Patriarchs' Dysfunctional Families

Jim S · Little Guppy Joined: 21 Nov 2002 Posts: 30

PATRIARCHS’ DYSFUNCTIONAL FAMILIES

The Book of Genesis portrays all three Patriarchs, and the leading tribe of Israel, as having dysfunctional families. Why?

1. Abraham

Abraham exiles the woman (Hagar) who bore his first son, and his first son (Ishmael), to the desert with very inadequate provisions. Abraham has six sons by his second wife after Sarah’s death; all six of those sons are disinherited and sent to the east, out of the Promised Land. Abraham has sons by concubines; all such sons receive nothing. Of all his many sons, Abraham gives his entire inheritance, including sole claim to the Promised Land, to only one son, his second-born son, Isaac. How could Abraham treat all of his sons except Isaac so shabbily? Although Ishmael was, through no fault of his own, given a virtual death sentence by his father, Ishmael survives and even comes back at Abraham’s death to help bury the father who had spurned him.

Thus Abraham had a dysfunctional family. But not as bad as Isaac.

2. Isaac

Isaac, who is Patriarch #2, had twin sons Esau and Jacob. Isaac, after considering all factors, decides to anoint his older son Esau to be the next leader of the Hebrews. But Isaac’s wife Rebekah (the mother of the twins) and younger son Jacob conspire to swindle Esau out of Isaac’s intended blessing. Esau, outraged by this terrible trick, vows to kill his younger brother, in revenge. In order to save Jacob’s life, Isaac and Rebekah send Jacob out east to Uncle Laban (Rebekah’s brother) in Mesopotamia, far from the Promised Land, even though Isaac’s irrevocable blessing has been given only to Jacob, so that Jacob alone has sole rightful claim to the Promised Land. Esau eventually relents on his threat to kill his younger brother, but Jacob never fully reconciles with his older brother. Esau is not only swindled out of the leadership position of the Hebrews, Esau is not even within the Covenant. Esau rather is the founder of the Edomites, a non-Hebrew neighbor and rival of 7th century BCE Judah.

Thus Isaac had a dysfunctional family, with his older twin son threatening to kill his younger twin son when the younger twin son swindled his older brother out of the blessing that Isaac was trying to give to the older twin son. But Isaac’s family was not as bad as Jacob’s family.

3. Jacob

Jacob was tricked by Uncle Laban into marrying Uncle Laban’s older daughter Leah first, rather than beautiful younger daughter Rachel, who always was Jacob’s true love. Jacob got to take Rachel as his royal wife #2, but only by being required to work 7 more long years for Uncle Laban. Jacob never loved Leah, and Jacob’s disparate treatment of his various sons by his two royal wives and their handmaidens inevitably created a terrible family feud. Leah quickly produced 4 sons. Jealous and barren Rachel then gave Jacob her handmaiden, who produced 2 sons on Rachel’s behalf. Temporarily barren Leah then gave her own handmaiden to Jacob, who also produced 2 sons, this time on Leah’s behalf. Leah then bore 2 more sons (for a total of 6 sons by Leah herself). Finally, at long last, Rachel bore a son, Joseph, as Jacob’s son #11. Rachel later bore Jacob’s 12th and last son, Benjamin, but Rachel died in childbirth. Joseph, the son of Jacob’s favorite wife Rachel, was always Jacob’s favorite son, and Jacob showed this favoritism by giving only to Joseph a coat of many colors. Joseph reported to his older half-brothers that Joseph had had a dream in which all of his brothers, and even both of his parents, bowed down before Joseph. Joseph’s jealous older half-brothers then abducted Joseph and planned to kill him. Although oldest son Reuben thwarted the planned murder, #4 son Judah then coolly decided to sell Judah to slave traders, which is how Joseph ended up in Egypt, initially as a slave. Although Joseph eventually ended up heroically saving all of the Hebrews from starvation, and also settled the whole tribe on choice land in Egypt, Joseph never really forgave his half-brothers for their treachery. Joseph’s only true brotherly love was for his one and only full brother, Benjamin. Even after Joseph had saved all the Hebrews, Joseph’s older half-brothers still worried that Joseph might someday use his power as grand vizier of Egypt to kill his older half-brothers. Only Judah, who later was anointed by Jacob to be the leading tribe of Israel (Jacob had been re-named “Israel”), seemed willing to try for a real reconciliation of all 12 brothers, but that never occurred.

So Jacob had a very dysfunctional family, with his older sons ganging up on his youngest son Joseph, his only son at that point by his favored wife Rachel, to try to kill the younger son, and eventually selling Joseph into slavery in Egypt, and with the sons never fully reconciling. Yet the family of Judah, the leading tribe of Israel, was to prove to be the most dysfunctional family of them all.

4. Judah

Judah had three sons, and then Judah’s wife died. Judah’s oldest son Er was so evil that Yahweh killed Er. Er had married a foreigner, Tamar, but Yahweh killed Er before Tamar could bear Er a son. Judah’s #2 son Onan was supposed to impregnate Tamar on behalf of his deceased older brother Er, so that Er’s name would not be blotted out from Israel. But instead Onan merely sported with Tamar, and so Yahweh killed Onan as well. Judah should now have had his third and last son try to impregnate Tamar, so that Tamar could sire a son on Er’s behalf, but Judah did not do this. Tamar, desperate to have a son by a male relative of her deceased husband, impersonates a prostitute and thereby gets Judah to unknowingly impregnate her with twin boys. Judah orders Tamar to be burned alive, but then rescinds this order when Tamar proves that Judah was in fact the biological father of the twins in her womb.

So Judah had the most dysfunctional family of them all. His first two sons were so bad that Yahweh killed both of those two sons. And Judah’s refusal to allow his third son to impregnate Tamar eventually resulted in an incest situation where Judah became both the father and the grandfather of the twin boys born by Tamar, Zerah and Perez. Perez ends up being a paternal ancestor of King David, King Solomon and Jesus.

Conclusions

WHY are all the families of all the Patriarchs, including the leading tribe of Israel, so dysfunctional? Yes, I realize that the Patriarchs are portrayed as being humans and are not sinless, but why do all of them have such dysfunctional families? What moral or religious lesson does that aspect of Genesis teach us? Even by the lax standards of the 21st century, the families of the Patriarchs simply do not reflect anything close to solid “family values”.

Is this one more clue as to the identity of the man who originally told the stories that much later got written down as the Book of Genesis in the Bible? Was this man a product of a dysfunctional family, and did his own family become dysfunctional as well, yet he himself remained a committed monotheist through it all? Why else would Genesis depict all of the families of the Patriarchs, including the leading tribe of Israel, as being so dysfunctional?

Tiger75

Hey did you know that was post number 666!

Tiger75

Are you ever going to get round to telling everyone who you think wrote it?

Jim S · Little Guppy Joined: 21 Nov 2002 Posts: 30

Tiger75:

1. I don't know anything about my post being post #666.

2. You once referred me to 2 Timothy 3:16, which says: "3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."

Genesis portrays ALL of the Patriarchs as having had dysfunctional families. How can that particular scripture be "profitable...for instruction in righteousness"?

WHY does Genesis portray the Patriarchs' families in such an unflattering way? Don't you think the author of Genesis is trying to tell us something here?

And wouldn't you suspect that the person who originally told the stories of Abraham through Joseph and Judah came from a dysfuntional family himself, and ended up having a dysfunctional family of his own, yet persevered with his neverending commitment to monotheism?

3. It just seems to me that Genesis is stock full of fairly obvious clues as to the identity of the person who originally told the stories that eventually, many centuries later, got written down in the Hebrew Bible. Just look at all the big clues I've set forth already. The person is (1) pro-Egypt, (2) pro-incest where necessary, and probably cannot have a son by his royal wife #1 in the regular way, (3) never worries about apostasy, (4) is a younger son, of (5) his father's royal wife #1, who insists that the first three generations of a new monotheism likewise be a younger son of the old patriarch's royal wife #1, and who (6) owes his position to the determined efforts of his pushy mother, and (7) who comes from a dysfunctional family and who ends up having a dysfunctional family of his own; and yet that person remains totally committed to monotheism through it all. I mean, how many people in history (prior to the 10th century BCE) meet all SEVEN (7) of those requirements? You don't think the real world Hebrews shared many of those odd SEVEN (7) views, do you?

If those SEVEN (7) views are not coming from the real world ancient Hebrews, then where are those particular and peculiar SEVEN (7) views coming from?

4. If I am misinterpreting these stories from Genesis, please, please correct my misundertandings of Genesis. But if I am correctly reflecting what the Book of Genesis actually says, then in my own view, there is only one person in history who could have told those stories of Abraham through Joseph and Judah, because those stories reflect such a very odd, non-Hebrew-like worldview.

Tiger75

No, I'm still not with you sorry. If your aim is to undermine the bible with a sly assault on its first book then it's not working. You keep going on about the 'Hebrew Worldview' but this really wasn't framed until after Sinai Exodus 20.

Ryck · Lion King Joined: 05 Dec 2002 Posts: 1094

By Jim S:

quote:

Genesis portrays ALL of the Patriarchs as having had dysfunctional families. How can that particular scripture be "profitable...for instruction in righteousness"?

So what? Shows they were human but God used them and blessed them.

Regarding Abraham. He knew that out of his seed there will arise a great nation and that all the nation of the world would be blessed. Abraham thought in human terms and thought he had to raise the seed in the only way he knew how. Sarah was barren but he had Hagar. But God made it clear that it will be with Sarah. Abraham may be guilty of jumping to conclusions or not waiting on God. But the frictions that happened in the family was Hagar and Ishmael's doing.

Regaring Issac. Remember that it was Issac whom elderly Abraham took to sacrifice. His faith was as great as that of his father Abraham.

Regarding Jacob. Esau didn't have appreciation for spiritual matters. Esau sold his birthright for a bowl of stew. He just as easily sold the blessings his seed would have been as was promised to Abraham. I disagree that Issac never reconciled with his brother Esau. What happened when these to met some many years later? "But Esau ran to meet Jacob and embraced him; he threw his arms around his neck and kissed him. And they wept." (Gen 33:4 NIV) In fact, read that entire chapter. What is the true impression you get?

Anyway, I'm out of time and I can't comment further. But I wonder why and what it is you are trying to discredit the Bible and these men by focusing on a narrow point of events in their family life and history. There were and are greater lessions to be learned and appreciated.

We can certainly appreciate the candor of the Scriptures. They were not supermen but God used them in accomplishing His purpose even in spite of their human frailties, mistakes, and other circumstances.

[This message has been edited by Ryck (edited 12-06-2002).]

Jim S · Little Guppy Joined: 21 Nov 2002 Posts: 30

Ryck: 1. You wrote: “[T]he frictions that happened in the family was Hagar and Ishmael's doing.”

Sarah told Abraham to have a son by Sarah’s handmaiden Hagar, on Sarah’s behalf, since Sarah was barren. Abraham and Hagar did what they were told, and son Ishmael resulted. Sarah got jealous of the attention that Hagar and Ishmael were getting from Abraham, and with Yahweh’s approval, Sarah began treating Hagar badly. After Isaac was at long last born to Sarah, Sarah ordered Abraham to exile both Hagar and Ishmael to the desert. Abraham silently obeyed this terrible order from Sarah.

I don’t see how you can blame Hagar and Ishmael. They did nothing wrong.

And isn’t this odd and unpleasant story an odd way to found a new religion?

2. You questioned whether Jacob ever reconciled with his brother Esau. As your quote showed, Esau wanted to reconcile with Jacob; but once Jacob knew that Esau was no longer going to try to kill him, that’s as far as it went for Jacob. Jacob made no effort to truly reconcile with Esau. Jacob went his separate way.

3. You wrote: “But I wonder why and what it is you are trying to discredit the Bible and these men by focusing on a narrow point of events in their family life and history. There were and are greater lessions to be learned and appreciated.”

I am not trying to discredit the Bible. There are lessons to be learned from the stories of Abraham through Joseph and Judah, but they are odd lessons. Having a son by one’s royal wife #1 who is not your firstborn son is the be-all and end-all. Ishmael is exiled to the desert; Esau is left out of the Covenant; and Reuben gets a curse, rather than a blessing, from Jacob/”Israel”. That’s how the firstborn sons of the three Patriarchs fare. Isn’t that odd?

Did the historical Hebrews think that way? Do Jews or Christians today think that way? Where is this odd mindset in Genesis coming from?

Ryck · Lion King Joined: 05 Dec 2002 Posts: 1094

By Jim S:

quote:

Sarah told Abraham to have a son by Sarah’s handmaiden Hagar, on Sarah’s behalf, since Sarah was barren. Abraham and Hagar did what they were told, and son Ishmael resulted.

Agreed.

quote:

Sarah got jealous of the attention that Hagar and Ishmael were getting from Abraham, and with Yahweh’s approval, Sarah began treating Hagar badly.

No, it was Hagar that treated Sarah badly. Notice what really happened.

NLT Genesis 16:3 So Sarai, Abram's wife, took Hagar the Egyptian servant and gave her to Abram as a wife. (This happened ten years after Abram first arrived in the land of Canaan.)
4 So Abram slept with Hagar, and she became pregnant. When Hagar knew she was pregnant, she began to treat her mistress Sarai with contempt.

So I agree that Sarai (Sarah) gave Hagar to Abram to have offspring. But who initiated the irritation and jealousy? According to the record, it was Hagar.

quote:

After Isaac was at long last born to Sarah, Sarah ordered Abraham to exile both Hagar and Ishmael to the desert. Abraham silently obeyed this terrible order from Sarah.

Apparently old jealousies and years long feud won't die. Notice:

NLT Genesis 21:9 But Sarah saw Ishmael--the son of Abraham and her Egyptian servant Hagar--making fun of Isaac. 10 So she turned to Abraham and demanded, "Get rid of that servant and her son. He is not going to share the family inheritance with my son, Isaac. I won't have it!"

It was both Hagar and Ishmael were making fun of Isaac. Again, it was Hagar who started it. You'll read a few verses later that God agreed that Hagar and Ishmael were to be sent away.

quote:

I don’t see how you can blame Hagar and Ishmael. They did nothing wrong.

As I explained, I disagree with this.

quote:

And isn’t this odd and unpleasant story an odd way to found a new religion?

I appreciate the candor, history and background of what happened.

quote:

2. You questioned whether Jacob ever reconciled with his brother Esau. As your quote showed, Esau wanted to reconcile with Jacob; but once Jacob knew that Esau was no longer going to try to kill him, that’s as far as it went for Jacob. Jacob made no effort to truly reconcile with Esau. Jacob went his separate way.

I disagree.

Jacob was anxious to make peace with his brother Esau, whom he had not seen for many many years. To soften any lingering hatred his brother might still harbor, Jacob sent ahead of him costly gifts for Esau - hundreds of goats and sheep, and many camels, asses, and cattle. (Ge 32:3-21)

quote:

I am not trying to discredit the Bible. There are lessons to be learned from the stories of Abraham through Joseph and Judah, but they are odd lessons.

Ok.

I consider them historical and human interest lessons.

quote:

Having a son by one’s royal wife #1 who is not your firstborn son is the be-all and end-all. Ishmael is exiled to the desert; Esau is left out of the Covenant; and Reuben gets a curse, rather than a blessing, from Jacob/”Israel”.

No, it was foretold and, therefore, expected.

Ishmael was promised a blessing.

What happened with Reuben was his own doing. Or rather his undoing. He was in line for the firstborn blessing. What disqualified Reuben, which affected his future privileges, was the great disgrace he did toward his father. How? Reuben committed incestuous adultery with his father's concubine, Bilhah, the maidservant of Jacob's beloved wife Rachel.

As regards Jacob, he was entitled to the blessing. Before the birth of the twins, Jehovah had said to Rebekah: "the descendants of your older son will serve the descendants of your younger son" (Ge 25:23 NLT) Esau sold his birthright to Jacob for just a bowl of stew. (Ge 25:29-34)

[This message has been edited by Ryck (edited 12-06-2002).]

Jim S · Little Guppy Joined: 21 Nov 2002 Posts: 30

Ryck:

Thanks so much for the details you presented about the Abraham-Sarah-Hagar situation. I see that I greatly over-simplified the situation, which I should not have done. But look at Genesis 16: 6 -9:

"16:6 But Abram said unto Sarai, Behold, thy maid [is] in thy hand; do to her as it pleaseth thee. And when Sarai dealt hardly with her, she fled from her face.

16:7 And the angel of the LORD found her by a fountain of water in the wilderness, by the fountain in the way to Shur.

16:8 And he said, Hagar, Sarai's maid, whence camest thou? and whither wilt thou go? And she said, I flee from the face of my mistress Sarai.

16:9 And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Return to thy mistress, and submit thyself under her hands."

The Bible says that Sarah dealt harshly with Hagar. Yahweh then tells Hagar to go back and submit to Sarah's harsh treatment.

Yes, I agree that Hagar and Ishmael were not perfect, as you are so right to point out. Hagar "put on airs" when she got pregnant while Sarah could not get pregnant, and Ishmael laughed at Isaac. But surely Sarah acted worse than either Hagar or Ishmael, wouldn't you agree? Hagar and Ishmael get exiled into the desert, virtually a death sentence, even though all they had done was to incur Sarah's displeasure.

My own view is that the person who originally told these stories in Genesis was a younger son who was extremely jealous of his favored older brother. In my own controversial opinion, THAT is why first-born sons come out so badly in Genesis.

But thanks again for correcting my oversimplified reading of the Abraham-Sarah-Hagar situation. I never want to give a misleading picture of what the Bible actually says, because it is what the Bible ACTUALLY says that intrigues me.

Jim S · Little Guppy Joined: 21 Nov 2002 Posts: 30

Ryck:

Now let me respond to the other 3 points that you made (all of which were good points, by the way).

1. You wrote: "Jacob was anxious to make peace with his brother Esau...."

That's true. But what happened AFTER peace had been made? Jacob never fully reconciled with his brother. And it could not have been any other way, Ryck. Esau is left out of the Covenant, even though Esau is a descendant of Abraham through Abraham's main wife and Isaac's main wife.

2. You wrote: "What disqualified Reuben [was that he] committed incestuous adultery with his father's concubine Bilhah, the maidservant of Jacob's beloved wife Rachel."

That comment raises two fascinating issues.

(a) Judah committed incest with his daughter-in-law Tamar, yet Judah ends up being named the LEADING tribe of Israel, as heroic Joseph surprisingly is passed over by Jacob for that position, even though Joseph had always been Jacob's favorite son. So mere incest, standing alone, is not enough to disqualify a man in Genesis.

(b) Rather, what Reuben did was to CLAIM, on his own, the RIGHT to be the leading tribe of Israel, rather than waiting for Jacob to select who would be named the leading tribe of Israel. Note that you have virtually the identical situation when Solomon gets selected by King David to be the next king of Israel. The older son of King David whom everyone thought would be the next king started acting as if he already were the next king. King David then plucked Solomon from relative obscurity (spurred on by Solomon's pushy mother, Bathsheba, whom the Bible does not criticize) and made young son Solomon the next king.

Whoever wrote Genesis and the King Solomon story wanted to emphasize that the next king did not automatically come about by mere birthright. In fact, in Genesis (beginning with Abraham's sons), and with both King David and King Solomon, it is always a YOUNGER son who ends up coming out on top. Why?

The leading tribe of Israel, and later the King of Israel, were SELECTED by the prior leader, rather than inheriting such positions as a matter of right. In this connection, it is interesting to note that 18th dynasty Egypt was the leading power in the world in early Biblical times. In 18th dynasty Egypt, which was the most successful dynasty (along with the 4th dynasty) in Egypt's 3,000 year history, the oldest son of the old pharaoh NEVER ended up inheriting the throne. Rather, the new pharaoh was always SELECTED. Usually the old pharaoh did the selecting, although sometimes the selecting was done by palace insiders or by the new pharaoh himself.

The author of Genesis and the Solomon story wants to emphasize that the next leader of the Hebrews should not necessarily be the prior leader's oldest son. So when the oldest son CLAIMS the throne by right during the older leader's life (which is what Reuben did), that becomes an unforgivable sin in the Bible.

3. You wrote: "As to Jacob, he was entitled to the blessing."

Yes, the author of Genesis definitely believes that the younger son Jacob was the rightful one to become Israel, as opposed to his older twin brother Esau. Throughout Genesis, Yahweh is portrayed as blessing a younger son each and every time (beginning with Isaac) there is a new leader of Israel picked. WHY? Why this peculiar mindset of Genesis? The historical Hebrews did not operate that way, did they? Where are these peculiar stories coming from in Genesis? The worldview of Genesis seems to me to be quite clear, but it is an odd worldview.

Ryck · Lion King Joined: 05 Dec 2002 Posts: 1094

By Jim S:

quote:

Now let me respond to the other 3 points that you made (all of which were good points, by the way).

Yours too. Very thought provoking.

quote:

That's true. But what happened AFTER peace had been made? Jacob never fully reconciled with his brother. And it could not have been any other way, Ryck. Esau is left out of the Covenant, even though Esau is a descendant of Abraham through Abraham's main wife and Isaac's main wife.

I think they made their peace.

Although out of the covenant Esau did do well. Sometime during Jacob's 20-year stay in Haran, Esau (his other name being Edom) had begun to establish himself in the land of Seir, in "Edom." (Ge 32:3) Thus, even before the death of his father (Ge 35:29), Esau was apparently beginning to fulfill Isaac's prophetic blessing, directing his attention away from the fertile soils around Hebron and, doubtless, beginning to 'live by his sword,' along with the 400 men under his command. (Ge 27:39, 40; 32:6, 8) So Esau was rather aggresive and warlike.

I'm sure the two brothers made their peace but it was possible that Jacob prefered not to be too close.

quote:

(a) Judah committed incest with his daughter-in-law Tamar, yet Judah ends up being named the LEADING tribe of Israel, as heroic Joseph surprisingly is passed over by Jacob for that position, even though Joseph had always been Jacob's favorite son. So mere incest, standing alone, is not enough to disqualify a man in Genesis.

Both genetically and legally, it wasn't incest.

Are you familiar with Leverite marriage? The Torah commands that when a man dies without children, his brother or nearest in-law male should marry his widow and raise up children to her in the decesed man's name.

Tamar married Judah's first two sons but they died for verious reasons leaving her a childless widow. Judah procrastinated in giving her his third son. So Tamar concealed her identity and disguised herself as a prostitute in order to get Judah himself to have relations with her. She then became pregnant but it was a surprise to everyone. It was a great reproach. What saved her life was her revelation that the child was Judah's and her clear thinking where she provided for her own evidence and defense in advance of her tricking Judah in sexual intercourse with her.

On learning that through her maneuvering to get an heir Judah had become the father, Judah withdraw his charges and even said that she was , "She is more righteous than I" because it was her right.

quote:

(b) Rather, what Reuben did was to CLAIM, on his own, the RIGHT to be the leading tribe of Israel, rather than waiting for Jacob to select who would be named the leading tribe of Israel.

The record says:

NIV Ge 49:3 "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.

Jacob recalled a disqualification for Reuben that affected his future privileges. Reuben had disgraced his father.

Reuben was not disowned and cast out for this immediately. It was years later, when he blessed his sons, that Jacob said to Reuben: "you will no longer excel." Thus Reuben was stripped of privileges that would otherwise have been his as a firstborn son.

He proved himself either unstable like "waters" or "turbulent" and headlong like waters bursting a dam or raging down a torrent valley. Reuben should have exercised self-control. He should have shown a son's respect for his father's dignity. He didn't. Therefore, he paid a heavy price in the final accounting.

quote:

Note that you have virtually the identical situation when Solomon gets selected by King David to be the next king of Israel. The older son of King David whom everyone thought would be the next king started acting as if he already were the next king. King David then plucked Solomon from relative obscurity (spurred on by Solomon's pushy mother, Bathsheba, whom the Bible does not criticize) and made young son Solomon the next king.

Good point. But it appears God went along with it as Solomon got blessings from God to rule His people well. And even what Solomon didn't ask of God he recieved so that Isreal experienced its Golden Age during the reign of Solomon.

Jim S · Little Guppy Joined: 21 Nov 2002 Posts: 30

Ryck:

I think that you and I are basically in agreement about the facts of the stories in Genesis (though naturally each of us stresses somewhat different aspects of the stories) and the story of Solomon. But your "winning" line always basically comes down to the following:

"But it appears God went along with it...."

As far as that goes, I agree with you. But my question is WHY?

1. Yes, I agree that Yahweh blessed the decision of Sarah and Abraham to exile Ishmael to the desert, but why would Yahweh bless such an awful action like that?

2. Yes, I agree that Yahweh blessed Rebekah's bamboozling of her husband Issac into naming Jacob, rather than Isaac's favored son Esau, as the new leader of the Hebrews. But why bless such audacious trickery?

3. Yes, I agree that Yahweh approved of Jacob's choice of Judah to be the new leading tribe of Israel, but why wouldn't both Jacob and Yahweh have preferred heroic Joseph to become the leading tribe of Israel?

4. Yes, I agree that Yahweh blessed Tamar's audacious maneuverings to get herself pregnant by a male relative of her deceased, childless husband, but why would the Bible have both a paternal ancestor, Perez, and a maternal ancestor, Ruth [a Moabite, and hence descended from Lot's relations with his daughters], of King David, King Solomon and Jesus, be products of incest or near-incest?

5. Yes, I agree that Yahweh blessed Jacob's grabbing of his older twin brother's heel as they came out of the womb, and blessed Perez's incredible feat of getting born before his "older" twin brother was born (since Zerah had stuck his hand out first and gotten a red string wrapped around it). But why are these two bizarre stories of twins told, and why does Yahweh bless these audacious acts of YOUNGER twin brothers?

It's the WHY question that fascinates me, Ryck. The historical Hebrews and the Jews have never, in real life, greatly disfavored the firstborn son. Why does Genesis do so?

Why is David the youngest son in his family, and why is Solomon a younger son who is plucked, at the 11th hour, from relative obscurity, thanks to the non-criticized actions of his pushy mother, to be the most glorious King of Israel?

I agree that Yahweh blessed ALL of these odd actions. But why? Who told these stories in the first place, and for what purpose?

Why are ALL of the families of the Patriarchs and the leading tribe of Israel dysfunctional? Why is Isaac as an adult so unprepossessing? Why is Egypt portrayed consistently in Genesis as being a virtual Garden of Eden? Why is the Promised Land portrayed as a place that frequently suffers severe famine? Why are pushy mothers who break every rule in the book to promote their own favored son always viewed so positively, and are never criticized, in Genesis? Why does every Hebrew leader chosen in Genesis beginning with Isaac have to be the son of his father's royal wife #1 AND be a younger son of his father?

In my own controversial opinion, I don't think that ANY of those items are an accident. I myself view the above items as clearly showing a particular point of view of the person who originally told the stories that centuries later got written down as the Book of Genesis.

So Yes, I agree that Yahweh blesses all the situations you have described. But WHY?

Tiger75

Hi Jim

Concerning firstborn sons ... and their seeming 'rejection' by God.

I think this is all 'type' concerning the 'rejection' of the Jews and the establishing of the true 'Kingdom' God's Church.

i.e. John 1

"11 He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name:"

and Rom 1

"16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. 17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, "The just shall live by faith."

Jim S · Little Guppy Joined: 21 Nov 2002 Posts: 30

Tiger 75:

You raise an interesting issue. Might I then raise a somewhat related issue? Is it possible that Jesus himself was a younger son? If so, might not the famous Prodigal Son story be autobiographical?

Bruce Chilton, Professor of Religion at Bard College, has written an excellent, scholarly article “James, Jesus’ Brother”, which can be found at: http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/ChiltonJames.htm

That article concludes that James was an older half-brother of Jesus, being Joseph’s first-born son from his prior marriage.

It seems likely that Joseph raised all of his sons to be conversant with the Hebrew scriptures, since both James and Jesus were quite learned in at least that one respect. Joseph was an observant Jew, and James was and remained an observant Jew his entire life. After Jesus’ death, James never left the Temple in Jerusalem, always trying to win over control of the Temple from the hated Pharisees. It seems quite likely that from Joseph’s point of view, James, the first-born, was a model son, who never did anything wild or crazy, and who always honored the established reigious ways that Joseph cherished so greatly. But what about Jesus? We hear nothing whatsoever about him from age 12 to age 30. What was Jesus doing in his teenage and post-teenage years, the precise years when so many young men tend to be at their wildest? Can’t we read between the lines when Jesus tells us the story of the Prodigal Son?

Luke 15: 11-32
“11 And he said, A certain man had two sons:
12 And the younger of them said to his father, Father, give me the portion of goods that falleth to me. And he divided unto them his living.
13 And not many days after the younger son gathered all together, and took his journey into a far country, and there wasted his substance with riotous living.
14 And when he had spent all, there arose a mighty famine in that land; and he began to be in want.
15 And he went and joined himself to a citizen of that country; and he sent him into his fields to feed swine.
16 And he would fain have filled his belly with the husks that the swine did eat: and no man gave unto him.
17 And when he came to himself, he said, How many hired servants of my father’s have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger!
18 I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee,
19 And am no more worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy hired servants.
20 And he arose, and came to his father. But when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him.
21 And the son said unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight, and am no more worthy to be called thy son.
22 But the father said to his servants, Bring forth the best robe, and put it on him; and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet:
23 And bring hither the fatted calf, and kill it; and let us eat, and be merry:
24 For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry.
25 Now his elder son was in the field: and as he came and drew nigh to the house, he heard musick and dancing.
26 And he called one of the servants, and asked what these things meant.
27 And he said unto him, Thy brother is come; and thy father hath killed the fatted calf, because he hath received him safe and sound.
28 And he was angry, and would not go in: therefore came his father out, and intreated him.
29 And he answering said to his father, Lo, these many years do I serve thee, neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment: and yet thou never gavest me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends:
30 But as soon as this thy son was come, which hath devoured thy living with harlots, thou hast killed for him the fatted calf.
31 And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine.
32 It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.”

Note the sharp contrast between Jesus’ gentle, but nevertheless firm, rebuke of the oldest son, compared with the totally unsubtle non-stop attacks on first-borns in Genesis.

Aren’t the Old and New Testaments here simply showing us two different approaches to the problem of the younger brother? Genesis applies the sledgehammer treatment to the vilified first-born. Jesus, by sharp contrast, applies a beautiful, subtle, forgiving approach, while nevertheless leaving no doubt that younger sons should rule. And Paul then identifies the disfavored first-borns with the Jews who failed to live up to Yahweh’s commands or to accept Jesus, and the Gentiles as being the younger sons who, in the long run, turn out to be Yahweh’s rightful favorites.

It seems to me that much of the Bible is redolent with the views of younger sons.