• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Meat Tamar Genesis 38

NickF

NickF

Seasoned Member
Real Person
Male
I am of the opinion that Judah did not transgress Leviticus 18:15 because she was widowed and no longer married to his son. She got an heir and he knew her no more.
My reasoning for this is she took the law into her own hands and tricked Judah into the kinsman redeemer act, and he acknowledged that she was "more righteous" than he because he should have given her to his other son.

What say you?

*edit*
What do you guys think of the situation with Onan, Tamar, and Judah? Looking for some critical breakdown of the event and implications.
 
Last edited:
Edit, bad answer.

I don’t understand the question.
 
Last edited:
Onanism is mistakenly simplified to purposefully imply that masturbation is sinful, but Yah actually struck Onan dead for disrespectful disobedience, given that he refused to fully cover the childless wife of his dead brother, per the Levirate law.

imho, neither Judah nor Tamar transgressed Leviticus 18:15 for three reasons:
  • Leviticus 18:15 wasn't yet in effect; and, more importantly,
  • Tamar was only in a past-tense sense Judah's daughter-in-law, because she was only in a past-tense sense Onan's (or Er's -- and isn't that a name that makes one wonder if it was the result of Judah having put no previous thought into his firstborn's name and when asked by his wife, Shua's daughter, what the child should be named, said, "Well, er . . . ," and 'Er' it was! Maybe Judah was constitutionally forgetful and in later years, when asked who that young man was walking with him, said, "Oh, er, son of, uh, yeah, Shuah's daughter.") wife, and furthermore,
  • if anything, the scriptural indications lean toward the interpretation that Tamar never had conjugal relations with either of her husbands before they were put to death ("Judah took a wife for his firstborn" Gen 38:6a [CVOT]), so she'd never technically sealed the daughter-in-law thing altogether, anyway (this last part is, while worth considering, the least weighty of the arguments).
Judah identifies himself as more guilty than Tamar within the context of the limited aspects of Law revealed as of that point in time by asserting that his guilt was greatest because he was the one who had failed to get her started up as a wife with his son Shelah. Judah assumed she was a cult prostitute, but when he asked what she required, she made no mention of fealty to a pagan god or rejection of YHWH but instead just wanted some proof of whom she'd uncovered her nakedness with, so even if consorting with a cult prostitute had already been identified as a transgression, neither that nor Tamar's deception was deemed as egregious as Judah's failure of fatherly duty to get his surviving son hooked up with this young widow in his charge.

I don't believe that Leviticus 18:15 would have been transgressed even if Judah had then taken Tamar as his permanent wife.
 
NickF said:
I am of the opinion that Judah did not transgress Leviticus 18:15 because she was widowed and no longer married to his son. She got an heir and he knew her no more.
My reasoning for this is she took the law into her own hands and tricked Judah into the kinsman redeemer act, and he acknowledged that she was "more righteous" than he because he should have given her to his other son.

What say you?

*edit*
What do you guys think of the situation with Onan, Tamar, and Judah? Looking for some critical breakdown of the event and implications.
Click to expand...
Genesis 38 happened prior to the Law being given in it's fullness at Sinai. This is similar to Cain marrying his sister, or Abraham marrying his half sister.

All that said, the people who lived prior to the Law being given at Sinai clearly still had some understanding of the will of God. The Levirate principle seems to have been understood by Onan and Judah. Joseph and even Abimelech understood adultery to be wrong.
 
Bartato said:
Genesis 38 happened prior to the Law being given in it's fullness at Sinai. This is similar to Cain marrying his sister, or Abraham marrying his half sister.

All that said, the people who lived prior to the Law being given at Sinai clearly still had some understanding of the will of God. The Levirate principle seems to have been understood by Onan and Judah. Joseph and even Abimelech understood adultery to be wrong.
Click to expand...
That’s my understanding.
 
Oman's sin was motivated by greed. Had he produced an offspring, the double portion would have gone to the brother's son. By not producing the offspring and taking advantage of the woman he could (in his mind) have his cake and eat it to... sex plus keep the double portion for himself and his heirs... Yah gave him the snackdown.
 
PeteR said:
Oman's sin was motivated by greed. Had he produced an offspring, the double portion would have gone to the brother's son. By not producing the offspring and taking advantage of the woman he could (in his mind) have his cake and eat it to... sex plus keep the double portion for himself and his heirs... Yah gave him the snackdown.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

Just found the parallel to levirate marriage pronounced.

It came up in a discussion with my brother-in-law and wanted extra perspective.
 
She was no longer his daughter-in-law by Er nor Onan since they were deadified, but she wouldn't she still be regarded as his daughter-in-law through betrothal to Shelah? Is this an implication found in vs 24-25?
 
Luke S said:
She was no longer his daughter-in-law by Er nor Onan since they were deadified, but she wouldn't she still be regarded as his daughter-in-law through betrothal to Shelah? Is this an implication found in vs 24-25?
Click to expand...
If someone can find somewhere in Scripture where it is declared that, once near-kin-by-marriage-to-one's-near-kin always near-kin-by-marriage-to-one's-near-kin even after the death of the biological-near-kin, Tamar would no longer be near kin or married to near kin under Leviticus 18. Tamar is identified in Genesis 38:11 as Judah's daughter-in-law after the deaths of Er and Onan, but that doesn't entirely address the question of near kin, especially given that she hadn't yet borne any children, the potential arising confusion of which is probably the preeminent motivation behind the near-kin statutes. (And, again, remember that Leviticus 18 wasn't yet in effect at the time of Tamar's shenanigans.)

I can't see how Genesis 38:24-25 even apply to this question, but 38:11 and 38:26 certainly do:

"Then Judah said to Tamar, his daughter-in-law: Dwell as a widow in your father's house until my son Shelah has grown up;" [Genesis 38:11a, CVOT] and

"Judah recognized them and said: Tamar is more righteous than I, for the reason that I did not give her to my son Shelah."[Genesis 38:26a, CVOT]

These two verses introduce some of their own confusion about who had covering responsibility over and/or ownership of Tamar following the death of Onan, but Judah clearly sent Tamar back to her own dad -- and then later acknowledged that he had never given her to Shelah. He had failed to do so because he didn't want to risk making her a three-time widow.

We are thus given no direct assertion that Tamar and Shelah were betrothed.
 
Keith Martin said:
If someone can find somewhere in Scripture where it is declared that, once near-kin-by-marriage-to-one's-near-kin always near-kin-by-marriage-to-one's-near-kin even after the death of the biological-near-kin, Tamar would no longer be near kin or married to near kin under Leviticus 18. Tamar is identified in Genesis 38:11 as Judah's daughter-in-law after the deaths of Er and Onan, but that doesn't entirely address the question of near kin, especially given that she hadn't yet borne any children, the potential arising confusion of which is probably the preeminent motivation behind the near-kin statutes. (And, again, remember that Leviticus 18 wasn't yet in effect at the time of Tamar's shenanigans.)

I can't see how Genesis 38:24-25 even apply to this question, but 38:11 and 38:26 certainly do:

"Then Judah said to Tamar, his daughter-in-law: Dwell as a widow in your father's house until my son Shelah has grown up;" [Genesis 38:11a, CVOT] and

"Judah recognized them and said: Tamar is more righteous than I, for the reason that I did not give her to my son Shelah."[Genesis 38:26a, CVOT]

These two verses introduce some of their own confusion about who had covering responsibility over and/or ownership of Tamar following the death of Onan, but Judah clearly sent Tamar back to her own dad -- and then later acknowledged that he had never given her to Shelah. He had failed to do so because he didn't want to risk making her a three-time widow.

We are thus given no direct assertion that Tamar and Shelah were betrothed.
Click to expand...
Oh okay, I see, and I agree that the near of kin by marriage no is broken upon the death of of the near of kin she is married to -- it has to -- or else Levirate marriage wouldn't exist as it would violate Leviticus 18:16 by uncovering the nakedness of your brother's wife.

I was just wondering if she was still regarded as near of kin by betrothal to Shelah. While a betrothal is not clearly said to be in place, I thought that vs 11 seemed to imply that there was one in that Shelah was promised to Tamar, which is reinforced by the expectation in place that she was supposed to be given to Shelah as wife by the time this all took place. Vs 24 calls her his daughter in law, and vs 25 calls Judah her husband's father, which is why I thought that that might still be in place on both fronts through Shelah. Likewise, if no betrothal was in place, Judah wouldn't have a valid reason to execute her for getting pregnant.
 
Can we assume that Judah owned Tamar after the death of Onan?
 
Keith Martin said:
Can we assume that Judah owned Tamar after the death of Onan?
Click to expand...
Hmmmm, perhaps, although, he does send her back to her father's house, so I would say probably not.

Is there any other precedent that would show that a widow would be under the father in law's authority? Factoring in that a widow is bound by her vows, cases like Abigail being free to remarry after Nabals death, and that 1 Corinthians 7:39 shows that a widow can remarry whom she will in the Lord, I would lean towards the widow not being under the father in law's authority, and thus that Judah did not own Tamar after the death of Onan.
 
Bartato said:
Genesis 38 happened prior to the Law being given in it's fullness at Sinai. This is similar to Cain marrying his sister, or Abraham marrying his half sister.

All that said, the people who lived prior to the Law being given at Sinai clearly still had some understanding of the will of God. The Levirate principle seems to have been understood by Onan and Judah. Joseph and even Abimelech understood adultery to be wrong.
Click to expand...
Wrong.

God's moral expectations don't change throught time. Remember, He doesn't change. So same ethics forever.
 
Luke S said:
Hmmmm, perhaps, although, he does send her back to her father's house, so I would say probably not.

Is there any other precedent that would show that a widow would be under the father in law's authority? Factoring in that a widow is bound by her vows, cases like Abigail being free to remarry after Nabals death, and that 1 Corinthians 7:39 shows that a widow can remarry whom she will in the Lord, I would lean towards the widow not being under the father in law's authority, and thus that Judah did not own Tamar after the death of Onan.
Click to expand...
Interestingly enough the execution was burning which later in the law only applied to a priests daughter, never do we see burning for adultery in the scripture. Im not sure why he was choosing to burn her.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top