Patriarch Succession

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

PATRIARCH SUCCESSION

The Book of Genesis gives us three instances of the transmission of leadership from one patriarch to the next patriarch. Patriarch #1 Abraham passes on the Covenant and leadership exclusively to Isaac. Patriarch #2 Isaac passes on the Covenant and leadership exclusively to Jacob (later re-named “Israel”). Patriarch #3 passes on leadership to Judah, who becomes the leading tribe of Israel. But all 12 of Jacob’s sons are within the Covenant, and all of the descendants of Jacob’s 12 sons can be within the Covenant (which is very different from the first two transmissions of power, from Abraham and Isaac).

Are these three transmissions of leadership surprising in their choices of who the new leader will be? Is there a simple formula that would accurately predict who would be chosen to be the next leader?

A. All Three Choices of New Leaders Are Surprising

In my view, all three choices of who would be the new leader of the monotheists are surprising.

1. Abraham Selects Isaac

Abraham’s firstborn son is Ishmael, not Isaac. In the event, Ishmael grows up to be much more resourceful than Isaac. Isaac is not portrayed in a very favorable light in Genesis; Isaac’s wife Rebekah is the active party in their marriage. And Abraham has six more fine sons by his second wife after Sarah dies. Why is it that both leadership and the Covenant descend exclusively to Isaac? Abraham sends the mother (Hagar) of his firstborn son, and his firstborn son Ishmael, out into the desert with very inadequate provisions, at Sarah’s behest, even though neither Hagar nor Ishmael had ever done anything wrong.

2. Isaac Selects Jacob

Although Isaac’s twin sons Esau (the older son) and Jacob are very different, they seem to have relatively equal merits. Isaac considers all the relevant factors and decides to anoint his older son, Esau, as the next leader of the clan. Esau is an outdoorsman, who is great at hunting. He does not spend his time ruminating. Isaac was somewhat unhappy that Esau chose to marry two Hittite women, but Isaac took that into consideration in making his choice. Jacob never went out on the hunts. He was an inside guy, spending a great amount of time with his mother, who strongly favored him. Jacob was smart and crafty. The only main story in the Bible about Isaac as an adult is that when Isaac tried to give his irrevocable blessing to Esau, Isaac’s wife Rebekah tricked Isaac into inadvertently giving the irrevocable blessing to Jacob. Thus Jacob was anointed as the new leader of the monotheists, and Esau was left outside of the Covenant, even though Isaac was trying to name Esau as the new leader.

3. Jacob Selects Judah

Most of the last one-third of Genesis concerns the heroic exploits of Jacob’s son Joseph who, after being sold into slavery in Egypt at the suggestion of his older half-brother Judah (after firstborn son Reuben gallantly saved Joseph from being murdered by his older half-brothers), rises to become vizier of northern Egypt, and in that capacity eventually saves all the Hebrews from starvation, and settles all the Hebrews on choice land in Goshen in northeast Egypt. Yet truly heroic Joseph is not selected by Jacob to be the next leader, even though (a) Joseph had always been Jacob’s favorite son, and (b) Joseph was one of only two sons by Jacob’s favorite wife, the beautiful Rachel. Jacob also bypasses his firstborn son Reuben, even though Reuben had saved Joseph’s life. I believe it is fair to say that for more than 2,000 years, people have been wondering why Jacob decided to anoint Judah, rather than Joseph, as the leading tribe of Israel. Of course it is Judah who gives his name to Judaism, and the holy city of Jerusalem is located in Judah, that is, the original territory of son Judah when the Promised land was divided among the 12 sons of Jacob (the 12 tribes of Israel). Judah had never done anything heroic. Judah did rescind his order to have his daughter-in-law Tamar burned alive, and Judah did seem to be the only son who really tried (albeit unsuccessfully) to have a full reconciliation of all 12 brothers. But the choice of Judah over heroic Joseph to be the leading tribe of Israel remains a major surprise.

B. A Formula to Explain the Leadership Choices

IF the stories in Genesis from Abraham through Joseph and Judah were originally told by a man who believed that the first three successor generations of leaders of new monotheists should each be a (a) younger son, by (b) royal wife #1 of the old patriarch, then all three of the above leadership succession choices above are easily explained.

1. Abraham Must Choose Isaac

Ishmael fails on both counts of my proposed formula. Ishmael is not a younger son, and he is not the son of Abraham’s royal wife #1. Indeed, Abraham only has one son, Isaac, by his royal wife #1 Sarah, so none of his other 7 sons (or his additional sons by his concubines) are in the running.

2. Isaac Must Choose Jacob

Isaac’s only two noteworthy sons are Esau and Jacob. Both are sons of Isaac’s royal wife #1. But Esau is the firstborn son of Isaac, so Jacob must be selected as the next leader, since only Jacob is a younger son.

3. Jacob Must Choose Judah

Jacob’s royal wife #1 is Leah, the older sister of Rachel, whom Uncle Laban tricked Jacob into marrying first, before Jacob was allowed to marry his true love, Rachel. Leah was never loved by Jacob, even though she bore him 6 sons. But unloved or not, Leah was nevertheless Jacob’s royal wife #1. So near the end of his life, when it came time to choosing the leading tribe of Israel, Jacob decided he could not pick his favorite son, the heroic Joseph, because Joseph was the son of Jacob’s royal wife #2, Rachel. Even though Rachel was Jacob’s favorite wife, no son of hers could become the leading tribe of Israel. Reuben is Jacob’s firstborn son, so he cannot be the new leader. Reuben’s attempt to unilaterally assert his leadership by taking one of Jacob’s concubines as his own is condemned in Genesis. Sons #2 and #3 are Simeon and Levi, but they are disqualified because they made a terrible misuse of the sacrament of circumcision in the murders they committed in the unfortunate affair concerning the semi-rape of their sister Dinah. That leaves it to Judah, son #4 by royal wife #1 Leah, to be selected as the leading tribe of Israel, almost by default. Leah did have two more sons, but they did not distinguish themselves in any way.

C. Conclusion

In my view, the man who originally told the stories of Abraham through Joseph and Judah that later got written down in the Book of Genesis believed that the first three successor generations of leaders of new monotheists should each be a younger son by the old patriarch’s royal wife #1. That man himself probably owed his own leadership position to the fact that he was a son of his father’s royal wife #1, and he probably was not his father’s firstborn son.

That is the only way that I can make sense out of the surprising leadership choices made by the Patriarchs in Genesis.

Van · Posted: Tue Nov 26, 2002 7:59 am Post subject: Patriarch Succession

Your assertion is now becoming quite clear. The bible is unreliable, it is a collection of stories told by men motivated and desiring self justification. As I said before, the assertion, in my view, is without merit.

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

Van:

On your view, what is the purpose of the stories in Genesis that set forth which men were chosen as the next three generations of Hebrew leaders after Abraham? Is this mere history, having no moral or religious lessons for us? I don't think so. The Book of Genesis is trying to tell us something important here.

Genesis tells us a great deal about many of the sons of the three Patriarchs. Genesis then tells us which son was selected to be the next leader of the Hebrews. Interestingly, Genesis does not, at least in so many words, tell us exactly WHY Isaac, then Jacob, and finally Judah were selected to be the next generation of leaders. But Genesis gives us so many pertinent facts, that it seems to me that perhaps we can, and should try to, figure out the mindset here of what lies behind these particular selections of these particular sons to be the new leaders of the Hebrews.

I myself do not think that these stories in Genesis were made up in 7th century BCE Jerusalem by the Hebrew scribes who first transcribed the Bible through II Kings. I believe that these Hebrew scribes were working from much, much older Hebrew traditions in writing down the Book of Genesis. But what is the ultimate origin of these very old Hebrew traditions concerning the stories of Abraham through Joseph and Judah? Moses was not alive when these events are said to have taken place. Where did these riveting stories come from?

It seems to me that Genesis itself gives us so many tantalizing clues. As you and I discussed yesterday, the mindset of Genesis seems quite different from the mindset of Deuteronomy on many issues (other than an eternal commitment to monotheism) -- inheritance rights, incest, etc. Why? What is the source of the older, different tradition of Genesis? That is the question I am raising here.

Zathrus · Posted: Tue Nov 26, 2002 11:22 am Post subject: Patriarch Succession

quote:
Originally posted by Jim S:
PATRIARCH SUCCESSION

B. A Formula to Explain the Leadership Choices

IF the stories in Genesis from Abraham through Joseph and Judah were originally told by a man who believed that the first three successor generations of leaders of new monotheists should each be a (a) younger son, by (b) royal wife #1 of the old patriarch, then all three of the above leadership succession choices above are easily explained.

Jim S, some excellent scholarship! I think all three cases illustrate the incredible harmony of scripture, and the continuity of God's plan.

Paul discusses Sarah and Hagar in Galatians 4 and points out how Hagar represented natural Israel under the old covenant. She was the first that Abraham, who represents God, had a son with, but he was not the son of promise. It was Sarah, or the new covenant, that was to bring the fulfillment of the promise.

Likewise, Esau and Jacob represent natural Israel and the church. Esau came first, as did old testament Israel, but God's blessing was given to those with faith in Christ, which Jacob represents.

And again, Leah, representing the old covenant, came first, but it was Rachael, representing the new covenant, that Jacob, representing God, loved. And while the sons of Jacob's first wife were treacherous conspirators, the son born of Rachael ended up saving them all.

All three examples are marvelous proofs of one Divine mind working behind all the events recorded in the old testament to fulfill His plan to redeem mankind. I can't come to any other conclusion but that the words of scripture are Divinely inspired!

The writer, be it Moses or whoever, could not possibly have understood the deeper meaning of what he was writing, or known how clearly he was communicating the redemptive plan of God! Amazing!!

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

Zathrus:

1. You make an interesting argument that the preference for a younger son in Genesis reflects the fact that the oldest son represents the old covenant and the Old Testament, whereas the younger son represents the new covenant and the New Testament. It is certainly true that Genesis favors younger sons over the oldest son, and I don't believe there has ever been a general agreement reached as to the reason for that.

2. But I'm having a little trouble with the following statement that you make:

"And again, Leah, representing the old covenant, came first, but it was Rachael, representing the new covenant, that Jacob, representing God, loved. And while the sons of Jacob's first wife were treacherous conspirators, the son born of Rachael ended up saving them all."

Judah was a younger son of Leah. Judah was treacherous in that he participated in the plot by Joseph's older half-brothers to kill Joseph, and it was Judah who (after Reuben had saved Joseph's life) came up with the idea of selling Joseph to slave traders. But Zathrus, it was Judah who was later named as the leading tribe of Israel! Joseph was passed over by Jacob as to being named the leading tribe of Israel, even though Joseph was Jacob's favorite son by Joseph's favorite wife, and Joseph was the only heroic character among Jacob's 12 sons, Joseph being the one as you say who saved all the Hebrews from starvation. What's going on here?

WHY does Genesis seem to insist that each one of the leaders of the first three generations of monotheists after Patriarch #1 come from royal wife #1 of the preceding Patriarch, while simultaneously insisting that the new leader be a younger son?