Comments (2)
Thank you for posting your question. We greatly appreciate when listeners interact with us as it help further the conversation and helps us all dig into scripture. I shared your questions with co-host Dave Bast and the following is his response:
It's an interesting set of questions, arising from a very close and careful reading of the Bible.
I think that most of the puzzling aspects about the discrepancies in the way the tribes are listed in various parts of scripture are cleared up by recognizing the significance of Jacob's blessing of Ephraim and Manasseh in Genesis 48. As a mark of the special love he always had for Joseph, Jacob takes his two eldest sons as his own. This is an adoption ceremony, as the verse you quoted (Gen. 48:5) makes clear. So Ephraim and Manasseh become Joseph, in effect, and their names can be used interchangeably. Thus when Jacob blesses "Joseph" in Genesis 50, the blessing in actual historical terms would be for Ephraim and Manasseh.
Over time most of the twelve tribes faded away or were absorbed by larger, more dominant tribes. By the 8th century B.C. Ephraim, and to a lesser extent Manasseh, dominated the northern kingdom while Judah dominated the southern. Eventually, of course, only Judah was left in a historical sense (plus Levi, the special priestly tribe).
The twelve tribes of Israel, though mostly lost to history, became important as symbols of the people of God. Jesus picked up on this symbolism when he chose twelve disciples. In Rev. 7 the "census" of the twelve tribes is listed as a symbolic tally of the total people of God. Neither the number (144,000) nor the twelve names are meant to be taken literally. If you want to know what God's people actually look like, what their literal name and number are, you have to read the next section of Rev. 7, where John says he saw "a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages" (v.9).
I hope you find this response informative and helpful in your study of scripture.
I have been very interested in the recent series of episodes. However I would like to offer a general comment on how we all view scripture.
I seems to me that we all try to make sense of things in such a way that we find comfortable, where at times things should make us uncomfortable. We are challenged to sit up and take notice.
We try to view Gods word through our habits of thinking, prejudices, ideas that we have heard and accepted without proper thought and the baggage that we take through life with us. It seems to me that this can lead us into some form of error. Without exception we are all in some sort of error. It is when an error becomes generally received that we are in danger. Please note that I am not accusing you of this but it is something we should be aware of.
I was trained as a civil engineer and have an engineers' thought processes. We are trained to understand that we can never know all that is necessary to make a foolproof decision. We can strive for the best possible information and then make due allowance by way of safety factors to protect against disaster. It is necessary to use text books and published standards knowing that these are current and will be revised in the future. All information is subject to revision.
Then we come to a book that claims to be without error, that is not subject to change and that is all that we need to know about certain subjects. This is a difficult thought change. We are called to decide whether we will accept it or not. No good evidence is offered beforehand. It is when we believe that we are given the sight to start to see 'evidence'. But we still have the old baggage to a large extent. To try to make sense of things we filter through what we know, or think we know.
To take todays episode the circumstances of the Lords birth were considered. The historical insight was valuable but must not form the basis for belief. Look about and see paintings of Jesus and the last supper, the shroud of Turin even fragments of 'the true cross'. The opportunities to profit and lead astray are numerous. Scripture is not specific on the where and when apart from the general context. We are not told what Jesus looks like yet the visual representations we see show our culture and origins etc. I believe that this is with good reason as we are not to worship idols. Also we are not to make particular days and feasts important. So the actual when Jesus was born to the day is a distraction. The where is also a distraction.
I believe that there is no harm in speculating provided always that we are aware of what we are doing and do not get carried away with the pride of our intellect.
Having said all this I believe that to choose this time of year to remember our Lords birth is valuable.
Now a question.
Please forgive any lack of proper research on my part.
1. In Genesis Jacob takes Ephraim and Manasseh as his own just as Reuben and Simeon. Thus in terms of inheritance they surplant Joseph.
2. Land in Canaan is apportioned to 12 descendants, Joseph and Levi are not there. Levi was of course given a different inheritance.
3. When we go to Revelation we see that Joseph is in the list of the 12 tribes but Ephraim and Dan are not. Yet Jacob put Ephraim ahead of Manasseh.
4. When Jacob blesses his sons Joseph is there, but not Ephraim and Manasseh.
Got any Ideas? Please note that accept Gods word and am not trying to dispute anything.