I read Kay's questions today on 5D and thought I'd give it a go ......
God chose for His Son to be born of the tribe of Judah, when Judah was a son of Leah, instead of Jacob's wife Rachel whom he loved, and for whom he was forced to work an additional seven years?
She asks a good question...Why did the Son of God come from the lineage of the "weak eyed" Leah, and not from the beloved Rachel?
Judah got the "sceptre", the Dominion Mandate that dates back to Adam, wherein God told him to take "dominion" over the earth and all that is in it. (Gen. 1:26). The Sceptre was the prophecy of the "Coming Ruler" the "Coming Messiah" to whom dominion of all the earth belongs. The fact that the sceptre came from LEAH speaks to the FACT that "salvation is of the jews", or said more correctly, salvation came FROM or OUT of the jewish bloodline and has its fulfillment in the birth of our Lord. Leah therefore represents the Jews who are "weak eyed" and who, though married to God at one time, were/are in a HAGAR type relationship. It was not the type of relationship God intended to last, as His intention all along was to have a covenant marriage based upon love, which the new covenant represents. Thus, as the type shows, the child of Rachel the "beloved' ! has tha t calling....
While Judah had the sceptre, or dominion mandate, Jacob/Israel and ultimately Joseph had the Fruitfulness Mandate that dates back to Adam, wherein God told Adam to "be fruitful and multiply" (Gen. 1:28). This is the BIRTHRIGHT mandate and it is specifically tied into SONSHIP and reflected by the name change from Jacob to ISRAEL (reflecting a change in character...the character of an overcomer, Rev. 2:17, 3:12). This is why the birthright does NOT come from the same stock as the sceptre.... because it denotes a very different type of marriage covenant, one based on love and overcoming evil with good that can ONLY come about with a CHARACTER change. Rachel therefore represents the SARAH type relationship... the PROMISE that the seed of Christ will be birthed and fulfilled in us. Rachel represents the Church. But it is the child that comes fr! om her< /EM>, that obtains the promise (even as the promise belonged to the child Rachel birthed)... The name Jacob represents believers in the church prior to their character change (after all, no Christian is changed over night. Such character changes take time and testing through circumstances of life). The name ISRAEL represents the Overcomers that are birthed from the church.
There is a clear distinction between the sceptre and the birthright promises:
"Though Judah prevailed over his brothers, and from him came the leader, yet the birthright belonged to Joseph." (1 Chr. 5:2).
Gen. 49:10 "The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet, until Shiloh comes, and to him shall be the obedience of the peoples." (NASB).
Another translation:
Gen. 49:10 "The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be." (KJV).
And one more:
Gen. 49:10 "The sceptre turneth not aside from Judah, And a lawgiver from between his feet, Till his Seed come; And his [is] the obedience of peoples." (YLT).
I believe that this prophetically shows that the sceptre came from Judah and was fulfilled in our Lord who came from the stock of Judah (even as 1 Chr. 5:2 shows); however, I also believe that this passage in Gen. 49 also cryptically refers to the birthright given to Joseph.
The "ruler's staff" also called the "lawgiver" will "depart from between his feet"....
Doesn't this sound like giving birth? Even as a baby 'departs from between the feet' as it is born or birthed? WHen Shiloh comes, or as Young's Literal Translation calls "Shiloh", when "HIS SEED" comes, THEN and only then will this "birth" take place (doesn't it sound like one and the same?) Isn't this is the manchild in the believer who will be birthed into an immortal body?
This birth in one day represents the fulfillment of the birthright/fruitfulness mandate all the way back to Gen. 1:28, and it is unto HIM (in the body of those He is manifested in, those who were birthed from "Rachel" and changed in character like "Israel") that the "obedience" and "gathering" of the people will be. Who better to be a ruler, than one who is not a "supplanter" (usurper) and who knows and understands that it is GOD who rules, not men?
Why did God never change Isaac's name as He did Abram and Jacob?
Name changes always always always represent something "new" that God is doing in the person (or Himself, as is shown in revealing Himself as El Shaddai in one period and Yahweh in another). Abram was changed to AbraHAm to reflect the fact of that God was working within him and at that point in time is when the promise was beginning to be fulfilled. Sarai was changed to SarAH to reflect the same thing. Saul was changed to Paul to reflect a change in his character as well, and we know that we too, one day, will have a "new name" (Rev. 2:17, 3:12). Thus, name changes always reflect the FACT that God is performing a new work and a change in that person.
So why didn't he change Isaac's name? Because the fact had already been established that he was the promised seed that Abraham had been waiting for. Nothing changed. The next time a change came was in the change from Jacob to Israel, and once again, this was to reflect the realization by Jacob (formerly a supplanter, even as his name Jacob means, and is typified as one who tried to do things by his own wits and flesh) that GOD INDEED IS SOVEREIGN.... "God RULES" (which is what the name "Israel" means). Jacob quit wrestling with God and in doing so, he "won"... He gained something much more valuable.... The knowledge that he no longer has to do things to try to "help God out" (as he did in stealing the birthright from Esau), he realized that he can REST and let God handle things. That is true and abiding knowledge in the sovereignty of God. That knowledge of God is reflected in the nam! e chang e to "Israel" and is tied directly to the birthright/fruitfulness mandate.
And why if Abram was changed to Abraham, and Jacob was changed to Israel--do we speak of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob?
Why wouldn't we say the God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel?
My take on the reason is because it would be like saying 'we have already arrived' at the Promise Land. "Israel" in its true spiritual sense, has not yet arrived...the "manchild" has not been born yet. One analogy is that Abraham represents the Father, who at an old age, begat a son; Isaac represents Christ (which is also why Isaac did NOT have a name change, as it would destroy the type since Christ is the anointed "seed" and perfect, needing no change); and we represent Jacob RIGHT NOW as we go through our own time of testing in our lives, even as Jacob had his 21 years of "trouble" under Laban.
But there is a day coming that our "Israel" name change will come too.... and it will simply reflect who we WILL BE when the manifestation/transformation into immortality takes place. Even as the Jacob's name change ocurred after he finally realized that God Rules, so too will it be with us.