Why Was Tamar Considered More Righteous than Judah for Her Prostitution?

Yes, I know this story isn't from this week's reading, but the question was asked and I thought I'd answer it for anyone wondering.

In Genesis 38 we read the story of Judah and Tamar. Here Judah's eldest son, Er, gets married to a woman named Tamar. However, before he is able to get her pregnant he dies (the Bible says that God put him to death because Er was wicked). Tamar is then given to Er's brother, Onan, whose responsibility is now to have a child with Tamar. The catch is that this child will be his brother, Er's, not his. So, Onan decides to prevent his late-brother's wife from becoming pregnant. So God kills him too, because of his wickedness.

Judah tells Tamar to wait until Judah's youngest, Shelah, has grown up more, so she enters Judah's house and lives with him as a widow. Eventually, Shelah has grown up, but Tamar notices that Judah hasn't made any arrangements for their marriage. Tamar dresses as a prostitute and lays in wait for Judah, getting him to sleep with her and leave her with a pledge for his payment. She purposely asks for a very identifiable pledge and then sleeps with him.

When Judah comes back to trade the pledge for his payment, he cannot find the woman he had been with, so he returns home. Later, it turns out that Tamar is pregnant and Judah is indignant and is going to have her killed for having sex outside of marriage; however, Tamar uses Judah's pledge to show him that he is the father to which he replies that she is not to be put to death because she is more righteous than he.

This post will examine why Onan was killed, and why Tamar was considered more righteous than Judah after her act of prostitution.

Why was Onan considered wicked?

Onan's wicked deed comes down to two things: he was not doing what was considered the proper thing to do, and he was being selfish. In the times of Genesis 38 it was considered proper, if a man died with no heir, for his brother to take his wife as his own and sleep with her. Their first child would be the brother's heir whereas all further offspring would be his own. After Er was killed, Onan was supposed to produce an heir for his brother, for all his brother's lands and possessions to pass down to. However, Onan realized that, should Tamar not have a child, all Er's land and possessions would be his own and would pass through his own line (remember, Er--as the oldest--would have received a sizeable inheritance).

So Onan devised a plan whereby he would have sex with Tamar, but would then pull-out before climax--ensuring no heir would be produced and allowing him to keep the inheritance for himself and any offspring produced by him with another wife. God found this selfishness despicable and killed him.

Why was Tamar Righteous?

As Er and Onan were both dead and no heir had been produced, Tamar rightfully was to be passed to the next oldest brother to produce an heir by him. However, Judah was afraid his final son would be killed too (as Tamar has become a bit of a black widow at this point) so he says that Shelah needs to be older before they marry.

Tamar soon realizes that Judah has absolutely no intention of following through on his promise (which is also his duty) and she devises a plan of her own in order to secure the heir that is rightfully due her. She tricks Judah into thinking she is a prostitute and gets pregnant by him. She also makes sure to have proof that it was Judah that did this.

Judah realizes that he sinned both by having sex with a prostitute (and having sex outside of marriage), and by trying to withhold his son from marrying Tamar. While Tamar's actions were not perfect (she was guilty of fornication and some trickery) she actually ended up forcing Judah to give her what was rightfully hers and is therefore considered more righteous than Judah. Recognize as well, the Bible does not say that Tamar's actions were righteous. All it notes is that Judah said she was more righteous than he was.

Is this a case of the ends justifying the means? What's your take? Leave your comments and questions below!

--Pastor Stephen Valcourt

Who is Moses' Father-in-law: Reuel, Jethro or Hobab?

As you were reading Exodus 2 and 3 you may have noticed something that appears to be a discrepancy in the naming of Moses' father-in-law. This post will give a brief overview of this apparent problem and will sort out who is who. For the purposes of this blog we will avoid going too deep into every side of the debate as that is the area of biblical scholars and unnecessary for the average person who is simply seeking answers. When we first meet this man in Exodus 2:18 (ESV) we read, "When they came home to their father Reuel, he said..." then we see in verse 21 that Moses marries one of "the man's" daughters named Zipporah. Where the apparent controversy lies is in Exodus 3:1 (ESV): "Now Moses was keeping the flock of his father-in-law, Jethro, the priest of Midian..." A few other instances muddy the water further. In Numbers 10:29 (ESV) we read "And Moses said to Hobab the son of Reuel the Midianite, Moses' father-in-law..." but then Judges 4:11 (ESV) reads: "Now Heber the Kenite had separated from the Kenites, the descendants of Hobab the father-in-law of Moses..."

So we have three names: Reuel, Jethro, and Hobab which all seem to refer to Moses' father-in-law, but becomes confused by the issue of Hobab seeming to be both Moses' father-in-law and the decendent of Reuel who we also posit is Moses' father-in-law!

Who was Reuel?

Let's tackle who Reuel is first. There are three basic views on this. The first is that Reuel is simply another name for Jethro, much like Jacob also being named Israel (both of which were used interchangeably).

The second idea is that Reuel could be the father of the clan (or household) and the daughters of Jethro were, therefore, attributed to Reuel. This would be consistent with the practices of the day (such as Jacob claiming Joseph's children as his own in Genesis 48:5 (ESV) ). However, this would also force the character called Hobab into the role of Moses' father-in-law, which while seeming to work just fine raises difficulties later on when considering that Hobab is recorded as staying with the Israelites as a guide after their exodus from Egypt while Jethro is recorded as returning home.

The third idea is that "Reuel" was Jethro's real name whereas "Jethro" was his priestly title (Jethro means "excellence" ["Who was Moses' Father?", Tektonics, http://www.tektonics.org/lp/mosdad.html. & "Daily Bible Study--Jethro", Wayne Blank. Keyway.ca. http://www.keyway.ca/htm2002/jethro.htm.]). This is a possibility that can be conjoined with the first option (Reuel and Jethro being two names for the same individual).

After much study, I believe that Reuel and Jethro are the same person. Whether or not "Jethro" was actually a title is not important to the issue, though it could explain why the two names are introduced for one man without any explanation.

Hobab: father-in-law?

Now that we have decided that Reuel and Jethro are one-in-the-same: namely, Moses' father-in-law, we must determine how Hobab is related. As mentioned, in Numbers 10:29 (ESV) we read: "And Moses said to Hobab the son of Reuel the Midianite, Moses' father-in-law..." and then in Judges 4:11 (ESV) "Now Heber the Kenite had separated from the Kenites, the descendants of Hobab the father-in-law of Moses...". In the first passage Hobab is describes as the son of Reuel the Midianite--then note that the comma's placement shows we are describing Reuel as Moses' father-in-law. This would make Hobab Moses' brother-in-law. However, Judges 4:11 (ESV) says that Hobab is the father-in-law of Moses!

This has been quite the point of contention, but is quite simply solved. The Hebrew language originally consisted only of consonants (for example, the last sentence, minus consonants would read: TH HBRW LNGG ORGNLL CNSSTD NL F CNSNNTS). Later on, small markings were added above and below each word to guide in pronunciation and allow for easier reading. This is the Hebrew for "father-in-law":  it sounds like this: ḥōṯēn. On the other hand, this is the Hebrew for "brother-in-law":  it sounds like this: ḥāṯān. Notice how, in the original Hebrew manuscripts the small markings above and below would not have existed leaving both words identical. As the Expositor's commentary puts it, "Hobab is called Reuel's son in Numbers 10:29 (ESV); so 'brother-in-law' is a most likely rendering. 'Father-in-law' can be 'brother-in-law' with no change in consonants"(Expositor's Commentary: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 & 2 Samuel. Zondervan, 1992. Page 405).

The New Living Translation (NLT) and the New International Version (NIV), different translations of the original manuscripts, agree with rendering this as "brother-in-law". Therefore, I believe that Reuel and Jethro are one person: Moses' father-in-law and Hobab is Moses' brother-in-law.

Reliability of the Bible

When we start looking at this kind of answer it may cause us to wonder if the Bible is as accurate as we like to think. I believe that it is. There are many checks and balances that have gone into making copies of manuscripts and checking them against one another. The Biblical manuscripts are some of the most reliable ancient texts that are in existence. Much more reliable in fact, than most of the manuscripts that we unquestioningly base much of our ancient history on. For more information on how the Bible has been preserved I recommend reading the Institute for Religious Research's article called "Is Today's Bible the Real Bible?".

If you have any further questions or need help on another topic, leave your comments below!

--Pastor Stephen Valcourt

I See, Therefore I am??? (The question of the striped rod and the speckled flock)

Some controversy has arisen over the idea of Jacob creating a flock of speckled and spotted goats and black sheep out of a flock in which there were none simply by breeding them in front of striped sticks. Scientifically, does this make sense? Does this put the Bible in jeopardy? First, let's start with the story, found in Genesis 30:25-43:

"As soon as Rachel had borne Joseph, Jacob said to Laban, 'Send me away, that I may go to my own home and country. Give me my wives and my children for whom I have served you, that I may go, for you know the service that I have given you.' But Laban said to him, 'If I have found favor in your sight, I have learned by divination that the LORD has blessed me because of you. Name your wages, and I will give it.' Jacob said to him, 'You yourself know how I have served you, and how your livestock has fared with me. For you had little before I came, and it has increased abundantly and the LORD has blessed you wherever I turned. But now when shall I provide for my own household also?' He said, 'What shall I give you?' Jacob said, 'You shall not give me anything. If you will do this for me, I will again pasture your flock and keep it: let me pass through all your flock today, removing from it every speckled and spotted sheep and every black lamb, and the spotted and speckled among the goats, and they shall be my wages. So my honesty will answer for me later, when you come to look into my wages with you. Every one that is not speckled and spotted among the goats and black among the lambs, if found with me, shall be counted stolen.' Laban said, 'Good! Let it be as you have said.'"

Up to this point, everything seems great. Laban has agreed to Jacob's terms. Then we read:

But that day Laban removed the male goats that were striped and spotted, and all the female goats that were speckled and spotted, every one that had white on it, and every lamb that was black, and put them in charge of his sons. And he set a distance of three days' journey between himself and Jacob, and Jacob pastured the rest of Laban's flock.

Essentially, Laban just ran off with Jacob's wages and made the prospect of any other speckled or spotted goats or black lambs quite unlikely.

Then Jacob took fresh sticks of poplar and almond and plane trees, and pealed white streaks in them, exposing the white of the sticks. He set the sticks that he had peeled in front of the flocks in the troughs, that is, the watering places, where the flocks came to drink. And since they bred when they came to drink, the flocks bred in front of the sticks and so the flocks brought forth striped, speckled, and spotted. And Jacob separated the lambs and set the faces of the flacks toward the striped and all the black in the flock of Laban. he put his own droves apart and did not put them with Laban's flock. Whenever the stronger of the flock were breeding, Jacob would lay the sticks in the troughs before the eyes of the flock, that they might breed among the sticks, but for the feebler of the flock he would not lay them there. So the feebler would be Laban's and the stronger Jacob's. Thus the man increased greatly and had large flocks, female servants and male servants, and camels and donkeys.

At first glance everything seems top-shelf, but some are quick to point out an issue. How did Jacob make an entire flock of speckled and spotted goats and black lambs out of a flock devoid of them just by using colored sticks? Everything else makes sense. Shepherds would have understood that breeding strong animals produces other strong animals and would have known when their animals were ready to breed. However, the principle that the animals' coloring could be affected by visual aids is simply not possible from a scientific aspect.

So why did Jacob do it? And why did it work? As to Jacob's methods, they were probably derived from the traditions of farmers in the area. The IVP Bible Background Commentary states:

The stripped rods which Jacob places before the troughs of the sheep cannot genetically affect the sheep. This type of sympathetic magic is found in many folk traditions (including modern tales of colors worn by a mother determining the sex of her child). It plays a part in the trickster theme of this narrative and is reflective of a culture which depended on a mixture of magical and commonsense methods to produce results.

Perhaps Jacob was covering his bases and decided to follow some of the local magical traditions. Maybe he was talking with some other shepherds who suggested it to him and, upon seeing it working, decided to keep it up. However, the true reason for its effectiveness is found in Genesis 31:10-13

In the breeding season of the flock I lifted up my eyes and saw in a dream that the goats that mated with the flock were striped, spotted, and mottled. Then the angel of God said to me in the dream, 'Jacob,' and I said, 'Here I am!' And he said, 'Lift up your eyes and see, all the goats that mate with the flock are striped, spotted and mottled, for I have seen all that Laban is doing to you. I am the God of Bethel, where you anointed a pillar and made a vow to me. Now arise, go out from this land and return to the land of your kindred.'"

In the grand scheme of things, the naysayers' focus on the unscientific use of the striped rods has caused them to overlook the answer to their alleged problem: the sticks are not mentioned as the true cause for Jacob's success in breeding. Rather, God has been with Jacob and caused his foolish human efforts to succeed in order to bless him!

Sometimes we can get caught up on a confusing detail that a little further reading of the context will make clear. I hope this has enriched your reading!

If you have any topics you would like to see discussed please email Pastor Stephen at abundantsprings@gmail.com.

--Pastor Stephen Valcourt