Hearing his father is ill Joseph drops by with his two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, Genesis 48:1-2. On arrival, Jacob asks Joseph to bring the boys close to him so he can pronounce a blessing on them (8-10).

Joseph already knows that his Dad has made Ephraim and Manasseh the next in line to inherit the blessings God promised to Abraham (3-5), so he assumes that Manasseh being the oldest gets the special firstborn’s blessing. Jacob’s eyesight, however, has reached the point he can “hardly see” (10), so Joseph places Ephraim, the youngest of the two boys, close to Jacob’s left hand, and Manasseh the oldest to Jacob’s right hand (13) – the right hand signifying a special place of honour and pre-eminence, as in Jesus being seated at the “right hand of God” (Ephesians 1:19-21).

But with no explanation given, Jacob switches hands so that his right hand is now on Ephraim’s head, not Manasseh’s (14).

This does not go down well with Joseph. He’s thoroughly “displeased” (17), which in Hebrew indicates he felt his Dad was absolutely wrong doing this, and even bordering on evil, so he tries to remove Jacob’s right hand and put it back on Manasseh’s head, at the same time saying, “No, my father, this one is the firstborn, put your right hand on his head” (17-18). And knowing how much Joseph revered his Dad (12), this must have really bothered him, enough for him to make such a challenge. 

But for years Joseph had been steeped in the importance of the firstborn son’s rights in Egyptian tradition (seen later in how devastated Egypt was by the killing of all their firstborn in Exodus 12:29-30). On the other hand,  Jacob had just blessed Joseph saying it was God who was “blessing these boys” (15-16), so Joseph didn’t need to doubt what his Dad was doing. And clearly his Dad did know what he was doing, because, as he also says in verse 15, “God has been my Shepherd all my life to this day,” which, therefore, would include that same day too. 

It was an awkward moment, but with years of experiencing being “delivered from all harm” (16), Jacob calmly replies in verse 19, “I know, my son, I know,” acknowledging his son’s concern, but at the same time refusing to budge his hands and continuing with what he’d asked Joseph to bring his two boys close to him for, which turned out to be “Two amazing blessings”….(next blog)

In Genesis 48:11, Jacob says to his son Joseph, “I never expected to see your face again, and now God has allowed me to see your children too.” So Jacob put all this down to God’s doing, that it was God who’d allowed Joseph to be whisked off to Egypt, God who’d allowed Joseph to marry an Egyptian lady and have two half Egyptian children, and God who’d brought the family together again, with these two boys included. 

In the form of a blessing, then, Jacob wanted to get across to Joseph that God was behind all that had happened to their family to bring them to this point – and perhaps a very surprising point too, because in his blessing Jacob makes clear that God would now be continuing his plan for all humanity through Joseph’s half Egyptian sons.  

Jacob starts his blessing, therefore, with this in mind, when he says to Joseph in verse 15, “May the God before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac walked” – to strike the point home that God began a plan through Abraham and Isaac, that became so real to them it was like they were “walking” with God every day. And the same for Jacob too, when he speaks next of “God who has been my Shepherd all my life to this day.” 

This is what God had wanted all three men to experience, that they’d know he was with them every day, guiding and shepherding them, which In Jacob’s experience, verse 16, also included “the Angel who has delivered me from all harm.” The messes Jacob had got into – whether his fault or the conniving of others – had made it obvious to Jacob by now that “the Angel” had got him through all of them.

But why did Jacob switch from “God” to “the Angel”? Well, this is the point where Jacob speaks of being protected from harm. He can look back on a life of being rescued again and again, and here he is near the end of his life, himself and his family fully restored. Which rather gives the game away as to who the Angel might be. because who’s the one in Scripture through whom we’re rescued and restored? 

Is Jacob then including Jesus in his blessing, to get the point across from his own experience that it’s through Jesus rescuing and restoring that God is fulfilling the plan he began with Abraham and Isaac? If so, then Jacob takes all that he’s just said and then says, “may he (God and Angel) bless these boys,” so that God’s plan of rescuing and restoring all humanity through Jesus will continue through them. But strangely this would involve “A switching of hands”….(next blog)

Before Jacob told his twelve sons “what will happen to you in days to come” in Genesis 49, he asked for his grandchildren, Ephraim and Manasseh, Joseph’s sons, to be brought to him in Genesis 48:9. 

It’s the first mention in Scripture of a grandfather connecting with his grandchildren. Jacob would have known his grandfather Abraham, but no mention of a conversation between them or a relationship, and the same for Jacob’s children with their grandfather Isaac. 

But here’s Jacob asking for his two grandsons, with a relationship already well developed because he hugs and kisses them (10). It’s a happy scene, but there’s more to it than a grandfather enjoying his grandkids, because back in verse 5, Jacob “reckons these two boys as mine” (5), so that, verse 16, they “may be called by my name and the names of my fathers Abraham and Isaac.” 

Jacob, therefore, has already adopted Ephraim and Manasseh as his very own children. Which was quite the move on his part because Ephraim and Manasseh were half Egyptian. They were born to an Egyptian mother, Asenath (meaning ‘gift of the sun god’), who was also the daughter of Potipherah, priest of On (Genesis 41:45) – the city of On being the most important centre of Egyptian sun worship. 

These two boys, then, were born into a thoroughly pagan family on their mother’s side, but because Jacob had adopted them as his children, they’d become direct descendants of Abraham and Isaac too.  

So what’s going on here? Well, God promised Abraham that he’d bless the whole world through Abraham’s descendants, and now, because of Jacob making Ephraim and Manasseh Abraham’s descendants too, God was already including half Egyptian foreigners as inheritors of that blessing.

So this early in history, God was already making it clear through these two half Egyptian boys being adopted into Israel, that his goal, in Paul’s words, is to have all humanity as “no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household,” Ephesians 2:19. God wants every human adopted into his family, and Jacob adopting these two half foreign boys into his family pictures that perfectly. So does what being in his family brings – as seen in “Jacob’s blessing on Joseph”….(next blog)

If only King Saul had wiped out the Amalekites as God instructed, because their brutality cropped up again in Esther’s day in Haman the Amalekite, whose sole aim was the total destruction of the Jews (Esther 3:8-14). 

And although the Amalekites disappeared as a tribe by that name, there are people today whose sole aim is also the total destruction of the Jews – and Christians – and blatantly stated in public too.

That being the case, what are we to do as Christians? God’s solution in the Old Testament was telling the Israelites in 1 Samuel 15:3 to “attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them, including men, women, children, infants and livestock” to “blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven,” Deuteronomy 25:19. 

But because that wasn’t done we have Amalelite-like people in our world now displaying exactly the same aim and brutal attitude as the Amalekites of old. So, what is God’s solution today? Does he want Christians to wipe out Amalek and finish off what Israel failed to do?

Fortunately, God chose a second Saul, and a Benjamite too like King Saul, with an answer to that question from his own life, when he wrote in 2 Timothy 4:7, “I have fought the good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith.” So there was “fighting” involved, as well as successfully “finishing” off what he was fighting too, but it wasn’t by slicing the heads off all Amalekite-like people he met. It was by “keeping the faith” – the  simple faith that “The Lord will rescue me from every evil attack and will bring me safely to his heavenly kingdom,” verse 18. 

One such “evil attack” came when he was “given a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me,” 2 Corinthians 12:7. Paul was attacked at his weakest, just like the Amalekites attacked the Israelites at their weakest. But Paul couldn’t swing a sword like the Israelites of old to wipe the problem out. And God wasn’t asking him to either, because when it came to evil in Paul’s life, it was by “Christ’s power resting on me” (9) that Paul learnt how the fight is won.

Which brings to mind Jacob’s original prophecy in Genesis 49:27 about Benjamin being a “ravenous wolf devouring its prey and dividing the plunder,” because was that also meant to picture Christ’s power, and what he’s like when dealing with the Amalekite-like attacks launched against us? If so, is there more we can learn about Jesus from Jacob’s grandchildren, “Ephraim and Manasseh,” too?….(next blog)

God took it personally (Exodus 17:16) when the Amalekites attacked his people on their way out of Egypt, especially when the Amalekites picked on the weak and vulnerable (Deuteronomy 25:17-19). He also made sure that Mordecai in the book of Esther was “held in high esteem” because he “worked for the good of his people, and spoke up for the welfare of all the Jews,” Esther 10:3. So when it came to his people, whether it was good things happening to them or bad, God took it personally. 

He took things personally again 500 years after Mordecai, when Saul, later Paul, felt “convinced” in Acts 26:9, that he “should do all that was possible to oppose the name of Jesus of Nazareth,” and in Jerusalem he “put many of the saints in prison, and when they were put to death” he “cast his vote against them.” He also tried to force Christians into denying Jesus, and expanded his obsession against Christians into foreign cities too (10-11). 

But it was on his way to Damascus to create more mayhem for Christians that a blazing light shone and with it “a voice saying, ‘Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?’” (12-14). So this time it was Jesus taking things personally, and again because of what was happening to his people. 

But if you were a Jew on the receiving end of Saul’s “Amalekite-like” obsession with your destruction, it must’ve felt like God didn’t care at all. Why would he let this brutish man pick on his fledgling church threatening its very existence? Wasn’t this just like the Amalekites picking on the weak and vulnerable all over again?

Yes it was, which is why Jesus personally stopped Saul in his tracks, “appeared” to him personally, and “appointed” him as his personal “servant and witness of what you have seen of me (personally) and what I (personally) will show you” (16). And what Jesus showed Saul personally was his “unlimited patience” with the likes of him (1 Timothy 1:13, 16), so that Saul, now Paul, could ask and answer with conviction in Romans 11:1, “I say then, has God cast away his people? Certainly not!”

So here we have Paul, another Benjamite like Esther and Mordecai, confirming God’s care for his people, despite their history of failing him again and again. Which is good to know, because in the brutish attitude toward Jews and Christians now growing in our world, one cannot help wondering: “Do Amalekites still exist today?”….(next blog)

Even though God is not mentioned in the book of Esther, the message is clear: God does not forget.  

He did not forget what the Amalekites did to the Israelites on their way out of Egypt (Deuteronomy 25:17-19). He did not forget King Saul not destroying the Amalekites as instructed, nor King Saul allowing his men to plunder the Amalekites, rather than destroy everything the Amalekites owned (1 Samuel 15:3). And the proof that he did not forget all these things is the book of Esther. 

Because in Esther’s day another Amalekite, Haman, had appeared, who was just as determined to do to the Jews what his ancestors had done to Israel. But this time God had a couple of Benjamites ready for him, to finish off what their Benjamite ancestor, King Saul, didn’t do. As a result of Esther’s plea to King Xerxes to spare her people from Haman’s genocidal madness, Haman and all ten of his sons are killed and hanged, bringing an end to the Amalekite line of Haman. God had not forgotten what the Amalekites were like, and the need, therefore, to totally wipe them out. 

But why was it, when the Jews of Esther’s day were allowed by King Xerxes to kill all those who hated them, that the Jews “did not lay their hands on the plunder,” Esther 9:10? And it’s repeated twice more too, in verses 15 and 16. 

Well, what was King Saul’s reason for not destroying everything the Amalekites owned as God had instructed? It was “Saul and his army sparing the best of the sheep and cattle, the fat calves and lambs – everything (they deemed) as good. These they were unwilling to destroy completely” (1 Samuel 15:9). Under pressure Saul had given in to his men wanting to plunder the best for themselves. And that’s what led to God rejecting Saul as king, and replacing him with David.

When the chance then came up again 500 years later for the Jews to plunder their enemies, they didn’t do it. God had not forgotten the Saul debacle, and neither had they. And they planned to never forget it too, because they made this entire incident a time to “be remembered and observed in every generation,” Esther 9:28. 

They’d learnt an important lesson from 500 years of God not forgetting, that when “Amalekite-like” psychopaths seek to destroy his people, “God takes things personally”….(next blog)  

Several Psalms speak of evil people setting traps for others and falling into those traps themselves: Psalm 7:14-16, 35:7-8, 57:6, and 141:9-10. Haman in the book of Esther was about to learn too, that “If you set a trap for others, you will get caught in it yourself” (Proverbs 26:27). 

Imagine the embarrassment for Haman when asked by King Xerxes: “What should be done for the man the king delights to honour?” Esther 6:6, and Haman thinks, “Well, who is there that the king would rather honour than me?” – to then discover the king was actually thinking of Mordecai, Haman’s most hated enemy, whom that very morning Haman was hoping for the king’s approval to hang from the gallows he’d had built (5:14).

Haman, meanwhile, thinking the king means him, recommends only the best for himself: dressed in a royal robe with a royal crest on his head, and paraded on one of the king’s own horses through town, with one of the king’s most noble princes leading the way yelling, “This is what’s done for the man the king delights to honour” (6:7-9). 

But to Haman’s horror it all went to Mordecai instead, with Haman himself being the one to lead Mordecai on the royal horse through town doing the yelling. And even Haman’s family knew this was the beginning of the end for him and his evil plan to ruin Mordedai (12-13). He’d fallen into his own trap.

But there was still the banquet with the King and Queen to go to, with him alone as their invited guest, so he was still in a position of power and he could wait for another opportunity to destroy Mordecai, and the Queen, and all the Persian Jews too. 

Until, that is, he heard Esther’s request to the king. She’d waited for this moment, with Haman present (5:8), to beg the king to spare her and her people from being “sold for destruction, slaughter and annihilation” (7:3-4). 

The king in shock yells out, “Who is the man who dares do such a thing?” (5), and Esther replies, “The adversary and enemy is this vile Haman” (6). The trap snaps shut. Haman knows he’s done for, and throws himself on the couch where Esther is, begging her for his life. The king thinks Haman is molesting his wife, so on hearing Haman had a gallows built for Mordecai, he has Haman hanged on it instead (7:8-10). The message being, “God does not forget”….(next blog)

Esther was willing to die to save her people from destruction, so what was God’s response?

It began “On the third day” of her fast, Esther 5:1. She “put on her royal robes and stood in the inner court of the palace in front of the king’s hall” so she could be in the king’s direct line of sight on his throne inside the hall (1). She’d arrived uninvited by the king, which by Persian law meant the death penalty (4:11), so what would he do when he saw her?

It was probably a first in Persian history, because “When he saw Queen Esther standing in the court,” daring to appear uninvited, “he was pleased with her.” And then the relief in her three day weakened state when he “held out the gold sceptre” (2) indicating she could approach him without fear with her request. But then a shock too, because she hadn’t even said a word about what she was asking for, and the king was already offering her “up to half his kingdom” (3). 

Wow; this was going really well, so next step in the plan, an invitation “to the king together with Haman to a banquet she’d prepared for him” (4) – “him” being Haman who’d managed to persuade the king to kill all the Jews in Persia (3:9) – and at the banquet she’d then make her request to the king known (4:7-8). And the king was totally happy with that too. 

So’s Haman. He gets all his friends together to boast about his vast wealth and the lofty position the king’s given him, and now he’s the only person the Queen has invited “to accompany the king” to the banquet she’s prepared too. It’s all going splendidly well for him, except for the continued existence of Mordecai (13), so his lovely wife and friends suggest he build a gallows, get the king to agree to hang Mordecai on it next morning, so that Haman could then “go with the king to the dinner and be happy” (14).

That night, however, the king can’t sleep, so he calls for the record of his reign to be read to him, which gets to the part where Mordecai had exposed a plot to kill the king and saved the king’s life, but no record of Mordecai being honoured for such a noble deed (6:1-3). At which point Haman arrives “to speak to the king about hanging Mordecai” (4), and the king asks him: “What should be done for the man the king delights to honour?” (6). Haman thinks the king means him, but instead it’s the first stage in setting the trap of his own demise, and a great illustration of “When evil falls into its own trap”.…(next blog)

From the very beginning God made evil real, first of all in the mention of it in the ‘Knowledge of Good and Evil tree’ in the Garden of Eden, and then in the manifestation of evil in the crafty serpent, and again, later on, in the Amalekites, and even more specifically in Haman the Amalekite in the book of Esther. 

Haman represents all that is worst in our society, and how difficult it is to dislodge it. Haman is like those in our world today who are so rich and powerful they can do whatever they like, destroy people’s lives along the way without caring, and there’s nothing us poor plebs can do about it. 

Like the rich today, Haman got what evil loves too. The king of the land, King Xerxes of Persia, “elevated Haman and gave him a seat of honour higher than that of all the other nobles,” Esther 3:1, so that “all the royal officials knelt down and honoured him” (2). Except one: Mordecai. 

Haman “was enraged” (5), much like leaders today who fume and arrest anyone who dares to even think an opposing thought. Which makes what Haman did next a little worrying, because in his rage he “scorned the idea of killing only Mordecai; he looked for a way to destroy all Mordecai’s people” (6). 

He convinced the king that “it wasn’t in the king’s best interest to tolerate” Mordecai’s people (8), so out went the royal order to kill them. And what could anyone do? They were living in a police state, which makes one wonder, “What does it take to destroy such evil?”  

The answer was the willingness of Esther to put her life on the line. The only way she could stop Haman’s evil plan and save her people was to approach the king and beg for mercy (4:8), but to approach him without his invitation meant she’d die (11). That was the price she was willing to pay, however, “And if I perish, I perish” (16).

And the same with Jesus. God had made it possible that in his physical body dying, or perishing, Hebrews 10:5, Jesus could destroy the power of evil. And his response to that? “Here I am, I have come to do your will, O God” (7). As with Esther, what it took to destroy evil was the willingness to put his bodily life on the line too.

And Esther fasting, as well as her willingness to approach the king, was symbolic of that, so did God destroy the evil? Oh yes, but first: “Setting the trap”….(next blog)

The story of Esther wouldn’t have existed if King Saul had wiped out the Amalekites 500 years earlier as God had instructed (1 Samuel 15:1-3). But the Amalekites lived to see another day, and the chance again to eradicate the Jews, which Haman the Amalekite in the days of Esther leapt at when that chance came (Esther 3:6).

If only King Saul, Esther’s Benjamite ancestor, had been the “ravenous  wolf devouring and plundering” that his tribe was meant to be in Jacob’s prophecy for Benjamin in Genesis 49:27. But in Mordecai, Esther’s cousin, God had another brave Benjamite who would complete what Saul had failed to do, and it would also settle an old score in “God’s personal war against the Amalekites from generation to generation” (Exodus 17:16). 

But it would also put Esther’s life in mortal danger, because to stop Haman’s plan to destroy every Jew in Persia (Esther 3:9, 13), Mordecai “urged Esther to go into the king’s presence and plead with him for her people” (4:8). But no one dared do that if not summoned by the king first, because the penalty by law for those who did dare was death (4:11). And for the last thirty days the king hadn’t asked to see Esther, so for her to just turn up uninvited was a death wish.

But to Mordecai if Esther did nothing she and her family would be killed along with all the other Jews (13). And what if her position in the royal household was actually God’s way of rescuing the Jews? (14). Mordecai the Benjamite was not backing down. 

At which point Esther’s Benjamite ancestry kicked in too. She sent a message to Mordecai to “gather all the Jews in Susa (her home city), and fast for me” – meaning no food or drink for three days and three nights, and she and her staff would join them. And “When this is done,” she said, “I will go to the king, even though it is against the law. And if I perish, I perish” (15-16). Esther the Benjamite wasn’t backing down either.

God had chosen well in his weapons for settling his score with the Amalekites. And this time, unlike King Saul, the Benjamites would be true to his purpose for their tribe. But if God felt this deeply about destroying the Amalekites for their cruelty against his people, why didn’t he simply wipe them out himself, and kill Haman too, rather than drag Esther into it and put her life on the line as well? Or is Esther’s willingness to put her life on the line a picture of “What it takes to destroy evil”?….(next blog)