Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ Exodus

[Rain Crow]

I've been ruminating on Exodus 4:22 where God says, "Israel is my son, my first born.". What're your thoughts on this verse?

In Exodus 4:22 God says "Israel is my son, my first born" I looked it up in 5 different versions. Same thing

Does that make Jesus the second born?

So, if Israel is the first born, and Israel killed Jesus. Does that make Israel like Cain? Cain, the first born of men, who killed his brother?

The death of Abel resulted in Cain's ostracism (separation) while the death of Christ produced reconciliation (unity).

[jimwalton]

> "Israel is my son, my first born"

Israel is God's firstborn in the sense that they are the first nation to enter into covenant relationship with Him. The statement also implies God's love for Israel along with Israel's obligations as any son to a father. God is also claiming that He will advocate for them, protect them, discipline them, give them an inheritance (or deprive them of it if they leave the family) as any father would his child.

The phrase is also setting up what will eventually be a showdown between Pharaoh as king and father of the nation (along with the firstborn of Egypt) vs. YHWH as king of the universe and Father of the Israelites, his firstborn. There will be a clash, as you know (the ten plagues) pitting Pharaoh's paternal power against YHWH's.

> Does that make Jesus the second born?

No, Jesus is the only begotten Son. He's in a different category than any human individual or group.

> So, if Israel is the first born, and Israel killed Jesus. Does that make Israel like Cain?

No, these two concepts are not related. Israel is never in the Bible like Cain as a type, symbol, or metaphor.

> The death of Abel resulted in Cain's ostracism (separation) while the death of Christ produced reconciliation (unity).

The Bible never makes this connection. Though it may seem interesting to ponder, these stories and concepts don't mesh.

[Pastor]

> Though it may seem interesting to ponder, these stories and concepts don't mesh.

Yes, they do.

Typological interpretation of Scripture is what we see Jesus, the apostles, and the early fathers doing. It is thoroughly biblical.

The OP's connections are not arbitrary.

[jimwalton]

The Bible is clear that there are types, but if we go around willy-nilly finding a "type" where the Bible doesn't identify one, we end up with a morass of texts that we can basically make them say what we want, and that I reject. We let Scripture interpret Scripture, so where it doesn't identify a type, we don't either. I know the Church Fathers, if I'm remembering right particularly Augustine, was guilty of making the whole Bible allegorical, an interpretive strategy that has since been deemed incorrect and false exegesis and hermeneutics. If there is no association in Scripture of the story of Cain and Abel being type of Israel and Jesus, we can't go there. If we can, Pandora's Box has been opened to make anything in Scripture a type at our whim.

> The OP's connections are not arbitrary.

I didn't claim they were arbitrary, but rather illegitimate and therefore unscriptural.

[Pastor]

This is a ridiculous mindset and a very poor view of scripture.

You are essentially saying that we are NOT ALLOWED to read/study/interpret the Bible the way that Jesus and the apostles model for us. As if they pointed out every possible type there is in explicit detail. This is incredibly naïve. Luke 24 says Jesus pointed out "all things" that pertained to him in the old testament. Guess what? That conversation isn't recorded for us.

Consider these examples:

(1) Joseph is betrayed by his brothers for pieces of silver but is then elevated to kingship with all nations coming to him for bread. Jesus is also betrayed for pieces of silver but is then elevated to kingship with all nations coming to him for bread (the Lord's Supper).

(2) Adam is put into a coma-like deep sleep (visually, like death). His side is then pierced. He awakes in the garden to a woman. Jesus also "goes to sleep" (death) on the cross and has his side pierced. He then awakes in a garden and meets with a woman (Mary Magdalene).

These events are clearly and irrefutably types of Jesus. Yet they are not specifically mentioned in the NT, so you say they are "unscriptural" and "illegitimate." Think about that.

Besides, your own position is inconsistent. If we can't make our own deductions of Scripture (other than what the apostles explicitly told us), then we couldn't believe in the Trinity or many other things. Necessary consequence includes foundational doctrine (like the Trinity) as well as typological connections.

[jimwalton]

> This is a ridiculous mindset and a very poor view of scripture.

It's actually a high view of Scripture. It doesn't allow for interpretive monkey business and specious hermeneutics.

> You are essentially saying that we are NOT ALLOWED to read/study/interpret the Bible the way that Jesus and the apostles model for us.

We're fine to follow their model, but the authors of Scripture wrote God-breathed text; we don't. Their work was superintended by the Holy Spirit to be inspired Scripture; ours is not.

> This is incredibly naïve.

You can tame the insults, Pastor.

> Luke 24 says Jesus pointed out "all things" that pertained to him in the old testament. Guess what? That conversation isn't recorded for us.

Of course it's not recorded for us, and we dare not presume to fabricate what He said that day.

> Joseph is betrayed by his brothers for pieces of silver but is then elevated to kingship with all nations coming to him for bread. Jesus is also betrayed for pieces of silver but is then elevated to kingship with all nations coming to him for bread (the Lord's Supper).

It's a beautiful picture, but not one the Bible makes for us. Though we can see and appreciate a similarity, it's not legitimate typology.

> Adam is put into a coma-like deep sleep (visually, like death). His side is then pierced. He awakes in the garden to a woman. Jesus also "goes to sleep" (death) on the cross and has his side pierced. He then awakes in a garden and meets with a woman (Mary Magdalene).

Oh my. This is exactly the kind of travesty I'm talking about. Scary. Gen. 2.18-25 is about a kinship relationship between male and female as God's image-bearers, and about her rightful place as his counter-partner. To make this ANYTHING to do with Jesus and Mary Magdalene is a travesty.

> These events are clearly and irrefutably types of Jesus

Oh, EASILY refutable. What we read in Genesis is that Eve is his counter-partner, bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh, for she was taken out of man, and the two were one flesh. What are you contending that this is saying about Jesus and Mary?

> Yet they are not specifically mentioned in the NT, so you say they are "unscriptural" and "illegitimate." Think about that.

Yep, exactly. Extremely unscriptural and illegitimate.

> If we can't make our own deductions of Scripture

Oh, I didn't say we can't make our own deductions of Scripture. Read carefully. I said we can't recognize anything as a scriptural type unless the Bible recognizes it as a legitimate type.

> Necessary consequence includes foundational doctrine (like the Trinity) as well as typological connections.

Yes, foundational doctrine (like the Trinity), but no on typological connections. The chance for abuse is far too high, as is illustrated by your Adam/Eve—Jesus/Mary connection.