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.
No comments:
Post a Comment