• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Meat I found another one...

Mark C

Mark C

.
☠ RESTRICTED ☠
Real Person
Male
And this is the first verse in Scripture in a LONG time that I hadn't seen discussed, or even mentioned.

I was in fact teaching live, talking about "What is all this concern about the Firstborn?" and had noted that (from this week's parsha, Bo, Exodus 10 through 13:16, the last topic was "what to tell your son about 'redemption of the first born'," when you are asked.

Polygyny is a natural consequence of the fact that a man has ONE true 'first-born,' (who thus receives the 'double-portion' of his inheritance) but may have more than one wife, EACH of whom can have a child which is the first to 'open [her] womb.' The difference show up dramatically in the Book of Numbers, where simple math, dividing the given number of firstborn into 603,550 gives a number that makes multiple wives an obvious conclusion.

The answer to that question is in Exodus 13:15, and has to do directly with the plague of the "death of the firstborn," including Pharoah's:

‘And it came to pass, when Pharaoh was stubborn about letting us go, that YHVH killed all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both the firstborn of man and the firstborn of beast. Therefore I sacrifice to YHVH all males [including my animals] that open the womb, but all the firstborn of my sons I redeem.’

Note the plural, as in "my firstborn SONS."

Yes, the scoffers will rationalize, as always. And some English renderings will "PC-it-up," and say "children," to obfuscate the obvious. But the nagging Truth remains.

What is the most likely, and Scripture-consistent, way for a man to have more than one first-born son of his own?
 
Mark C said:
And this is the first verse in Scripture in a LONG time that I hadn't seen discussed, or even mentioned.

I was in fact teaching live, talking about "What is all this concern about the Firstborn?" and had noted that (from this week's parsha, Bo, Exodus 10 through 13:16, the last topic was "what to tell your son about 'redemption of the first born'," when you are asked.

Polygyny is a natural consequence of the fact that a man has ONE true 'first-born,' (who thus receives the 'double-portion' of his inheritance) but may have more than one wife, EACH of whom can have a child which is the first to 'open [her] womb.' The difference show up dramatically in the Book of Numbers, where simple math, dividing the given number of firstborn into 603,550 gives a number that makes multiple wives an obvious conclusion.

The answer to that question is in Exodus 13:15, and has to do directly with the plague of the "death of the firstborn," including Pharoah's:

‘And it came to pass, when Pharaoh was stubborn about letting us go, that YHVH killed all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both the firstborn of man and the firstborn of beast. Therefore I sacrifice to YHVH all males [including my animals] that open the womb, but all the firstborn of my sons I redeem.’

Note the plural, as in "my firstborn SONS."

Yes, the scoffers will rationalize, as always. And some English renderings will "PC-it-up," and say "children," to obfuscate the obvious. But the nagging Truth remains.

What is the most likely, and Scripture-consistent, way for a man to have more than one first-born son of his own?
Click to expand...
Yeah I believe Pastor Charles Dowell also brought this one up. I like to pair that with the judges who had 30, 40, 60, and of course Gideon, who had 71 sons/children. It adds even more weight to the argument!
 
Exodus 13

11And it shall be when Yahweh shall bring thee into the land of the Canaanites, as he sware unto thee and to thy fathers, and shall give it thee,

12 That thou shalt set apart unto Yahweh all that openeth the matrix, and every firstling that cometh of a beast which thou hast; the males shall be Yahweh's.

13 And every firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb; and if thou wilt not redeem it, then thou shalt break his neck: and all the firstborn of man among thy children shalt thou redeem.

14 And it shall be when thy son asketh thee in time to come, saying, What is this? that thou shalt say unto him, By strength of hand Yahweh brought us out from Egypt, from the house of bondage:

15 And it came to pass, when Pharaoh would hardly let us go, that the Lord slew all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both the firstborn of man, and the firstborn of beast: therefore I sacrifice to Yahweh all that openeth the matrix, being males; but all the firstborn of my children I redeem.

-------

If we take verse 13 alone then it sounds like all the firstborn sons of the tribes of Israel, but once you spot that tail end of verse 15 it makes it much more clear.

I could try to play the devil's advocate here - with a perspective I do not hold - and say "well, you can see that in the second stance of verse 15 we are talking about males but in the final stance we are discussing all firstborns, not only males." The point still stands. All the various firstborns of my children, meaning more than one.
 
OK , So i am all for the scripture, but my mind goes for the "WHY". It is always good to obey first then later get the reasons. So, Why do you thing Yahweh has determined thus?
 
The 'potential' whys was the subject of the midrash I did then, which is Verbotten to repost here, just because I did it.

But I think it's safe to say (and I did) that there is no shortage of Scriptural evidence that the 'firstborn' thing was a VERY big deal to Him.
 
The firstborn from every isha? Or...? My woman from the past had a firstborn but not from me, her second was my firstborn.
 
Maddog said:
The firstborn from every isha? Or...? My woman from the past had a firstborn but not from me, her second was my firstborn.
Click to expand...
The firstborn was always from the husband. Her firstborn from another man is really hia firstborn.
 
Heavens Declare said:
The firstborn was always from the husband. Her firstborn from another man is really his firstborn.
Click to expand...
The point of Numbers, and 603,550, is that thre are over 20X too MANY 'firsborn' - by any definition - to NOT make the mathematical case for polygyny among the twelve tribes at the time of the Exodus.
 
Mark C said:
The point of Numbers, and 603,550, is that thre are over 20X too MANY 'firsborn' - by any definition - to NOT make the mathematical case for polygyny among the twelve tribes at the time of the Exodus.
Click to expand...
Exactly! Actually it is 20X fewer, but I get the point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top