It's been a busy last couple weeks with renovations, funerals, and various other important tasks. In life we have to know when to take a bit of time and kick back with our family. I won't be writing a post this week (other than this one...) as we're going to spend a couple days camping.
See you Sunday!
--Pastor Stephen
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
Soul Detox, by Craig Groeschel, is a highly recommended book about purifying our lives and living in a way that honours Christ. Craig is very open about his own struggles with cleaning the cruft out of his life as he examines this topic. Soul Detox will leave you rolling in laughter at one moment and tearfully examining your life the next.
Craig leads the reader through an examination of "Toxic Behaviours", "Toxic Emotions", and "Toxic Influences" while giving practical insights and advice.
Amazon describes the book thusly:
As standards of conduct continue to erode in our shock-proof world, we must fight the soul pollution threatening our health, our faith, and our witness to others. Without even knowing it, people willingly inhale second-hand toxins poisoning their relationship with God and stunting their spiritual growth. Soul Detox examines the toxins that assault us daily including: toxic influences, toxic emotions, and toxic behaviors. By examining the toxins that assault us daily, this book offers the ultimate spiritual intervention with ways to remain clean, pure, and focused on the standard of God's holiness.
Overall, Soul Detox is a must-read book for all believers. Pick up a copy and read it with a prayerful attitude, an open mind, and an open heart. And please, don't let its $11 price tag deter you. If you attend Abundant Springs, talk to me and we'll make sure you get this book in your hands or on your computer.
Book Rating: 
"Highly Recommended"
--Pastor Stephen Valcourt
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!
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.
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.
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
