[doinghiswill]

ok I'm not sure how to ask this.
I was wondering if there is some deeper meaning to the role of the First Born in Jewish culture.We are reading the OT right now and some Questions came up on this issue. Some things I know but i never really took a close look.So what have you guys learned?

Traditionally yes there is ... in our times... not so much.

[doinghiswill]

Originally Posted by LewisM3

Traditionally yes there is ... in our times... not so much.

ok so now I'd like to hear about tradition.....please.

Greetings Rosby,

You asked about a ‘deeper meaning‘, as in the origins of the ‘first born’ in the Jewish culture/Hebrew religion. Been too many years since I researched this but can recall the details. First thing, you have to look at it as the ‘first fruits’ which includes the ‘first born’, where the first born son became more important than the first born child. Seems that when humans first started organizing religion, women were held in higher regard than men, though that obviously has been changed to where women are considered ‘second class citizens’ (glad to hear that women have now reached the 70% plateau compared to what men get paid for doing the same job; unfortunately for me, progress is so slow I have a hard time considering it ‘progress‘ when it comes to equality).

An early example of the role that the ‘first born son’ played. Early on people noticed that when they exhaled in cool climates the moisture expelled from the body condensed to where they could see their breath. This they used as a ‘first sign’ that there was a difference between the body and the one within the body, The ‘breath’ eventually was called the ‘soul’. It was, given the opportunity, for the eldest son to lay next to the dying father, face to face, with the ideal that if he could catch/inhale the fathers last breath he could capture all the fathers strengths and wisdom; the root of the Jewish belief of the ’breathing life’ into an individual, which they actually adopted from the Babylonians.

Back to the ’first fruits’. In this day and age, most people, well……at least I understand that if you plant a crop that matures in 80 days and you have a plant that matures in 40 days, you save the seeds to plant the following year with the idea of eventually having an entire crop that matures in 40 days. This cuts in half the possibility of crop loss do to drought, disease, insect infestation. Those ignorant religious barbarians of old would take the ‘first fruits’ and sacrifice them to their gods in hopes of bribing said god into providing rain in do season and warding off the insects. In their religious ignorance, they failed to understand that they were interfering with the ‘Plan’ of thee One True God who had incorporated into the genetic code of the plants the ability to evolve and adapt to the environment and produce more abundantly so people could have life more abundantly.

On to the ‘first born’ male child, the ultimate sacrifice to the gods. Abram was born and raised in a religious belief system that dictated that the ultimate sacrifice to their gods was the first born son. When he was recruited by Melchizedek, he felt the need to make the ultimate sacrifice to prove his ‘devotion’ to this El Elyon, the God of the priest-king of Salem. If you have done your studies than you know that according to the original Hebrew writings the whole idea was that of Abram, when those writings were ‘Christianized’ they made it out to be Gods idea and some sort of a test. In the end when Abram raised the knife and was actually going to commit such an unGodly act, then the angel appeared. The bible makes it out to be a physical wrestling match, but we are dealing with spiritual matters so one can picture a ‘wrestling match’ going on in the mind. And what a chore it would have been for the angel to try and explain to Abram: “Hey, wait a minute here, yours ways are far from being His ways. What you are about to do is completely unnecessary to show your ‘devotion’.” There is a comparison that I have used over the years. You are the first person with black skin and perhaps can better understand than the others. If Melchizedek showed up in Alabama in 1920 and recruited someone who was born and raised in the KKK who wanted to express his ‘ultimate devotion’ Then the angel would be saying: “Hey, wait a minute here, your ways are far from His ways. It is completely unnecessary to hang a black person.” Considering you are dealing with someone who was born and raised to believe that the ultimate way to show ones devotion to that particular religious belief system is to participate in the hanging of a black person; talk about a spiritual wrestling match.

Finally, you have the secular aspect. Irregardless of the number of miscarriages, the first male child was considered the strongest and selected to ‘perpetuate’. If need be, everyone else went without a meal so he would remain strong and virile. Though the Hebrews put more emphasis on the religious aspect.

Perhaps this will help answer your query as to the ‘origins’ of the ‘first born’ in Hebrew/Jewish culture. Like most everything else, it was borrowed from the pre-existing religious belief systems of their ‘philistine minded’ neighbors and forefathers. A couple months ago there was mention on the news of the 40th anniversary of the landing on the moon. Which reminded me of an ‘understanding’ I came to 40 years ago, or at least gave me the ability to put into words an understanding that already existed. When it comes to technology, mankind has stepped out of the cave and stood on the moon. When it comes to spiritual understanding, mankind has stepped out of the cave, into the grass hut, and stayed there. For some reason, usually as a result of the misguidance of the religious leaders, people are way too slow to let go of those ancient things their forefathers considered ’sacred’. As a result, here we are in the 21st century C.E., living in a world that is just as barbaric, perhaps more so, than it was in the 21st century B.C.E. So much for the influence of those things held ‘sacred’ by too may people, eh.

Blessings upon you and yours.

[walkinthespirit]

I just wanted to wish you a Merry Christmas and the best of prosperity in your marriage and ministery in 2010!

[SolaVerbumDei]

The "first-born" meant the child that opened the womb (Ex. 13:2; Num. 3:12). Under the Mosaic Law, it was the "first-born" son that was to be sanctified (Ex. 34:20) and dedicated to God as a "first fruit". What is interesting is that "First Born" does not imply that a woman had other children. The first-born was the one who opened the womb regardless of whether or not other children followed.

Originally Posted by doinghiswill

ok I'm not sure how to ask this.
I was wondering if there is some deeper meaning to the role of the First Born in Jewish culture.We are reading the OT right now and some Questions came up on this issue. Some things I know but i never really took a close look.So what have you guys learned?

I actually just heard someone speak on this. The first born refers to the fist child from the womb, who "opens" the womb so to speak.

A common mistake is to think that if there is a first born there must also be a second born. This is not true. Even if parents only had one child he would still be called the first-born.

Originally Posted by SolaVerbumDei

The "first-born" meant the child that opened the womb (Ex. 13:2; Num. 3:12). Under the Mosaic Law, it was the "first-born" son that was to be sanctified (Ex. 34:20) and dedicated to God as a "first fruit". What is interesting is that "First Born" does not imply that a woman had other children. The first-born was the one who opened the womb regardless of whether or not other children followed.

Oh, I just saw this. Well you said it better than I did

[doinghiswill]

Thanks for the input......guys this has been great.

Originally Posted by doinghiswill

ok I'm not sure how to ask this.
I was wondering if there is some deeper meaning to the role of the First Born in Jewish culture.We are reading the OT right now and some Questions came up on this issue. Some things I know but i never really took a close look.So what have you guys learned?

The eldest son was considered to have a priestly role. When Israel sinned, this function was stripped from them and given to the tribe of Levi. Thus when we read about the priests being at Mount Sinai before the Law of Moses was given, we should realize it's not talking about the Levitical priests but about the eldest sons who held this office.

That being understood, the eldest sons were still born with that in their nature and thus had to be "redeemed" in order to be excused of what would have been their spiritual duty.