-
†. Gen 48:5-6 . . Now, your two sons, who were born to you in the
land of Egypt before I came to you in Egypt, shall be mine; Ephraim
and Manasseh shall be mine no less than Reuben and Simeon.
Progeny born to you after them shall be yours; but they shall be
recorded under the names of their brothers in their inheritance.
Jacob adopted his own two grandsons Manasseh and Ephraim; thus instating
them positionally equal to his twelve original sons, which had the effect of
adding additional children to Rachel's brood just as effectively as the
children born of her maid Bilhah-- Dan, and Naphtali.
Jacob's motive for adopting Joseph's boys was in sympathy for his deceased
wife being cut off during her child bearing years, which subsequently
prevented her from having any more children of her own.
†. Gen 48:7 . . As I was returning from Paddan, to my sorrow Rachel
died in the land of Canaan while we were still on the way, a little
distance from Ephrath. So I buried her there beside the road to
Ephrath (that is, Bethlehem).
Ephraim and Manasseh bring Rachel's total up to six: two of her own, two by
her maid Bilhah, and two by Joseph's wife Asenath.
This obscure bit of patriarchal prerogative has managed to evade the notice
of modern Jewry as evidenced by their stubborn rejection of Christ as a valid
candidate for David's throne on the basis that the boy didn't descend from
Solomon biologically. By demanding a strictly biological connection to
Solomon, they have effectively locked themselves into perpetual error; and
have impudently, and shamefully, taken it upon themselves to overrule
Jacob's precedent.
Now, fast-forward to the New Testament where the angel of the Lord spoke
to Joseph in a dream and ordered him to take part in naming Mary's child.
"She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus" (Matt
1:21)
Joseph obeyed.
"And he gave him the name Jesus." (Matt 1:25)
A child's name in those days wasn't chipped into stone until its father
agreed. For example; John the Baptist's dad Zacharias was ordered to give
his impending child the name of John.
"The angel said to him: your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you shall
call his name John." (Luke 1:13-14)
And later on, "John" wasn't accepted until Zacharias gave his consent.
"So it was, on the eighth day, that they came to circumcise the child; and
they would have called him by the name of his father, Zacharias. His mother
answered and said: No; he shall be called John. But they said to her: There
is no one among your relatives who is called by this name. So they made
signs to his father-- what he would have him called. And he asked for a
writing tablet, and wrote, saying: His name is John." (Luke 1:59-63)
Thus, by participating in the naming of Mary's baby, Joseph as much as
declared himself to be its father.
"Isn't this Joseph's son? they asked." (Luke 4:22)
By law; he sure was. In point of fact, according to Luke 2:21 and Luke
2:27, Mary and Joseph stood together as parents when her baby was given
the name Jesus. Luke identified them as Jesus' parents again at Luke 2:41.
But you see; it was necessary that God instruct Joseph to follow Jacob's
precedent in order to place Mary's baby in line for Solomon's throne because
David's crown never passes down through Solomon's female descendants;
no, only his males.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
†. Gen 48:5-6 . . Now, your two sons, who were born to you in the
land of Egypt before I came to you in Egypt, shall be mine; Ephraim
and Manasseh shall be mine no less than Reuben and Simeon.
Progeny born to you after them shall be yours; but they shall be
recorded under the names of their brothers in their inheritance.
Jacob adopted his own two grandsons Manasseh and Ephraim; thus instating
them positionally equal to his twelve original sons, which had the effect of
adding additional children to Rachel's brood just as effectively as the
children born of her maid Bilhah-- Dan, and Naphtali.
Jacob's motive for adopting Joseph's boys was in sympathy for his deceased
wife being cut off during her child bearing years, which subsequently
prevented her from having any more children of her own.
†. Gen 48:7 . . As I was returning from Paddan, to my sorrow Rachel
died in the land of Canaan while we were still on the way, a little
distance from Ephrath. So I buried her there beside the road to
Ephrath (that is, Bethlehem).
Ephraim and Manasseh bring Rachel's total up to six: two of her own, two by
her maid Bilhah, and two by Joseph's wife Asenath.
This obscure bit of patriarchal prerogative has managed to evade the notice
of modern Jewry as evidenced by their stubborn rejection of Christ as a valid
candidate for David's throne on the basis that the boy didn't descend from
Solomon biologically. By demanding a strictly biological connection to
Solomon, they have effectively locked themselves into perpetual error; and
have impudently, and shamefully, taken it upon themselves to overrule
Jacob's precedent.
Now, fast-forward to the New Testament where the angel of the Lord spoke
to Joseph in a dream and ordered him to take part in naming Mary's child.
"She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus" (Matt
1:21)
Joseph obeyed.
"And he gave him the name Jesus." (Matt 1:25)
A child's name in those days wasn't chipped into stone until its father
agreed. For example; John the Baptist's dad Zacharias was ordered to give
his impending child the name of John.
"The angel said to him: your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you shall
call his name John." (Luke 1:13-14)
And later on, "John" wasn't accepted until Zacharias gave his consent.
"So it was, on the eighth day, that they came to circumcise the child; and
they would have called him by the name of his father, Zacharias. His mother
answered and said: No; he shall be called John. But they said to her: There
is no one among your relatives who is called by this name. So they made
signs to his father-- what he would have him called. And he asked for a
writing tablet, and wrote, saying: His name is John." (Luke 1:59-63)
Thus, by participating in the naming of Mary's baby, Joseph as much as
declared himself to be its father.
"Isn't this Joseph's son? they asked." (Luke 4:22)
By law; he sure was. In point of fact, according to Luke 2:21 and Luke
2:27, Mary and Joseph stood together as parents when her baby was given
the name Jesus. Luke identified them as Jesus' parents again at Luke 2:41.
But you see; it was necessary that God instruct Joseph to follow Jacob's
precedent in order to place Mary's baby in line for Solomon's throne because
David's crown never passes down through Solomon's female descendants;
no, only his males.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=