Continuing a chronological Bible study:
(Genesis 40:1) And it came to pass after these things, that the butler of the king of Egypt and his baker had offended their lord the king of Egypt.
"After these things" refers to Potiphar throwing Joseph in prison and then Joseph becoming well-favored by the keeper of the prison and allowed to handle all the prisoners and their affairs. While Joseph was in prison and in charge of it, the king's butler and his baker offended their king.
(2) And Pharaoh was angry against his two officers, against the chief of the butlers and against the chief of the bakers. (3) And he put them in ward in the house of the captain of the guard, in the prison, the place where Joseph was bound. (4) And the captain of the guard charged Joseph with them, and he served them, and they continued a season in ward.
Pharaoh was angry with his chief butler and chief baker and put them in the prison that was apparently in the house of Potiphar, as we were told previously that he was the captain of the guard. This was the same prison where Joseph was imprisoned, and it can be assumed this was Potiphar who put Joseph in charge of the prisoners. Although he had been greatly angered by Joseph, he knew he could handle the affairs of these prisoners, and surely the keeper of the prison also had input regarding the care of prisoners. It seems a funny interpretation that Joseph served the prisoners, but I'm sure he took care of all their needs. The chief butler and chief baker were apparently in prison for awhile.
(5) And they dreamed a dream, both of them, each man his own dream in one night, each man according to the interpretation of his dream, the butler and the baker of the king of Egypt, who were bound in the prison. (6) And Joseph came in to them in the morning and looked at them, and behold, they were sad. (7) And he asked Pharaoh's officers who were with him in the ward of his lord's house, saying, "Why do you look so sad today?"
One night both the butler and the baker each had a dream, each their own dream, not the same one. When Joseph came in to see them the next morning, he could see that they both were sad, or troubled, which might be the better interpretation, as it is also a definition of the original word, "zaaph". Joseph asked these officers of Pharaoh, the chief butler and the chief baker, who were in prison with him, but apparently in a different cell, if you will, since he "came in" to see them, why they looked so troubled.
(8) And they said to him, "We have dreamed a dream, and there is no interpreter of it." And Joseph said to them, "Do not interpretations belong to God? Tell them to me, please."
The butler and the baker were troubled because they didn't understand their dreams, and they told Joseph they had no interpreter here in prison. It is evident in a future scripture that there were many interpreters of dreams around, but they were sad because they did not have access to one now. I believe Joseph's point was that interpretations belonged to God and He could give those interpretations by His Holy Spirit to anyone He desired, so obviously feeling led by the Spirit, Joseph encouraged the butler and the baker to tell him their dreams.
(9) And the chief butler told his dream to Joseph, and said to him, "In my dream, behold, a vine was before me, (10) And in the vine were three branches; and it was as though it budded, its blossoms shot forth, and its clusters brought forth ripe grapes. (11) And Pharaoh's cup was in my hand; and I took the grapes and pressed them into Pharaoh's cup, and I gave the cup into Pharaoh's hand." (12) And Joseph said to him, "This is the interpretation of it: The three branches are three days.
The chief butler told his dream to Joseph first, and Joseph began his interpretation. The butler had dreamed of a vine that had three budding branches, and Joseph said the three branches represented three days. He said this surely from the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, because it seems three vines could have easily meant something else, or certainly a different amount of time, like three weeks or months or years.
(13) Again within three days Pharaoh shall lift up your head and restore you to your place, and you shall deliver Pharaoh's cup into his hand after the former manner when you were his butler.
Joseph continued the interpretation of the butler's dream. He further explained that the three fully ripened branches represented the butler being fully restored to his position as the chief butler of Pharaoh in three days, and that he would be back to placing Pharaoh's cup in his hand as he had once done as his chief butler.
(14) But think of me when it is well with you, and please show kindness to me; and make mention of me to Pharaoh, and bring me out of this house. (15) For indeed I was stolen away out of the land of the Hebrews; and here also have I done nothing that they should put me into the dungeon."
After Joseph finished the interpretation of the butler's dream, he asked that the butler remember him when he was restored to his position and all was well with him again. He asked that the butler make mention of him to Pharaoh so that he could be released from this prison, and he explained a little of the circumstances that brought him, although he was innocent, to this prison.
(16) When the chief baker saw that the interpretation was good, he said to Joseph, "I also was in my dream, and behold, I had three white baskets on my head. (17) And in the uppermost basket there were all kinds of baked goods for Pharaoh, and the birds ate them out of the basket on my head."
The chief baker felt encouraged by the good interpretation of the chief butler's dream and told Joseph his dream, surely expecting a similar outcome.
(18) And Joseph answered and said, "This is the interpretation of it: The three baskets are three days. (19) Yet within three days Pharaoh will lift up your head from off you and will hang you on a tree; and the birds will eat your flesh from off you."
Joseph's interpretation began with the same three days, but this time rather than being restored to his position, the birds eating from out of the basket on his head represented Pharaoh having him beheaded and hung on a tree where the birds would eat his flesh. What a sobering interpretation to I'm sure a stunned chief baker, who now had to wait three days for this horrific outcome!
(20) And it came to pass the third day, which was Pharaoh's birthday, that he made a feast for all his servants; and he lifted up the head of the chief butler and of the chief baker among his servants.
In three days, on the occasion of his birthday, Pharaoh made a feast for all his servants and lifted up the heads of his chief butler and his chief baker, which meant he probably mentioned them and brought them out of prison, but from that point, he treated their heads differently as indicated in the next verse.
(21) And he restored the chief butler to his butlership again, and he gave the cup into Pharaoh's hand. (22) But he hanged the chief baker, as Joseph had interpreted to them.
Pharaoh indeed restored the chief butler to his position, but hanged the chief baker, just as Joseph had interpreted.
(23) Yet the chief butler did not remember Joseph, but forgot him.
The chief butler forgot all about Joseph and his request to be remembered to Pharaoh.
Sunday, July 7, 2013
Friday, July 5, 2013
Flee From Sin & Follow Righteousness & God Can Bless You in Any Situation
Continuing a chronological Bible study, I now return to the story of Joseph in Egypt:
(Genesis 39:1) And Joseph was brought down to Egypt, and Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh, captain of the guard, an Egyptian, bought him from the Ishmaelites who had taken him down there.
Joseph's brothers had sold him to some Ishmaelites and they in turn brought Joseph to Egypt and sold him to Potiphar, an officer and captain of the guard of Pharaoh.
(2) And the LORD was with Joseph, and he was a prosperous man; and he was in the house of his master the Egyptian. (3) And his master saw that the LORD was with him and that the LORD made all that he did to prosper in his hand. (4) And Joseph found grace in his sight, and he served him; and he made him overseer over his house, and all that he had he put into his hand.
Joseph was sold into what one would assume would be slavery, and yet the Lord was with him and he prospered! He remained living in the house of his master, who was probably a very wealthy man as a high ranking officer of Pharaoh. Potiphar could see that the Lord was with Joseph and that He prospered everything he did. I don't believe "prosper" necessarily meant money profit, but everything he did succeeded with the favor of the Lord, and the blessings of the Lord were evidently very obvious to Potiphar. It may be because Joseph served Potiphar so well that he found grace in his master's sight, and Potiphar put him in charge over his entire house, which surely meant over servants as well, and gave him control over all his household affairs.
(5) And it came to pass from the time that he had made him overseer in his house, and over all that he had, that the LORD blessed the Egyptian's house for Joseph's sake; and the blessing of the LORD was upon all that he had in the house and in the field. (6) And he left all that he had in Joseph's hand, and he did not know what he had except for the bread which he ate. And Joseph was a handsome man, and well favored.
From the time that Joseph took charge over Potiphar's house, the Lord also blessed Potiphar for Joseph's sake, and the blessing of the Lord was upon all that he had in his house and in his field. Therefore, he turned absolutely everything over to Joseph and didn't take part in any of his household affairs. It seems Joseph was also blessed in appearance. I never knew just how much Joseph's physical beauty was celebrated in history and in literature until I read about it in this study. Joseph was the subject of fine Persian poems and even the entire twelfth chapter of the Koran was supposedly written about Joseph where he is described "as a perfect beauty and the most accomplished of mortals". This statement was quoted from Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible; I have not personally read the Koran.
(7) And it came to pass after these things, that his master's wife cast her eyes upon Joseph; and she said, "Lie with me." (8) But he refused and said to his master's wife, "Behold, my master does not know what is with me in the house, and he has committed all that he has to my hand. (9) There is no one greater in this house than I, neither has he kept back anything from me but you, because you are his wife; how then can I do this great wickedness, and sin against God?"
Evidently Potiphar's wife noticed how handsome Joseph was and apparently lusted after him. She boldly approached him to sleep with her, but he refused, saying that his master (and her husband) trusted him completely with absolutely everything he had, except her, his wife, and he could never betray that trust and sin so greatly against God.
(10) And it came to pass, as she spoke to Joseph day by day, that he did not heed her, to lie with her or to be with her. (11) And it came to pass about this time, that Joseph went into the house to do his business, and there were none of the men of the house inside. (12) And she caught him by his garment, saying, "Lie with me," and he left his garment in her hand, and fled and got out.
It appears that Potiphar's wife did not want to take "no" for an answer and continually propositioned him day after day, but he continued to refuse her. One day as Joseph went into the house to do his business, Potiphar's wife took advantage of the fact that they were alone and grabbed Joseph by his clothing and told him to lie with her. However, Joseph fled, leaving his garment in her hand. I always loved that verse; he didn't just refuse her verbally, he fled! Paul oftened used that word in his writings in the New Testament to tell the reader to flee from sin: "flee fornication" (1 Cor. 6:18), "flee from idolatry" (1 Cor. 10:14), "flee these things" (speaking of the love of money and the lusts that follow) in the sixth chapter of 1 Timothy, and "flee also youthful lusts" (2 Tim. 2:22).
(13) And it came to pass, when she saw that he had left his garment in her hand, and had fled, (14) That she called to the men of her house and spoke to them, saying, "See, he has brought in a Hebrew to us to mock us; he came in to me to lie with me, and I cried with a loud voice. (15) And it came to pass, when he heard that I lifted up my voice and cried, that he left his garment with me, and fled, and got out."
Potiphar's wife, a woman scorned, when she realized that she had been physically rejected and refused, not just in words this time, apparently sought revenge and called the other men of the house and lied about what had happened. Obviously she had no love for her husband, or else she would not have been seeking to sleep with Joseph, but she seems to blame him for bringing this Hebrew into their household to mock them all. She probably wanted to stir up discontent among all the men of the house to help in her case. She proceeded to totally lie about what had happened between her and Joseph, and said that it was Joseph who made the advances toward her and when she cried out, he fled, leaving his garment.
(16) And she kept his garment by her until his master came home. (17) And she spoke to him with these words, saying, "The Hebrew servant whom you have brought to us, came in to me to mock me; (18) And it came to pass, as I lifted up my voice and cried, that he left his garment with me, and fled out."
Potiphar's wife kept Joseph's garment with her until her husband came home and she told him the same lie she had told the men of the house.
(19) And it came to pass, when his master heard the words of his wife, which she spoke to him, saying, "Your servant did to me after this manner," that his wrath was kindled. (20) And Joseph's master took him and put him into the prison, a place where the king's prisoners were bound; and he was there in the prison.
Apparently believing his wife, Potiphar was, of course, greatly angered by what she told him had happened, and he threw Joseph into the king's prison.
(21) But the LORD was with Joseph and showed him mercy, and gave him favor in the sight of the keeper of the prison. (22) And the keeper of the prison committed to Joseph's hand all the prisoners who were in the prison; and whatever they did there, it was his doing. (23) The keeper of the prison did not look into anything that was under his hand, because the LORD was with him, and whatever he did, the LORD made it prosper.
The Lord was still with Joseph and made him prosper even in prison! Even in prison, he was made an overseer, and he managed all the prisoners and all that they did. Just as Potiphar had done with the affairs of his household, the keeper of the prison entirely trusted Joseph with the affairs of the prison and saw no need to look into any of it, because he saw that whatever was in Joseph's hand prospered. Scripture said that Potiphar had seen that the Lord was with Joseph. Verse 23 doesn't really say specifically that the keeper of the prison saw that the Lord was with Joseph, but he did recognize that everything Joseph did prospered and he therefore trusted Joseph with everything, and that was because of the Lord's doing. Isn't it wonderful that the Lord can bless and raise us up in any place or circumstance?!
(Genesis 39:1) And Joseph was brought down to Egypt, and Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh, captain of the guard, an Egyptian, bought him from the Ishmaelites who had taken him down there.
Joseph's brothers had sold him to some Ishmaelites and they in turn brought Joseph to Egypt and sold him to Potiphar, an officer and captain of the guard of Pharaoh.
(2) And the LORD was with Joseph, and he was a prosperous man; and he was in the house of his master the Egyptian. (3) And his master saw that the LORD was with him and that the LORD made all that he did to prosper in his hand. (4) And Joseph found grace in his sight, and he served him; and he made him overseer over his house, and all that he had he put into his hand.
Joseph was sold into what one would assume would be slavery, and yet the Lord was with him and he prospered! He remained living in the house of his master, who was probably a very wealthy man as a high ranking officer of Pharaoh. Potiphar could see that the Lord was with Joseph and that He prospered everything he did. I don't believe "prosper" necessarily meant money profit, but everything he did succeeded with the favor of the Lord, and the blessings of the Lord were evidently very obvious to Potiphar. It may be because Joseph served Potiphar so well that he found grace in his master's sight, and Potiphar put him in charge over his entire house, which surely meant over servants as well, and gave him control over all his household affairs.
(5) And it came to pass from the time that he had made him overseer in his house, and over all that he had, that the LORD blessed the Egyptian's house for Joseph's sake; and the blessing of the LORD was upon all that he had in the house and in the field. (6) And he left all that he had in Joseph's hand, and he did not know what he had except for the bread which he ate. And Joseph was a handsome man, and well favored.
From the time that Joseph took charge over Potiphar's house, the Lord also blessed Potiphar for Joseph's sake, and the blessing of the Lord was upon all that he had in his house and in his field. Therefore, he turned absolutely everything over to Joseph and didn't take part in any of his household affairs. It seems Joseph was also blessed in appearance. I never knew just how much Joseph's physical beauty was celebrated in history and in literature until I read about it in this study. Joseph was the subject of fine Persian poems and even the entire twelfth chapter of the Koran was supposedly written about Joseph where he is described "as a perfect beauty and the most accomplished of mortals". This statement was quoted from Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible; I have not personally read the Koran.
(7) And it came to pass after these things, that his master's wife cast her eyes upon Joseph; and she said, "Lie with me." (8) But he refused and said to his master's wife, "Behold, my master does not know what is with me in the house, and he has committed all that he has to my hand. (9) There is no one greater in this house than I, neither has he kept back anything from me but you, because you are his wife; how then can I do this great wickedness, and sin against God?"
Evidently Potiphar's wife noticed how handsome Joseph was and apparently lusted after him. She boldly approached him to sleep with her, but he refused, saying that his master (and her husband) trusted him completely with absolutely everything he had, except her, his wife, and he could never betray that trust and sin so greatly against God.
(10) And it came to pass, as she spoke to Joseph day by day, that he did not heed her, to lie with her or to be with her. (11) And it came to pass about this time, that Joseph went into the house to do his business, and there were none of the men of the house inside. (12) And she caught him by his garment, saying, "Lie with me," and he left his garment in her hand, and fled and got out.
It appears that Potiphar's wife did not want to take "no" for an answer and continually propositioned him day after day, but he continued to refuse her. One day as Joseph went into the house to do his business, Potiphar's wife took advantage of the fact that they were alone and grabbed Joseph by his clothing and told him to lie with her. However, Joseph fled, leaving his garment in her hand. I always loved that verse; he didn't just refuse her verbally, he fled! Paul oftened used that word in his writings in the New Testament to tell the reader to flee from sin: "flee fornication" (1 Cor. 6:18), "flee from idolatry" (1 Cor. 10:14), "flee these things" (speaking of the love of money and the lusts that follow) in the sixth chapter of 1 Timothy, and "flee also youthful lusts" (2 Tim. 2:22).
(13) And it came to pass, when she saw that he had left his garment in her hand, and had fled, (14) That she called to the men of her house and spoke to them, saying, "See, he has brought in a Hebrew to us to mock us; he came in to me to lie with me, and I cried with a loud voice. (15) And it came to pass, when he heard that I lifted up my voice and cried, that he left his garment with me, and fled, and got out."
Potiphar's wife, a woman scorned, when she realized that she had been physically rejected and refused, not just in words this time, apparently sought revenge and called the other men of the house and lied about what had happened. Obviously she had no love for her husband, or else she would not have been seeking to sleep with Joseph, but she seems to blame him for bringing this Hebrew into their household to mock them all. She probably wanted to stir up discontent among all the men of the house to help in her case. She proceeded to totally lie about what had happened between her and Joseph, and said that it was Joseph who made the advances toward her and when she cried out, he fled, leaving his garment.
(16) And she kept his garment by her until his master came home. (17) And she spoke to him with these words, saying, "The Hebrew servant whom you have brought to us, came in to me to mock me; (18) And it came to pass, as I lifted up my voice and cried, that he left his garment with me, and fled out."
Potiphar's wife kept Joseph's garment with her until her husband came home and she told him the same lie she had told the men of the house.
(19) And it came to pass, when his master heard the words of his wife, which she spoke to him, saying, "Your servant did to me after this manner," that his wrath was kindled. (20) And Joseph's master took him and put him into the prison, a place where the king's prisoners were bound; and he was there in the prison.
Apparently believing his wife, Potiphar was, of course, greatly angered by what she told him had happened, and he threw Joseph into the king's prison.
(21) But the LORD was with Joseph and showed him mercy, and gave him favor in the sight of the keeper of the prison. (22) And the keeper of the prison committed to Joseph's hand all the prisoners who were in the prison; and whatever they did there, it was his doing. (23) The keeper of the prison did not look into anything that was under his hand, because the LORD was with him, and whatever he did, the LORD made it prosper.
The Lord was still with Joseph and made him prosper even in prison! Even in prison, he was made an overseer, and he managed all the prisoners and all that they did. Just as Potiphar had done with the affairs of his household, the keeper of the prison entirely trusted Joseph with the affairs of the prison and saw no need to look into any of it, because he saw that whatever was in Joseph's hand prospered. Scripture said that Potiphar had seen that the Lord was with Joseph. Verse 23 doesn't really say specifically that the keeper of the prison saw that the Lord was with Joseph, but he did recognize that everything Joseph did prospered and he therefore trusted Joseph with everything, and that was because of the Lord's doing. Isn't it wonderful that the Lord can bless and raise us up in any place or circumstance?!
Wednesday, July 3, 2013
The Fascinating Line of Judah That Produced the Lion of Judah
I am going to take an ever-so-slight detour from the chronologically ordered Bible study I have been doing by Skip Andrews. Mr. Andrews placed the first six verses in Genesis 39 here, and then continued the rest of Genesis 39 after what is written here. It may have been Mr. Andrews's purpose to show that at the same time Joseph began captivity in Egypt, these events with Judah's sons were happening, but I see no real reason to separate the story of Joseph, so I will study Judah's sons here and will then return to Joseph.
(Genesis 38:6) And Judah took a wife for Er his firstborn, whose name was Tamar.
Previously in this chronological reading, it was reported that Judah had taken a Canaanite wife, and she had borne him three sons, Er, Onan, and Shelah. Now Judah's son Er had grown and it appears that Judah chose the wife for Er.
(7) And Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the LORD; and the LORD killed him.
Judah's son Er was a wicked man. We are not told exactly what he did, but it was bad enough that the Lord took him out. Judah started his family on the wrong foot. He left his brothers' companionship and made friends among the Canaanites and married a Canaanite woman. He continued friendships with the Canaanites as shown in the next few verses. At the very least, his children were not brought up in a God-fearing home.
(8) And Judah said to Onan, "Go in to your brother's wife and marry her, and raise up seed to your brother."
After Er died, Judah told his second son to marry Er's widow, as was apparently the custom, so that the firstborn son would have descendants. Indeed it became a law in Deuteronomy 25:5. Biblical historians point out that the word used for "marry" here is not the one most commonly used; the verb "yabam" is the same word as the noun that means "brother-in-law", although it may be pronounced a little differently than the noun "yabam".
(9) And Onan knew that the seed would not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in to his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother. (10) And the thing which he did displeased the LORD; therefore He killed him also.
From what I read, only the firstborn would have been considered his brother's child; after that, all the other children would have been considered Onan's. However, it appears that Onan wouldn't even give his brother that. Onan defied custom that would have honored his brother, and although his brother may not have deserved honor, he apparently did it for selfish reasons. The act was a sin against the divine institution of marriage and the object of that marriage, the bringing forth of children. That act greatly displeased the Lord and Onan also was killed by Him.
(11) Then Judah said to Tamar his daughter-in-law, "Remain a widow at your father's house till my son Shelah is grown." For he said, "Lest he also die like his brothers." And Tamar went and dwelt in her father's house.
Judah told Tamar to go live at her father's house until his youngest son, Shelah, was grown and able to marry her. That is what he said, but that is not what he intended, for he reasoned within his heart that it was so that his youngest son would not also die like his brothers. Tamar did as she was asked and went to live at her father's house.
(12) And in the process of time the daughter of Shua, Judah's wife, died; and Judah was comforted, and went up to his sheepshearers at Timnah, he and his friend Hirah the Adullamite.
After some time Judah's wife died. The original words transcribed as "in the process of time" give a sense of a multiplied time, even a multitude of years. It was probably several years after Judah sent Tamar back to her father's house with the pretense that she was only waiting for Shelah to mature, and it was obvious the youngest son was never going to marry her. Judah was comforted, indicating he had gone through his period of mourning, and now went to Timnah where his sheep shearers were. He took along his Canaanite friend, Hirah, and they were evidently going for enjoyment after his time of mourning.
(13) And it was told Tamar, saying, "Look, your father-in-law is going up to Timnah to shear his sheep." (14) And she took off her widow's garments, and covered herself with a veil and wrapped herself, and sat in an open place which was on the way to Timnah, for she saw that Shelah was grown and she was not given to him as a wife.
It may have been told to Tamar in passing that her father-in-law would be passing through, but it is apparent that Tamar is deliberate in her actions because she was never given to Shelah as wife as was the custom. She took off her widow's clothes, and whether she meant to look like a harlot or just meant to hide her identity, or both, she wrapped and veiled herself and sat in an open visible place on the road to Timnah.
(15) When Judah saw her, he thought her to be a harlot, because she had covered her face.
Judah did indeed mistake Tamar for a harlot. I don't believe it was because a veil meant she was a harlot, but because she sat in an open place and since she did have the veil, he didn't recognize her, and assumed she was a harlot.
(16) And he turned to her by the way, and said, "Come now, please, let me come in to you," (for he did not know that she was his daughter-in-law). And she said, "What will you give me, that you may come in to me?"
While it was true that Judah did not know this was his daughter-in-law, he was still guilty of fornication with a woman who was not his wife. Tamar asked what Judah would give her. This may have been so that she behaved like a harlot requiring payment for her hire or so that she would have something of Judah's to be used later, or again, maybe a little of both. While I have already found Judah guilty, I am reserving judgment on Tamar. I haven't decided if she is sinfully deceitful or just sly like a fox. While she was deceiving Judah, I don't see that she has lied. She did what was asked of her when she went back to her father's house after her husbands died, and she did not marry anyone else when Shelah did not marry her. She now put herself visibly in the path of Judah, but had he not been willing to take a harlot, this thing would not have gone any further.
(17) And he said, "I will send a kid from the flock." And she said, "Will you give me a pledge till you send it?"
Judah offered to pay her a kid from his flock, but she wanted something of Judah's as a pledge until he sent it; I believe a possession of Judah's is something she wanted all along.
(18) And he said, "What pledge shall I give you?" And she said, "Your signet and your bracelets, and your staff that is in your hand." And he gave them to her, and went in to her, and she conceived by him. (19) And she arose and went away, and laid aside her veil and put on the garments of her widowhood.
Tamar was the one who determined what personal possessions Judah gave as a pledge and he agreed to it. He gave her what she asked for and went in to her. It is said that she conceived as a result of it. Afterward, Tamar went away, took off her veils, and put back on her widow's clothing.
(20) And Judah sent the kid by the hand of his friend the Adullamite, to receive his pledge from the woman's hand, but he did not find her. (21) Then he asked the men of that place, saying, "Where is the harlot who was openly by the roadside?" And they said, "There was no harlot in this place." (22) And he returned to Judah and said, "I cannot find her; and also the men of the place said there was no harlot in this place." (23) And Judah said, "Let her take them for herself, lest we be shamed; behold, I sent this kid and you have not found her."
Judah sent the kid he had promised in payment by his friend, the Adullamite, probably Hirah, but he could not find the her. He was, of course, looking for a harlot who sat openly by the roadside, but he didn't find one. When he asked where she was, the men of the place said they knew of no such harlot. He went back and reported all this to Judah, who decided they should leave well enough alone and let her keep the pledge things so that they not be embarrassed. Judah realized his act was a shameful one, or maybe not. Maybe he would just be embarrassed when other men realized he let a harlot trick him out of his signet, bracelets, and staff. I'm not sure why both of them would be shamed; maybe because his friend helped him. Perhaps it feels better to include his friend in his shame. Judah appears to justify himself by stating that they did indeed try to pay the woman, but could not find her.
(24) And it came to pass, about three months after, that it was told Judah, saying, "Tamar your daughter-in-law has played the harlot; and also, behold, she is with child by whoredom. And Judah said, "Bring her forth, and let her be burned."
After about three months, it became obvious that Tamar was with child. Since she was not married to Shelah, who should have been her only rightful husband at the time, it may have been assumed she must have "played the harlot". Judah certainly seems to have taken it to be adultery and an affront to his family to want her to be burned for her act.
(25) When she was brought forth, she sent to her father-in-law, saying, "By the man to whom these belong, I am with child," and she said, "Please determine whose these are, the signet, the bracelets, and staff." (26) And Judah acknowledged them and said, "She has been more righteous than I, because I did not give her to Shelah my son." And he never knew her again.
As she had planned all along, when she was found out and brought to her father-in-law, she produced Judah's personal belongings, and of course, Judah recognized them. He declared Tamar to be more righteous than he was because he did not give her to his son Shelah as he promised. I agree with Judah, but it was interesting to read some of the earlier commentaries that made Tamar out to be the guiltier one, but there were just as many or maybe more who saw Judah as the guilty one, and excused Tamar. Dr. John Gill wrote that Tamar was "the greatest criminal" because she sat in the way and purposely deceived him, knowing who he was and yet purposely had an incestual relationship with him, whereas Judah knew nothing but "simple fornication". Wow! That certainly was a sexist opinion if there ever was one! I realize that in Biblical times, a woman's father-in-law became her father, and that would be seen as incestual. However, in reality, it would seem no more incestual than a brother, which the custom encouraged. I believe that in Judah's purposely withholding Shelah from Tamar, he would have kept her unnecessarily in widowhood for the rest of her life. She could have played the harlot with any man, but she didn't. She purposely sought the same bloodline of her late husband. She probably wanted a child; I'm sure she didn't want to remain a childless widow all her life. I believe she was more righteous than Judah in that she didn't play the harlot with just anyone. And she never lied. Yes, it could be said she deceived, and perhaps she was guilty of incest, but so was Judah, and he wouldn't have been if he had not himself jumped in bed with whom he thought to be a prostitute. Therefore, weighing the two "crimes" as equal, Tamar's motives appeared purer, and Judah agreed she was more righteous than he was. Scripture says that he never had relations with her again after this.
(27) And it came to pass, in the time of her giving birth, that behold, twins were in her womb. (28) And it came to pass, when she was giving birth, that one put out his hand; and the midwife took and bound on his hand a scarlet thread, saying, "This one came out first." (29) And it came to pass, as he drew back his hand, that, behold, his brother came out; and she said, "How have you broken forth? This breach be upon you." Therefore his name was called Pharez.
Tamar gave birth to twins. As she was giving birth, when one baby pushed forth his hand, the midwife tied a scarlet thread on it so they would know which was the firstborn. So greatly desired were the privileges of the firstborn that it was important to know which baby that was. However, when that first baby's hand withdrew, out came his brother. It seems this was astonishing to the midwife. I'm not sure what "this breach be upon you" really means, other than "you will be remembered for that breach or bursting forth". In that case, it might make sense that this was Tamar speaking. Sometimes there were confusing pronouns in the Bible when there were more than one person. Perhaps Tamar was saying the name of that memory would be upon him, as she called him Phares, which literally meant "breach" or "breaking forth".
Pharez was a direct ancestor of the Messiah. I am recalling how an earlier ancestor, Jacob, Pharez's grandfather, also scrambled to try to get out of the womb first. Isn't it interesting that these events are even recorded? It's as if the spirits of these babies knew what was at stake and they wanted to be the firstborn in this important lineage. I am reminded of another marvelous passage in the first chapter of Luke where Mary was pregnant with Jesus and came to see her cousin, Elizabeth, who was pregnant with John the Baptist. Luke 1:41-44 says that when Elizabeth first heard Mary, the baby inside of her leaped for joy and she was filled with the Holy Spirit and knew Mary was carrying her Lord. Why did God go to such great lengths to tell us what babies in the womb did? Was it to remind us that even in the womb they are precious human beings created by God, endowed by the Creator with the unalienable right to life? An unalienable right, one given by God that cannot be taken away, and yet that is what we do everyday, by abortion. How dare we take the life of another human being created by God and obviously endowed with His spirit? We know it's wrong to take a life outside of the womb. Isn't it interesting that Kermit Gosnell was recently found guilty of murder when he killed babies right after they were born outside of the womb because he failed to kill them "legally" inside the womb, where he would not have been found guilty of murder? While the testimony in this trial was horrifying, I couldn't help but understand Gosnell when he was bewildered as to why what he did would be considered murder. After all, he had been paid to kill an unwanted baby. When he failed to do it inside the womb, wasn't it still an unwanted baby that needed to be disposed of? Was it only outside of the womb that it became a living, breathing, feeling creation of God who deserved life that it was not only a minute before? How absurd! As chilling as the Gosnell testimonies were, it's the practice of abortion itself that is the most chilling. The fact that Gosnell did not value the life of the babies he murdered had already been demonstrated by the fact he was a late-term abortion "doctor". In Jeremiah 1:5, God told Jeremiah that He knew him BEFORE He even formed him in his mother's belly and that before he came out of the womb He had sanctified him and ordained him a prophet. God knew that baby in the womb and even before; He must grieve terribly for the babies who never get a chance to fellowship with Him and do His will on earth.
One more thought on the genealogy of Jesus: Tamar was also a direct ancestor of the Messiah! She could have very easily had no descendants at all, if Judah had his way, but she is privileged to have a place in history in the genealogy of Jesus Christ (Matthew 1:3). The line of Judah could have been stopped here, but for the actions of Tamar. I don't know at this point in my study if Shelah had other children. What interesting people we have in the ancestry of Christ! Jacob, Judah, and Tamar, a few very interesting ones so far. This is one of those times when I think of skeptics of the Bible who try to negate the Bible because of the killing and lying and cheating and whores, but those are the kinds of things, and these are the kinds of people, who make it very real! If people were going to make up a fiction and call it the Word of God, I believe they would have used more righteous-appearing folks to be ancestors of the Messiah!
(30) And afterward his brother came out, who had the scarlet thread on his hand; and his name was called Zarah.
Then the son with the scarlet thread, who would have been the firstborn, came out, and he is forevermore in scripture named second behind his brother in genealogies. He was called Zarah which literally meant "dawning, shining, rising". He did dawn first, but Pharez broke forth first and was forever listed first whenever the names of Judah's and/or Tamar's sons were listed.
(1 Chronicles 2:4) And Tamar, his daughter-in-law, bore him Pharez and Zerah. All the sons of Judah were five.
(Genesis 38:6) And Judah took a wife for Er his firstborn, whose name was Tamar.
Previously in this chronological reading, it was reported that Judah had taken a Canaanite wife, and she had borne him three sons, Er, Onan, and Shelah. Now Judah's son Er had grown and it appears that Judah chose the wife for Er.
(7) And Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the LORD; and the LORD killed him.
Judah's son Er was a wicked man. We are not told exactly what he did, but it was bad enough that the Lord took him out. Judah started his family on the wrong foot. He left his brothers' companionship and made friends among the Canaanites and married a Canaanite woman. He continued friendships with the Canaanites as shown in the next few verses. At the very least, his children were not brought up in a God-fearing home.
(8) And Judah said to Onan, "Go in to your brother's wife and marry her, and raise up seed to your brother."
After Er died, Judah told his second son to marry Er's widow, as was apparently the custom, so that the firstborn son would have descendants. Indeed it became a law in Deuteronomy 25:5. Biblical historians point out that the word used for "marry" here is not the one most commonly used; the verb "yabam" is the same word as the noun that means "brother-in-law", although it may be pronounced a little differently than the noun "yabam".
(9) And Onan knew that the seed would not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in to his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother. (10) And the thing which he did displeased the LORD; therefore He killed him also.
From what I read, only the firstborn would have been considered his brother's child; after that, all the other children would have been considered Onan's. However, it appears that Onan wouldn't even give his brother that. Onan defied custom that would have honored his brother, and although his brother may not have deserved honor, he apparently did it for selfish reasons. The act was a sin against the divine institution of marriage and the object of that marriage, the bringing forth of children. That act greatly displeased the Lord and Onan also was killed by Him.
(11) Then Judah said to Tamar his daughter-in-law, "Remain a widow at your father's house till my son Shelah is grown." For he said, "Lest he also die like his brothers." And Tamar went and dwelt in her father's house.
Judah told Tamar to go live at her father's house until his youngest son, Shelah, was grown and able to marry her. That is what he said, but that is not what he intended, for he reasoned within his heart that it was so that his youngest son would not also die like his brothers. Tamar did as she was asked and went to live at her father's house.
(12) And in the process of time the daughter of Shua, Judah's wife, died; and Judah was comforted, and went up to his sheepshearers at Timnah, he and his friend Hirah the Adullamite.
After some time Judah's wife died. The original words transcribed as "in the process of time" give a sense of a multiplied time, even a multitude of years. It was probably several years after Judah sent Tamar back to her father's house with the pretense that she was only waiting for Shelah to mature, and it was obvious the youngest son was never going to marry her. Judah was comforted, indicating he had gone through his period of mourning, and now went to Timnah where his sheep shearers were. He took along his Canaanite friend, Hirah, and they were evidently going for enjoyment after his time of mourning.
(13) And it was told Tamar, saying, "Look, your father-in-law is going up to Timnah to shear his sheep." (14) And she took off her widow's garments, and covered herself with a veil and wrapped herself, and sat in an open place which was on the way to Timnah, for she saw that Shelah was grown and she was not given to him as a wife.
It may have been told to Tamar in passing that her father-in-law would be passing through, but it is apparent that Tamar is deliberate in her actions because she was never given to Shelah as wife as was the custom. She took off her widow's clothes, and whether she meant to look like a harlot or just meant to hide her identity, or both, she wrapped and veiled herself and sat in an open visible place on the road to Timnah.
(15) When Judah saw her, he thought her to be a harlot, because she had covered her face.
Judah did indeed mistake Tamar for a harlot. I don't believe it was because a veil meant she was a harlot, but because she sat in an open place and since she did have the veil, he didn't recognize her, and assumed she was a harlot.
(16) And he turned to her by the way, and said, "Come now, please, let me come in to you," (for he did not know that she was his daughter-in-law). And she said, "What will you give me, that you may come in to me?"
While it was true that Judah did not know this was his daughter-in-law, he was still guilty of fornication with a woman who was not his wife. Tamar asked what Judah would give her. This may have been so that she behaved like a harlot requiring payment for her hire or so that she would have something of Judah's to be used later, or again, maybe a little of both. While I have already found Judah guilty, I am reserving judgment on Tamar. I haven't decided if she is sinfully deceitful or just sly like a fox. While she was deceiving Judah, I don't see that she has lied. She did what was asked of her when she went back to her father's house after her husbands died, and she did not marry anyone else when Shelah did not marry her. She now put herself visibly in the path of Judah, but had he not been willing to take a harlot, this thing would not have gone any further.
(17) And he said, "I will send a kid from the flock." And she said, "Will you give me a pledge till you send it?"
Judah offered to pay her a kid from his flock, but she wanted something of Judah's as a pledge until he sent it; I believe a possession of Judah's is something she wanted all along.
(18) And he said, "What pledge shall I give you?" And she said, "Your signet and your bracelets, and your staff that is in your hand." And he gave them to her, and went in to her, and she conceived by him. (19) And she arose and went away, and laid aside her veil and put on the garments of her widowhood.
Tamar was the one who determined what personal possessions Judah gave as a pledge and he agreed to it. He gave her what she asked for and went in to her. It is said that she conceived as a result of it. Afterward, Tamar went away, took off her veils, and put back on her widow's clothing.
(20) And Judah sent the kid by the hand of his friend the Adullamite, to receive his pledge from the woman's hand, but he did not find her. (21) Then he asked the men of that place, saying, "Where is the harlot who was openly by the roadside?" And they said, "There was no harlot in this place." (22) And he returned to Judah and said, "I cannot find her; and also the men of the place said there was no harlot in this place." (23) And Judah said, "Let her take them for herself, lest we be shamed; behold, I sent this kid and you have not found her."
Judah sent the kid he had promised in payment by his friend, the Adullamite, probably Hirah, but he could not find the her. He was, of course, looking for a harlot who sat openly by the roadside, but he didn't find one. When he asked where she was, the men of the place said they knew of no such harlot. He went back and reported all this to Judah, who decided they should leave well enough alone and let her keep the pledge things so that they not be embarrassed. Judah realized his act was a shameful one, or maybe not. Maybe he would just be embarrassed when other men realized he let a harlot trick him out of his signet, bracelets, and staff. I'm not sure why both of them would be shamed; maybe because his friend helped him. Perhaps it feels better to include his friend in his shame. Judah appears to justify himself by stating that they did indeed try to pay the woman, but could not find her.
(24) And it came to pass, about three months after, that it was told Judah, saying, "Tamar your daughter-in-law has played the harlot; and also, behold, she is with child by whoredom. And Judah said, "Bring her forth, and let her be burned."
After about three months, it became obvious that Tamar was with child. Since she was not married to Shelah, who should have been her only rightful husband at the time, it may have been assumed she must have "played the harlot". Judah certainly seems to have taken it to be adultery and an affront to his family to want her to be burned for her act.
(25) When she was brought forth, she sent to her father-in-law, saying, "By the man to whom these belong, I am with child," and she said, "Please determine whose these are, the signet, the bracelets, and staff." (26) And Judah acknowledged them and said, "She has been more righteous than I, because I did not give her to Shelah my son." And he never knew her again.
As she had planned all along, when she was found out and brought to her father-in-law, she produced Judah's personal belongings, and of course, Judah recognized them. He declared Tamar to be more righteous than he was because he did not give her to his son Shelah as he promised. I agree with Judah, but it was interesting to read some of the earlier commentaries that made Tamar out to be the guiltier one, but there were just as many or maybe more who saw Judah as the guilty one, and excused Tamar. Dr. John Gill wrote that Tamar was "the greatest criminal" because she sat in the way and purposely deceived him, knowing who he was and yet purposely had an incestual relationship with him, whereas Judah knew nothing but "simple fornication". Wow! That certainly was a sexist opinion if there ever was one! I realize that in Biblical times, a woman's father-in-law became her father, and that would be seen as incestual. However, in reality, it would seem no more incestual than a brother, which the custom encouraged. I believe that in Judah's purposely withholding Shelah from Tamar, he would have kept her unnecessarily in widowhood for the rest of her life. She could have played the harlot with any man, but she didn't. She purposely sought the same bloodline of her late husband. She probably wanted a child; I'm sure she didn't want to remain a childless widow all her life. I believe she was more righteous than Judah in that she didn't play the harlot with just anyone. And she never lied. Yes, it could be said she deceived, and perhaps she was guilty of incest, but so was Judah, and he wouldn't have been if he had not himself jumped in bed with whom he thought to be a prostitute. Therefore, weighing the two "crimes" as equal, Tamar's motives appeared purer, and Judah agreed she was more righteous than he was. Scripture says that he never had relations with her again after this.
(27) And it came to pass, in the time of her giving birth, that behold, twins were in her womb. (28) And it came to pass, when she was giving birth, that one put out his hand; and the midwife took and bound on his hand a scarlet thread, saying, "This one came out first." (29) And it came to pass, as he drew back his hand, that, behold, his brother came out; and she said, "How have you broken forth? This breach be upon you." Therefore his name was called Pharez.
Tamar gave birth to twins. As she was giving birth, when one baby pushed forth his hand, the midwife tied a scarlet thread on it so they would know which was the firstborn. So greatly desired were the privileges of the firstborn that it was important to know which baby that was. However, when that first baby's hand withdrew, out came his brother. It seems this was astonishing to the midwife. I'm not sure what "this breach be upon you" really means, other than "you will be remembered for that breach or bursting forth". In that case, it might make sense that this was Tamar speaking. Sometimes there were confusing pronouns in the Bible when there were more than one person. Perhaps Tamar was saying the name of that memory would be upon him, as she called him Phares, which literally meant "breach" or "breaking forth".
Pharez was a direct ancestor of the Messiah. I am recalling how an earlier ancestor, Jacob, Pharez's grandfather, also scrambled to try to get out of the womb first. Isn't it interesting that these events are even recorded? It's as if the spirits of these babies knew what was at stake and they wanted to be the firstborn in this important lineage. I am reminded of another marvelous passage in the first chapter of Luke where Mary was pregnant with Jesus and came to see her cousin, Elizabeth, who was pregnant with John the Baptist. Luke 1:41-44 says that when Elizabeth first heard Mary, the baby inside of her leaped for joy and she was filled with the Holy Spirit and knew Mary was carrying her Lord. Why did God go to such great lengths to tell us what babies in the womb did? Was it to remind us that even in the womb they are precious human beings created by God, endowed by the Creator with the unalienable right to life? An unalienable right, one given by God that cannot be taken away, and yet that is what we do everyday, by abortion. How dare we take the life of another human being created by God and obviously endowed with His spirit? We know it's wrong to take a life outside of the womb. Isn't it interesting that Kermit Gosnell was recently found guilty of murder when he killed babies right after they were born outside of the womb because he failed to kill them "legally" inside the womb, where he would not have been found guilty of murder? While the testimony in this trial was horrifying, I couldn't help but understand Gosnell when he was bewildered as to why what he did would be considered murder. After all, he had been paid to kill an unwanted baby. When he failed to do it inside the womb, wasn't it still an unwanted baby that needed to be disposed of? Was it only outside of the womb that it became a living, breathing, feeling creation of God who deserved life that it was not only a minute before? How absurd! As chilling as the Gosnell testimonies were, it's the practice of abortion itself that is the most chilling. The fact that Gosnell did not value the life of the babies he murdered had already been demonstrated by the fact he was a late-term abortion "doctor". In Jeremiah 1:5, God told Jeremiah that He knew him BEFORE He even formed him in his mother's belly and that before he came out of the womb He had sanctified him and ordained him a prophet. God knew that baby in the womb and even before; He must grieve terribly for the babies who never get a chance to fellowship with Him and do His will on earth.
One more thought on the genealogy of Jesus: Tamar was also a direct ancestor of the Messiah! She could have very easily had no descendants at all, if Judah had his way, but she is privileged to have a place in history in the genealogy of Jesus Christ (Matthew 1:3). The line of Judah could have been stopped here, but for the actions of Tamar. I don't know at this point in my study if Shelah had other children. What interesting people we have in the ancestry of Christ! Jacob, Judah, and Tamar, a few very interesting ones so far. This is one of those times when I think of skeptics of the Bible who try to negate the Bible because of the killing and lying and cheating and whores, but those are the kinds of things, and these are the kinds of people, who make it very real! If people were going to make up a fiction and call it the Word of God, I believe they would have used more righteous-appearing folks to be ancestors of the Messiah!
(30) And afterward his brother came out, who had the scarlet thread on his hand; and his name was called Zarah.
Then the son with the scarlet thread, who would have been the firstborn, came out, and he is forevermore in scripture named second behind his brother in genealogies. He was called Zarah which literally meant "dawning, shining, rising". He did dawn first, but Pharez broke forth first and was forever listed first whenever the names of Judah's and/or Tamar's sons were listed.
(1 Chronicles 2:4) And Tamar, his daughter-in-law, bore him Pharez and Zerah. All the sons of Judah were five.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)