Recently I have been thinking about Primogeniture (firstborn rites and customs) and the theological significance of the first child born in a family unit.
Just to give you an idea of what I'm talking about, in the NIV translation of the Bible, the term "firstborn" is used 132 times. Obviously there is something of significance here. After all "salvation" (usually considered a more important Christian concept) is only said 122 times!
Most of the time we see scripture talking about firstborn rites I think we automatically write it off as mostly cultural. There's obviously some truth to this as primogeniture is not unique to ancient Israel. Most cultures of the Ancient Near East practiced very similar firstborn customs.
But then you read scriptures like Ex 34:19"The first offspring of every womb belongs to me..." or Ex 13:22 "Consecrate to me every firstborn male. The first offspring of every womb among the Israelites belongs to me, whether man or animal." As well, the firstborn of every family received a double inheritance when his father died.
And this isn't just a strange Old Testament thing either (not that it should be ignored even if it was). Jesus is considered by Paul to be the "firstborn among many brothers" in the family of God (Rom 8:29). Jesus is also called the Firstborn: "over all creation" (Col 1:15) and "from among the dead" (Col 1:18, Rev 1:5). In other words, being the "firstborn" is essential to the identity of the Christ.
So, is there anything to primogeniture for us today?
Is this just a cultural thing?
Is it just a theological thing?
Is primogeniture more important than salvation!?
10 comments:
"Is primogeniture more important than salvation!?"...haha I like it...
The consecration of the firstborn stuff kind of reminds me of the offering of firstfruits.
I think it's kind of this cool way of God reminding us of his ultimate supremacy and worthiness.
To give the offering before you know what you'll have 'left over', to essentially give your child to God even though it's your long awaited first born child...
The whole "It is Mine" concept.
I think it's a theological thing in that we can't surrender to God only when it's comfortable or convenient...you know what I mean? It's his before we even have it.
I know that way back when it would have been understood on a lot of different levels, but for me that's partly how I understand the theology of it for today.
There's something special about the first of anything. There's an excitement that isn't quite the same as the second or third. I guess that's why it's important to give it to God - we give him the most special. As far as children goes, when mine were born I remembered the firstborn belongs to God. But then I had two firstborns because one was adopted, so I gave them both to God as firstborns. And when the third came, I told God I wanted to give him as well!
I'm not sure why the firstborn should get the double inheritance. I don't think that would go over real great today! Perhaps it was related to the firstborns also having responsibility for the family.
Yeah, I think it's all tied up with the idea of firstfruits and stewardship. After all,"the earth is the LORD's, and everything in it,the world, and all who live in it"(Ps 24:1). By giving our firstfruits (including our firstborn) we are setting a precedent for ourselves... setting ourselves up as stewards, not owners of ALL we have, not just the first of what we have.
I know that I got gyped not being the firstborn. Being the second is like having to try to live up to the best and never succeeding. Thankfully I'm so great I didn't have to try too hard. Or was it laziness...
On the contrary, Lisa. If the first was the best, why would they have more? Clearly the last child is the best otherwise they would have kept trying!!
Plus, in my family anyway, the firstborn getting a double inheritance doesn't mean much anyway! Ha! (Sorry mom and dad).
Hey, wait until we come into our big inheritance. Then you'll wish you were firstborn! On Dad's side it only has to be split 17 ways!
Okay, off topic but still about a firstborn. You read "Hood" right? Have you read "Scarlet" yet? I'm somewhere mid-beginning and I'm really enjoying it so if you've read it DON'T TELL ME THE ENDING! But did you like it? If you read it that is.
Yeah, I read "Scarlet". It was really good. I liked it better than "Hood"; better pacing, more action.
Now we only have to wait another year or two for "Tuck". Sometimes it's just better to wait for a whole trilogy to come out so you can read them all back to back with no interuptions.
Oh, and the author of "Scarlet", Stephen R. Lawhead also has a firstborn, Ross. That's my pathetic segue back on topic.
Hey Timothy, didn't you know that you're back in the will again? What with the birth of our grandson Kaleb and all... Yeah, you are so in!
Isn't Bran also a firstborn who's birthrights were stolen from him and caused him to become King Raven?
I'm not looking forward to the wait for "Tuck." I just finished "Scarlet" today and I was so mad that I couldn't find out what happens next. Grr.
Post a Comment