Morality in Bible stories that you don't understand

[Politesse]

The levirate rule is not a "unique situation" -- it is described clearly in Deut 25, and the entire plot of the book of Ruth makes no sense unless you understand why Ruth feels she has to marry an in-law or no one.

"If brothers are living together and one of them dies without a son, his widow must not marry outside the family. Her husband’s brother shall take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to her. The first son she bears shall carry on the name of the dead brother so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel.

However, if a man does not want to marry his brother’s wife, she shall go to the elders at the town gate and say, “My husband’s brother refuses to carry on his brother’s name in Israel. He will not fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to me.” 8 Then the elders of his town shall summon him and talk to him. If he persists in saying, “I do not want to marry her,” 9 his brother’s widow shall go up to him in the presence of the elders, take off one of his sandals, spit in his face and say, “This is what is done to the man who will not build up his brother’s family line.” 10 That man’s line shall be known in Israel as The Family of the Unsandaled."

 

[Learner]

Cheers for bringing up the Levirate rule. I didn't make this clear in context. As you've underlined the common 'consequence' in Deuteronomy 25:9-10 when a brother refuses to comply with those duties required under the Levirate rule. There is a some noticeable difference or seriousness with regards to Onan, which was his punishment of death... given directly by God.

 

[Politesse]

Cheers for bringing up the Levirate rule. I didn't make this clear in context. As you've underlined the common 'consequence' in Deuteronomy 25:9-10 when a brother refuses to comply with those duties required under the Levirate rule. There is a some noticeable difference or seriousness with regards to Onan, which was his punishment of death... given directly by God.

So you feel the moral objections people have to forced sibling marriage are only that there shouldn't be a death penalty for skirting it? As long as the only punishment is eternal humiliation of an entire family line, you're okay with it and think other people should be too?

The difference with Onan's case is obvious to me. He didn't go through the process described in the law, but rather tried to keep the woman as his property whille shirking his responsibilities to her, deliberately not fathering a child as the law requires, a very different and much more deceptive crime.

 

[Thomas II]

Cheers for bringing up the Levirate rule. I didn't make this clear in context. As you've underlined the common 'consequence' in Deuteronomy 25:9-10 when a brother refuses to comply with those duties required under the Levirate rule. There is a some noticeable difference or seriousness with regards to Onan, which was his punishment of death... given directly by God.

Not so fast...


https://kdmanestreet.com/tag/why-did-tamar-disguise-herself-as-a-prostitute-and-sleep-with-judah/

"TAG ARCHIVES: WHY DID TAMAR DISGUISE HERSELF AS A PROSTITUTE AND SLEEP WITH JUDAH?​

JUDAH AND TAMAR, GENESIS 38​

Posted on June 24, 2016 under Bible Study

Judah got a wife for Er, his firstborn, and her name was Tamar. But Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the LORD’s sight; so the LORD put him to death.” -Genesis 38:6-7

Genesis 38 tells of Joseph’s brother, Judah, moving away from home and settling in Canaan where he marries and raises his children to adulthood among a people his family deems unclean.
This chapter provides enough drama to start a TV series. How about a spin on Housewives? Hmm . . . I can see it now: Tent Husbands.
You may read Genesis 38 here: Bible Gateway.
When Judah’s firstborn, Er, errors through persistent wicked living, God takes his life. Since Tamar is now a childless widow, Judah follows the levirate marriage custom as described in Deuteronomy 25:5-10. He tells his second born, Onan, to fulfill his duty and sleep with her so she might have a son to carry on her late husband’s inheritance.
For the highest value in this culture is to carry on the bloodline.
Onan has no problems sleeping with Tamar, but he purposely denies Er an heir. What benefit would that be to him anyway? (vs. 9)
Needless to say, God isn’t happy with Onan. “For what he did was wicked in the Lord’s sight.” So He also kills Onan, (vs. 10).
As the saga continues, Judah tells Tamar to live under his tent and he will give her his third son in marriage when he is older.
However, the marriage ceremony never happens.
In the meanwhile—after a long time—Judah’s wife dies. After the grieving process, Judah sets out to shear sheep in Timnah.
The plot thickens. With the realization that Judah lied about giving her his third son in marriage, Tamar devises a plan to provide legal heirs.
Since shepherds aren’t sheepish at sheep-shearing time. And abundant sexual temptation abounds, she disguises herself as a prostitute and places herself in Judah’s path.
Judah takes the bait. So Tamar agrees to have sex with him in exchange for a few of his personal items: his seal, cord, and staff.

Conclusion​

When Judah learns that Tamar, the so-called prostitute, is pregnant he sidesteps the usual punishment of stoning her (Deuteronomy 22:20-24; John 8:4-5). Instead, he demands that she be burned. (Burning was reserved only for a priest’s daughter found guilty of prostitution in the Mosaic Law, Leviticus 28:9.)
But as Tamar is brought out, she sends a message to Judah: “I am pregnant by the man who owns these. . . . See if you recognize whose seal and cord and staff these are,” (vs. 25).
Guilty! Judah confesses his wrong in denying Tamar his third son and lets her off the hook.
Judah and Tamar have twin sons, Perez and Zerah. Perez becomes the ancestor of David (Ruth 4:18-22). And David becomes the ancestor of Jesus Christ (Matthew 1:3). Wow!

REFLECT ​

This story seems to be open-minded about prostitution, but it is condemned as a serious sin throughout Scripture. If there is a moral in this story, it is that loyalty to family is extremely important.
Immersed in a culture where prostitutes were common, the question of sexual morality never seems to enter Judah’s mind.
While Judah was driven by lust, Tamar was driven to be the matriarch of Judah’s oldest family line. Layman’s Bible Commentary observes: “There is evidence that among ancient Assyrian and Hittite peoples, part of the levirate responsibility could pass to the father of the widow’s husband, if there were no brothers to fulfill it. Thus Tamar was, in one sense, claiming what was due her. She had tricked Judah into fulfilling the levirate responsibility and now would bear his children.”
Neither Judah nor Tamar, however, were justified in their actions.
Although Judah concealed the very sin he thought Tamar committed, fury fueled him as he demanded her death. When we become angry over a sin we see in others, maybe we should ask ourselves: “Am I struggling in this same area?”
Next week we will read how Joseph’s integrity stands in striking contrast to Judah’s immorality. Have a wonderful weekend!"

 

[James Brown]

But the answer to your questions is not hard. It is not required for Christians to do any of the above, otherwise it would be obvious, and 'stating the obvious' through the teachings of Jesus.

I guess I don't understand this. If a moral act is "not obvious" then Christians (or people living in a Christian nation) are not required to obey it?

Who gets to decide if something is "obvious"--the person performing the moral act, or the one enforcing it? Can the "it wasn't obvious to ME!" defense be used in a court of law?

 

[James Brown]

Question no.5 is a unique situation. This situation 'happens once', and If God punishes Onan for what seems to be of some particular dutiful reason having significant importance to God, then Onan was punished rightly.

"If God does it, it's not immoral."™

 

[James Brown]

The levirate rule is not a "unique situation" -- it is described clearly in Deut 25, and the entire plot of the book of Ruth makes no sense unless you understand why Ruth feels she has to marry an in-law or no one.

"If brothers are living together and one of them dies without a son, his widow must not marry outside the family. Her husband’s brother shall take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to her. The first son she bears shall carry on the name of the dead brother so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel.

However, if a man does not want to marry his brother’s wife, she shall go to the elders at the town gate and say, “My husband’s brother refuses to carry on his brother’s name in Israel. He will not fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to me.” 8 Then the elders of his town shall summon him and talk to him. If he persists in saying, “I do not want to marry her,” 9 his brother’s widow shall go up to him in the presence of the elders, take off one of his sandals, spit in his face and say, “This is what is done to the man who will not build up his brother’s family line.” 10 That man’s line shall be known in Israel as The Family of the Unsandaled."

But Onan lived hundreds of years before the law was written in Deuteronomy 25. Surely he shouldn't be punished for breaking a law that didn't yet exist.

Assuming that he was punished for it. All Genesis says is that he did a thing, YHWH didn't like it, and killed him for it. Assuming that we have the accurate story about what Onan did or did not do, how do we know that YHWH didn't like it? How do we know that YHWH killed him because of it. Just because the author of Genesis says so?

Feels no different than when a hurricane slams in the US Eastern Seaboard. Before the winds die down, some televangelist says that the hurricane was God's punishment for letting gays get married. Maybe it's true, but I strongly doubt it.

 

[Learner]

Cheers for bringing up the Levirate rule. I didn't make this clear in context. As you've underlined the common 'consequence' in Deuteronomy 25:9-10 when a brother refuses to comply with those duties required under the Levirate rule. There is a some noticeable difference or seriousness with regards to Onan, which was his punishment of death... given directly by God.

So you feel the moral objections people have to forced sibling marriage are only that there shouldn't be a death penalty for skirting it?

The only feeling I had, where feelings are concerned, was the erroneous notion that Onans circumstance, his death is a consequence of a law similar to the Levirate law that 'doesn't' sentence men to death for refusing to take their dead brothers wife

As long as the only punishment is eternal humiliation of an entire family line, you're okay with it and think other people should be too?

If only the simple 'okay' could be expressed a little more than that...

The rules was necessary for the people of the time during the shaping of a nation who were surrounded by much worse. This is what I understand and I accept.

Basically, I wouldn't like to cast stones on people either by the old Jewish laws, but do I accept that's what harsh rules necessitated for harsh times, when the whole world was violent.

The difference with Onan's case is obvious to me. He didn't go through the process described in the law, but rather tried to keep the woman as his property whille shirking his responsibilities to her, deliberately not fathering a child as the law requires, a very different and much more deceptive crime.

Well as I said previously...this is unique compared to the usual form of the Levirate law we're talking of.

 

[Politesse]

The rules was necessary for the people of the time during the shaping of a nation who were surrounded by much worse. This is what I understand and I accept.

How so? Politically and economically I understand the purpose of levirate customs, but why would a god care about safeguarding male priority and family groups?

Jesus seems more than a little dismissive of the concept when a group of scholars ask him about it in the gospels, and I tend to agree with him.

 

[Thomas II]

Question no.5 is a unique situation. This situation 'happens once', and If God punishes Onan for what seems to be of some particular dutiful reason having significant importance to God, then Onan was punished rightly.

"If God does it, it's not immoral."™

James, you seem to be bothered by what the "god" of the OT says and does...and seems to me, with good reason...I found this website today...

https://goodgodministry.com/

Makes sense to you, at least in the OT god issue?

 

[Learner]

But the answer to your questions is not hard. It is not required for Christians to do any of the above, otherwise it would be obvious, and 'stating the obvious' through the teachings of Jesus.

I guess I don't understand this. If a moral act is "not obvious" then Christians (or people living in a Christian nation) are not required to obey it?

If those particular practices, mentioned in your previous questions were still required ... this would be preached and taught. The obvious things for example, like Christians who are not required to 'sacrifice lambs' as the Jews did.

Who gets to decide if something is "obvious"--the person performing the moral act, or the one enforcing it? Can the "it wasn't obvious to ME!" defense be used in a court of law?

Not a biblical scenario but it's possible to use YOUR phrase line in court. Hopefully your Judge is fair and can see what your intention was, if at all this was not your fault, before passing judgement on you.

 

[Learner]

Question no.5 is a unique situation. This situation 'happens once', and If God punishes Onan for what seems to be of some particular dutiful reason having significant importance to God, then Onan was punished rightly.

"If God does it, it's not immoral."™

You can't go around sentencing and giving lethal injections to murderers willy nilly.. but if a judge in a court today does it, then....

 

[DBT]

What is the morality of capital punishment? As an incarcerated prisoner is no longer a threat to society, execution is not a matter of self defense or public safety.

 

[Thomas II]

What is the morality of capital punishment? As an incarcerated prisoner is no longer a threat to society, execution is not a matter of self defense or public safety.

 

[Thomas II]

 

[Thomas II]

 

[James Brown]

Question no.5 is a unique situation. This situation 'happens once', and If God punishes Onan for what seems to be of some particular dutiful reason having significant importance to God, then Onan was punished rightly.

"If God does it, it's not immoral."™

James, you seem to be bothered by what the "god" of the OT says and does...and seems to me, with good reason...I found this website today...

Well, it is the point of the thread. I'm glad this thread hasn't drifted into politics yet.

https://goodgodministry.com/

Makes sense to you, at least in the OT god issue?

More than the notion that the same God who drowns humanity is also the same God who "loved the world" so much that he incarnated himself and let himself be tortured to death for our sake.

Isn't that site just arguing for Gnosticism?

 

[James Brown]

But the answer to your questions is not hard. It is not required for Christians to do any of the above, otherwise it would be obvious, and 'stating the obvious' through the teachings of Jesus.

I guess I don't understand this. If a moral act is "not obvious" then Christians (or people living in a Christian nation) are not required to obey it?

If those particular practices, mentioned in your previous questions were still required ... this would be preached and taught. The obvious things for example, like Christians who are not required to 'sacrifice lambs' as the Jews did.

Oh, lots and lots of Christian practices are no longer preached and taught. One of the Ten Commandments is don't boil veal in milk. Paul expressly forbade women teaching in the church, or wearing hats. Jesus had way more to say about caring for the poor than he did for abortion or homosexuality.

Why are those things still expressed in Christianity--even if they are inadequately obeyed--but being required to marry and impregnate your brother's widow not?

Who gets to decide if something is "obvious"--the person performing the moral act, or the one enforcing it? Can the "it wasn't obvious to ME!" defense be used in a court of law?

Not a biblical scenario but it's possible to use YOUR phrase line in court. Hopefully your Judge is fair and can see what your intention was, if at all this was not your fault, before passing judgement on you.

Yes, one can only hope that a human judge would show leniency on someone who said, "I wasn't aware of that law"--despite the legal principle that ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it.

Was Onan tried in front of a judge before a jury of his peers? Did the Heavenly Judge show leniency? Genesis 38 doesn't imply that. The chapter is filled with YHWH playing judge, jury, and executioner.

"Er was wicked in the Lord's sight, so the Lord put him to death.

"What [Onan] did was wicked in the Lord's sight, so the Lord put him to death also."

My first question--what did Er do that was so wicked? (No chance to learn from his mistake, is there.) How do we know that what Er did was wicked to YHWH? And how do we know that it was YHWY that put him to death? We only have the author's word on it, in a book written hundreds or thousands of years after the events. Rather flimsy evidence.

And again, people tell me that natural disasters are God's punishment for the gays, or the abortion, or the whatever. This tells me that either those people are extremely ignorant of what causes earthquakes and hurricanes, or God is random, capricious, and cruel.

Or that there is no God and we live in a dangerous world. That's the argument where I've put my money.

 

[Thomas II]

Question no.5 is a unique situation. This situation 'happens once', and If God punishes Onan for what seems to be of some particular dutiful reason having significant importance to God, then Onan was punished rightly.

"If God does it, it's not immoral."™

James, you seem to be bothered by what the "god" of the OT says and does...and seems to me, with good reason...I found this website today...

Well, it is the point of the thread. I'm glad this thread hasn't drifted into politics yet.

https://goodgodministry.com/

Makes sense to you, at least in the OT god issue?

More than the notion that the same God who drowns humanity is also the same God who "loved the world" so much that he incarnated himself and let himself be tortured to death for our sake.

Isn't that site just arguing for Gnosticism?

I think it's time to separate those two concepts

 

[bilby]

How do we know that what Er did was wicked to YHWH? And how do we know that it was YHWY that put him to death?

I think the authors of the Bible are putting the cart before the horse - understandably in the context of pre-industrial and pre-scientific thought.

In Biblical times, if a young and apparently healthy man suddenly dropped dead for no discernible reason, then obviously he had been struck down by a god, and obviously this was because of something he'd done to anger that god.

They could worry about the details later, if at all; The point was to explain the apparently inexplicable, and "god's wrath" is the go-to option for that.

Nobody was able to do an autopsy and find a congenital heart defect, or an aneurysm in the brain, or a spontaneous pneumothorax, or any of the rare conditions now known to occasionally cause the completely unexpected and sudden death of an apparently completely healthy young man.

So the conclusion was that he had pissed off a god. Even if nobody knew exactly how.

Or that there is no God and we live in a dangerous world. That's the argument where I've put my money.

Me too, but it wouldn't have flown in the Biblical era; That argument would have succumbed to the Stone Him to Death Fallacy, which is one of the more popular ways for religious believers to prove that any questioners are badly mistaken.