Bob's Question

A short bit of biblical theology as a response to a request from a friend - now and again different people within my church or my general social circles ask me to pick my brains about something. This is invariably because I have lots of books. It usually has nothing to do with my expertise on any given subject. This question, from my friend Bob, concerns an Old Testament nugget. Its not a topic I have really looked at before, so I really enjoyed playing around with some ideas. It ended up (having collated various scribblings and notes and quotes) being around 1200 words - reproduced here in the format I sent it to my friend. Enjoy...

The Tribe of Judah

1. What event/reason caused God to change His chosen leader of the Israelite nation from Ephraim to Judah?

Bob’s Background

(i) Initially, God’s emphasis, spiritual lineage and calling are focused on Joseph, an Ephraimite. Joshua, also an Ephraimite, led the Israelites into the Promised Land.

(ii) Ps. 78:67-72 refers to their subsequent sin which caused God to transfer the “special” status to the tribe of Judah.

(iii) We know that Jereboam (who led the northern 10 states rebellion) was an Ephraimite - was this the problem? [See 1 Kings 11:25-33, also ch 13:33, 14:9, 2 Chron. 25:5-9)

(iv) If (iii) was the reason, why, in the story of Joseph, do we see the tribe of Judah back them, esp. in chapter 44, when he became the leader of the rest of Jacob’s children? (starts to do this in Chapter 43)

(v) We know that David, and Jesus, come from the tribe of Judah.

(vi) Is there any relevance in the fact that the Pentateuch was codified and written either during or after the Exile, when the main concern was that the Israelite history would not be ‘lost’ in any 2nd exile/dispersion? Was this a case of ‘post facto’ emphasis given to an earlier event to ‘prepare the way’, or the seed of a future change? ‘cos the chronology is all wrong.

It is clear from early on in the Biblical grand narrative that God is in control. When we come across tricky texts or issues like this, where events and people challenge our assumptions, we must remember the words of Joseph, the aforementioned Ephraimite, in Genesis 50:20; “As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today”. Gods purposes cannot be thwarted - Joseph was unwittingly, inspirationally, making a powerful point in his words there. As an aside linking to the question (vi) of chronology), we can learn from Job 42:2 (possibly the oldest book, in terms of the events it describes, outside of Genesis) that “I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted”. This idea, ultimately confirmed in the Incarnation of Jesus and also echoed in well known New Testament passages like Romans 8, must inform and undergird an approach to a question like this.

The initial element of this question (i) notes that God called and emphasized Joseph, an Ephraimite. It is crucial to note at the outset that Ephraim is a subset of the Tribe of Joseph, and that ultimately all twelve tribes are the descendants of the twelve sons of Jacob. Jacob was the grandson of Abraham, to whom God promised the future blessing of everyone. We need to get our chronology in perspective - regardless of the specific changes regarding tribes and offspring - and recognise that the promise of God that “all the families of the earth shall be blessed” was originally  given to Abraham, with a generic and general reference to his offspring. 

One essential element of the choosing of Judah rather than Ephraim stems from the story of the first King of Israel, Saul. In the New Bible Commentary, Leslie S. M’Caw observes that “the whole story of Saul’s monarchy is summed up by the one word rejected”. In that simple sense, the sin of Ephraim is that most basic sin - rejecting God. In orchestrating the events that led to David’s reign as king (despite his flaws famously a man after God’s own heart) God demonstrates the consequences of rejection. 

The issue of the ‘sin of Ephraim’ seemingly boils down to a combination of rejection and the sovereign choice of God. Calvin comments on this in relation to one of the central religio/political issues of the period, the location of the Ark of the Covenant; “He, therefore, rejected the tribe of Ephraim; not that he cast them off for ever, or completely severed them from the rest of the body of the Church, but he would not have the ark of his covenant to reside any longer within the boundaries of that tribe... God... chose for himself a dwelling place”. Calvin’s statement here emphasises the sovereign choice of God alongside the ‘sin of Ephraim’. 

Regarding one (iii) of the secondary elements  in the initial question, it is worth noting with John Goldingay (with regard to commenting on the Rebellion of Jereboam as seen in 2 Chronicles 5-9 that “the little beleaguered Judahite community mustn't assume that it has to ally with the equivalent of Ephraim in its day, the people of Samaria, in order to survive or thrive. It needs simply to trust in God”. The closing small sentence here from Goldingay’s observation is crucial. The issue here is trusting in God - hence why the example is used with Ephraim in Chronicles. The sovereign purpose of God is again alluded to here, with 2 Chron 25:8 clearly stating “For God has power to help or to cast down”. The rather sad story of another wayward king is valuable, however. Martin Selman observes that “repeated stories about sinful rulers testify to God’s patience”, as well as the fact that “people who turn away from God after receiving his grace are also found in the Christian Church”, and that “such incidents are exemplary warnings to others not to fall into the same temptations”. We can learn practically from this episode, as well as needing to rely on the sovereign purpose of God.

My arguement, then, is not that the (Ephraimite-born) Jereboam-led rebellion caused God to remove his blessing, but that in fact the change of emphasis is entirely within the bounds of the promise that God gave to Abraham, and that the specific reason is the overal rejection of God seen in Saul’s life and rule, but ultimately the decision rests in the unknown purpose of God. Regarding the issue of the date of composition and codification of the Pentateuch (vi), it seems that this is a non-issue, as long as the original nature of the promise as given to Abraham is noted.

Closing Note.

Bob, I hope this helps! I don’t know whether this is all stuff you already knew, or if it is actually useful, but I hope this goes some way towards clarifying your thinking on this topic. The general point about the purposes of God’s sovereign plan, for me, is one of the most useful general tools for bible reading and study.

thanks for the challenge, thoroughly enjoyed it!

Tom

Books Consulted

The New Bible Commentary, (IVP, Leicester, 1980)

John Goldingay, “1 and 2 Chronicles for Everyone”, (SPCK, London, 2012)

John Calvin, “Commentary on Psalms”, (Baker, Grand Rapids, 2009)

Martin Selman, “2 Chronicles: Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries”, (IVP, Nottingham, 2008)

Peake’s Commentary on the Bible, (Thomas Nelson, London, 1967)

Donald J. Wiseman, “1 and 2 Kings: Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries”, (IVP, Nottingham, 2008)

ESV Study Bible, (Crossway, Wheaton, 2008)