Lord (Messiah, the Root of Jesse) would destroy him and the rebellion, Is 11:4 is quoted in 2 Th 2:7. The man himself had not yet been revealed, although there were rumors that he had. It's the guy from Dan 8:13's rebellion, its leader detailed in ch 8 and showing up in the temple in the final 70th week in ch 9. There were several who tried to organize Israel in to a mass rebellion against Rome, and purge the Temple.
Again, notice, as found all through Paul, that the 2nd coming of Christ was expected right after this (2 Th 2:8). The Wicked One has his 'parousia' and then Christ has his, overthrowing him. Because of the same word choice for each, some readers find that the 'stoning' of harlot Jerusalem in 18, is simply the removal of the menace of Judaism's zealots so that the mission of Christ could go forth and flourish, 19:7, in which Christ has his bride (Eph 5) and his seed is as numerous as the sands of the sea.
And - now we are seeing a rise of the Hebrew Roots movement, Sacred
Name Theology and Messianic Judaism, which, along with some of the
cults mentioned above, believe that the Old Covenant teaching that the
physical descendants of Abraham remain the chosen people of God.
These people will not hear any message from the New Testament which is
different from their theology that they are the chosen people, or
that those who claim descent from a tribe of Israel are the chosen
based on genetics.
This used to be a helpful thread.
Back to the topic. In Jn 12:11, some trans use 'falling away' to describe those Jews who believed on Christ. The verb is simply 'upogo' which is nothing special compared to 'apostasia' in 2 Th 2:3. But the 'falling away / departure / rebellion' Paul means in 2 Th 2 was already underway, v7. The Lord (Messiah, the Root of Jesse) would destroy him and the rebellion, Is 11:4 is quoted in 2 Th 2:7. The man himself had not yet been revealed, although there were rumors that he had. It's the guy from Dan 8:13's rebellion, its leader detailed in ch 8 and showing up in the temple in the final 70th week in ch 9. There were several who tried to organize Israel in to a mass rebellion against Rome, and purge the Temple.
Again, notice, as found all through Paul, that the 2nd coming of Christ was expected right after this (2 Th 2:8). The Wicked One has his 'parousia' and then Christ has his, overthrowing him. Because of the same word choice for each, some readers find that the 'stoning' of harlot Jerusalem in 18, is simply the removal of the menace of Judaism's zealots so that the mission of Christ could go forth and flourish, 19:7, in which Christ has his bride (Eph 5) and his seed is as numerous as the sands of the sea.
Good point. That explains why Judah became the leader of the free world and a superpower.
And how Judah became a multitude of nations.
Yeah, there are so many Jewish nations today.
David became the leader of God's firstborn.
Firstborn and leader are synonyms.
The Father's actual firstborn is Israel.
Israel drank of the Rock.
That Rock was Christ.