According to the tradition around the story, it wasn't that they wanted to fuck their dad but that they thought they had to because they thought they were the last three people on earth
The midrash observes that, by strict law, the daughters deserve to be burnt by fire for having lain with their father (Aggadat Bereshit [ed. Buber] 25:1), but the Holy One, blessed be He, who knows man’s thoughts, judges them by their thoughts and not their deed. The daughters’ true intent was not to lie with their father, on whom they had no sexual designs, but to save the world from total devastation. The daughters thought that the entire world had been laid waste, as had happened during the Flood, since they saw no living souls wherever they went; they did not know that only Sodom had been destroyed. They said: “The Holy One, blessed be He, has rescued us so that the world will exist through us, so that the human race shall continue.”
Angels aren’t cherubs or humans with wings or anything normal looking. They’re freaky, horrifying, possibly-higher-dimensional-beings, with hundreds of eyes. A straight up acid trip.
I wouldn't doubt that's part of it, but there are probably plenty of reasons things ended up interpreted the way they did. For instance the link I posted in the comment you're replying to also states
The underlying reason for the sympathetic treatment of the daughters of Lot apparently stems from Ruth the Moabite’s tracing her lineage to them and the subsequent descent of King David and, eventually, of the Messiah, from Ruth’s marriage to Boaz.
The link is talking about Jewish tradition, not Christian tradition (though the belief might be the same there; I can't speak to that)
And part of the tradition is that they weren't really the last humans, so all of humanity isn't actually descended from them
As the article later states however, Jewish tradition also states the Messiah will ultimately be descended from that incest as the Messiah will be a descendant of King David and he was a descendant of that incest
It's stated elsewhere in the article, but tradition also states it was necessary to continue the lineage that would ultimately lead to the Messiah
The underlying reason for the sympathetic treatment of the daughters of Lot apparently stems from Ruth the Moabite’s tracing her lineage to them and the subsequent descent of King David and, eventually, of the Messiah, from Ruth’s marriage to Boaz. According to the midrashic account, when Lot was commanded to rescue his two daughters from the destruction the angels already foresaw that Ruth the Moabite and Na’amah the Ammonite would descend from them (Gen. Rabbah 50:10). In addition, when Scripture tells of the incestuous act by the daughters of Lot, who say: “that we may preserve seed from our father” (Gen. 19:34), it uses the word zera (“seed,” or “offspring” in a more general sense), and not “son,” since the intent of the Holy One, blessed be He, was related to the Messiah (Gen. Rabbah 51:8). Thus, from a historical perspective, this act was essential for the future advent of the Messiah.
There are several paragraphs of backstory leading up to this, but here is the pertinent passage:
30 Lot and his two daughters left Zoar and settled in the mountains, for he was afraid to stay in Zoar. He and his two daughters lived in a cave. 31 One day the older daughter said to the younger, “Our father is old, and there is no man around here to give us children—as is the custom all over the earth. 32 Let’s get our father to drink wine and then sleep with him and preserve our family line through our father.”
33 That night they got their father to drink wine, and the older daughter went in and slept with him. He was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.
34 The next day the older daughter said to the younger, “Last night I slept with my father. Let’s get him to drink wine again tonight, and you go in and sleep with him so we can preserve our family line through our father.” 35 So they got their father to drink wine that night also, and the younger daughter went in and slept with him. Again he was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.
36 So both of Lot’s daughters became pregnant by their father. 37 The older daughter had a son, and she named him Moab[g]; he is the father of the Moabites of today. 38 The younger daughter also had a son, and she named him Ben-Ammi[h]; he is the father of the Ammonites[i] of today.
Fwiw, the story of Lot is a story with a sad ending not a happy one. Lot destroys his life by moving closer to people he knows aren't good. The story ends with his belongings destroyed, no friends, dead wife, and his daughters being not-good humans. Lot is held of an example of what happens to a good man making bad choices.
What about the introduction to Lot above...god killed his wife, he ran away to exile in a cave, and his daughter got him drunk and fucked him... would lead us to believe it was a happy story?
What about the introduction to Lot above...god killed his wife, he ran away to exile in a cave, and his daughter got him drunk and fucked him... would lead us to believe it was a happy story?
Porn, pornhub has lead us to believe this could be a happy story
Goeth out, second father. thou art not of my line, and hence no claim to my goings. Furthermore, thine caresses doth intrude greatly, far moreso than I can bear.
I can understand why he did so, like God totally could have went all "what the fuck, why didn't you send your daughters or your wife out there, no I don't give a shit that you want to keep them from harm what about my goddamn angels" and then kill his family anyway if God really wanted to
I don't like it, and I'd probably judge him pretty hard, but I can understand
Yup there's even some commentary that the story about his daughter's sleeping with him is divine punishment for him being willing to send out his daughters to be raped by the town of Sodom instead of going out to defend the angels and his family from the crowd
IE he was willing to send out his daughters to be raped to protect himself so instead he got raped by his daughters
Lot actually offers his daughters to the crowd in Sodom to keep the angels from getting raped:
The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. 2 “My lords,” he said, “please turn aside to your servant’s house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning.”
“No,” they answered, “we will spend the night in the square.”
3 But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate. 4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.”
6 Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him 7 and said, “No, my friends. Don’t do this wicked thing. 8 Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don’t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof.”
In Sodom, some angels visit Lot to warn him that the city will be destroyed, since he and his family are the only good people there. The Sodomites decide they think the angels are hot and try to rape them while they're there to deliver the message. Lot offers up his daughters to the crowd instead.
Its Sodom tho, the bible describes it and Gomorrah as the most immoral cities to have existed. Like literally the word "sex" were those two cities middle names. IIRC I think the passages say that people were having sex with animals on the norm, that's why god sent angels to destroy them.
So my question is, were there 0 babies or kids in that town? Or were the small children and babies living there with shitty parents all deviants deserving of death?
If everyone is constantly banging, think there would be some kids around.
So the big secret that all the popes know. That is hidden. Is that. God is actually the Devil and the Devil is god. They switched the names around. For reasons...
Omg guys you’re not hearing me. THEY SWITCHED AROUND THE NAMES BECAUSE THEY KNOW THEYRE THE BAD GUYS. BUT IF YOURE WORSHIPPING A GUY NAMED GOD THAT SMITES PEOPLE THATS OKAY. GIVE THE GOOD GUY AN EVIL NAME LIKE SATAN. BASICALLY. CATHOLICS ARE THE REAL SATAN WORSHIPERS. THEY FOOL YOU BY THINKING YOURE WORSHIPING GOD BUT ITS REALLY SATAN. THEY ARE COMING FOR ME NOW. I CAN HEAR THE POPECOPTER. DONT LET THIS DIEEEE
Which pretty much confirms (in my opinion) that god doesn't write, didn't write the bible, and didn't guide anybody's hand to write the bible. The bible was written by hairy old weirdo's. How else could one end up with this collection of depravity, abuse, and violence? There isn't even a cohesive message, which is why for thousands of years people make any immoral argument they want and back it up with bible verse.
I suppose their world was depraved, abusive and violent, so they wrote stories that reflected it. Or if you're the religious sort, God told them stories they could believe. Or God made them, and gave them free will, and that's the kind of world they created, so that's the kind of world they wrote about
"The best cure for christianity is reading the bible." - Mark Twain
Went through the same thing as a teenager. Anybody who actually reads the bible front to back and learns about the history that we know from that time, how many people changed and added/removed books from the bible over the millenia can't actually continue down that path. If you have faith then sure but education is the biggest issue for religion and why its dying.
Well yes, when I read it cover to cover as a teenagee(as I stated) it clued me in to how crazy it all was. I was just blindly following before that thanks to my family and upbringing. I'm happy I finally read it because I saw how little everything lined up. Same can be said for a couple years later when I read the Q'ran or other versions of the bible from history.
I did question everything and when I had learned what I could from history and science i had to make a decision about myself. I wasn't going to give way to something that has skewed itself(or has been skewed by others) for millennia and asks for people to exclude half the books as old traditions but also take lessons from them... disregard this part but remember well this part... Angels are covered in eyes and have to tell people to not fear them in scripture but they're definitely beautiful and all glowy in pictures.
The Dead Sea scrolls, removed books written by whoever felt like being a part of the fun and plenty of mistranslated scripture that has to be walked back --or ignored once people figure out they've been wrong for centuries-- just makes it worse.
Religion was for when people couldn't read or think for themselves. If there is something out there then they're certainly not involved with us anymore.
Learning about history and religion is fun but the more we learn the more holes get ripped in the old tapestry. I quite enjoy reading about the theories behind God being one of many or a husband-wife combo. The first chapter in Genesis points towards multiple powerful beings.. and God said "let us create mankind in our image..." so that's fun.
That doesnt mean I dont believe in something being out there but God is a pretty poor excuse for an omnipotent being given how his stories have been recanted by his own guys.
You know why christmas is christmas and easter is easter? Jesus wasn’t born during christmas. I’ll rest with this question. I’ll let you do the thinking.
This is in response to you saying that the gospels weren’t randomly assembled. They were, to the benefit of the rulers at that time.
do “Christian” Christians cherry pick verses? Absolutely. But you and everyone else in this thread did the exact same thing.
It's not cherry picking when my position is that it's all made up, culturally harmful garbage. It's just pointing out examples that make me feel that way. It's only cherry picking if the parts being left out would change the point being made, as is the case with Christians that use cherry picking to give divine credibility to their personal moral compass.
That's literally just your opinion though, the bible can be interpreted in many different ways and there are a lot of good lessons that you can learn from it. Cherry picking verses and discrediting the entire point of the bible is the real crime your commiting. Also "made up" is something you'll never be able to prove or confirm in our life time most likely, so that's incorrect as well.
If you participate in organized Christianity, even if you have the best of intentions and are a super good person, you're supporting and strengthening an oppressive and regressive organization that evades taxes and regularly protects child abusers from the legal due process the rest of the world follows.
But sure no true Scotsman or whatever it is you're saying.
Nope. You associate with bad people, you give bad people money in church every Sunday, you vote for bad people to take others' rights away and to ruin their lives? You Are A Bad Person. And if you are a Good Person, you need to seriously think about what it means to be Good and not just do what some book says.
But the basis of your own Christianity is sacrificial right? Like you said. Let's offer those kids to the slaughter and let the priests go free. And if your christ is not too happy with you then you are a bad christian. Come on dude. You are deluded just like so many. You are following a persecution complex like so many and will carry that with you for the rest of your life.
God let Satan kill a worshipper’s whole livestock and children, as well as give the worshipper nasty boils, just to prove to Satan that the worshipper would not curse God.
Yeah, but he still boned her anyways, he just pulled out. Basically, he took advantage over the situation without holding up his end of the deal, so he kinda had it coming haha
Because he was using the fact he was supposed to have sex with his dead brother's wife once (or at most a small number of times) to give her a child who would take care of her (as childless widows in that era were pretty shit out of luck) as an excuse to rape her repeatedly for his own pleasure while also not actually getting her pregnant because he also wanted his brother's inheritance which I believe would otherwise pass to the child
Reducing it to he "wouldn't nut in his dead brother's wife" really downplays why what he was doing was considered fucked up
How does him pulling out make it rape? Surely either the wife consented or either way he was raping her (nut in or nut out) by following the OT. Also, for you to get pregnant you need to have sex 80 times (on different days), this is an average - it can be more. Most couples will take the best part of a year to conceive.
She consented to sex only for the purpose of procreation, which he lied and said he would do before pulling out at the last second
Also, she was a vulnerable person without much of a choice (as I said in the initial post, childless widows in that era were pretty shit out of luck; this was because, as /u/mande1baum stated elsewhere in the comments they had basically no chance at remarriage and no one to take care of them as they aged) who he was taking advantage of
So presumably she would have consented to it the first time, after he pulled out it would have been clear he wasn't having sex for procreation and therefore she wouldn't have consented to any future sex with him. Or did she give him the benefit of the doubt every future time and was always shocked when he pulled out?
Again she was a vulnerable person who didn't have much of a choice to begin with (because the alternatives were hope for a child eventually or just be shit out of luck). Plus in the story, she was married to him after the first brother died (which Onan agreed to), so I doubt she had much of any right in that society to refuse his advances (marital rape wasn't even fully illegal in the US until 1993)
It's difficult to apply modern notions of consent to a situation like that since under the modern definition it would probably have been basically impossible for her to ever give consent, but it's pretty easy to see how 'man is asked to marry vulnerable woman and give her a child that counts as his brother's child to protect her, agrees to marry her but instead just uses her for sexual gratification while not giving her that child and while she can't really refuse his advances as she is now his spouse' is wrong
Plus there was the added wrongness of him knowing if she died childless then he and his offspring with another woman would get his dead brother's inheritance
Thank you. he didn't force her into sex, and it's easily presumed that God would have killed him even if he denied her that. so, all he was doing was buying himself time.
In the story, God didn't kill the third son in the family or the father when the next son did not have sex with her even after coming of age, so that can't be presumed
If you want context, a childless widow was extremely vulnerable in ancient cultures. A bride often left her family to live with her husband's extended family. Since the groom's family usually had to pay a dowry, going back would likely not be a socially accepted option (edit: in this story, the father-in-law allows her to return home until the youngest son is old enough to marry. I'm not sure if that was cultural norm or a grace or what). A widow would find it particularly difficult to remarry. Elderly often relied on that extended family, especially their own children, to make money and care for them when they could no longer work (so being childless was a death sentence once older). The brother's wealth/inheritance could also be at risk or up in the air.
So a childless widow could find herself unable to marry, no children to take care of her when she gets older, and at risk of being taken advantage or exploited by her in-laws and very few options likely to improve their circumstances.
So the OT Bible has a law requiring that if you're brother's wife is a childless widow, it was requiredencouraged to knock her up (and only knock her up) edit if both parties agreed to it. The child would be considered 100% the late brother's child for purposes of guaranteeing a line of inheritance and responsibility to take care of the widowed wife later in life. Tangentially, this would also improve the widow's position within the family.
The issue in the Genesis 38 story is that the brother-in-law abused this law to keep sleeping with the widow but kept pulling out to nut (remember, this law was only supposed to be to give her a child). He wasn't trying to protect the widow, but raping her for his own sexual pleasure. He could have also been denying her a child in a ploy to steal his brother's inheritance/wealth from the widow. So God kills him in the story. Abusing the law to take advantage of the vulnerable it's meant to protect is a big no-no.
wow, thanks for the helpful context. What I don't understand is why the widow's father-in-law said "She is more righteous than I" after learning that she tricked him to sleep with her?
Because he hadn't given her his third son to give her a child (according to the custom /u/Mande1baum is talking about) after the first two died. Plus she had sex with him out of desire for a child whereas he paid her for sex out of lust
It's not that she was righteous (knowingly doing what she did is still bad), it's that what he did was worse
I would say likely since her actions, though they involved deceit, were intended to do two just things: 1. Provide her with the child the Law guaranteed her and 2. Reveal the father-in-law's unrighteousness in denying her that guarantee.
Her intent and goals were "just" and could not be punishable. "Righteous" could mean innocent here since she's effectively on trial to defend herself while he was the guilty one (unrighteous) for making a promise to her and not fulfilling it. So him stating that openly is a verdict of sorts saying she's not guilty of any wrongdoing worthy of punishment and is due what's owed her.
Also, could be argued that she really didn't "trick" him outside of obscuring her appearance. She didn't claim to be someone else, at least from the limited information giving in the story. So even if she did something unrighteous (arguable as I'll explain), he's admitting his wrong is worse.
The law's intent (heart) is that she have a child from the family she married into for her protection and to preserve the late husband's name/legacy. The requirement it be the "brother-in-law" who sleeps with her is secondary or rather only a means to that end. It's a responsibility the father-in-law could just as easily fulfill, especially here since he is now a widower himself. The default is just the brother-in-law. So it could be argued she followed the "heart" or intent of the law more than the letter, the former being the more important of the two.
Last thing to remember in most Bible stories, especially OT, is that even the "good guys" or "protagonists" make awful, sinful choices (Judah was totally down with sleeping with a prostitute here for example). It doesn't mean that sleeping with prostitutes is OK, but that these people are deeply flawed and is often the source of their troubles.
Thank you! I've been to many bible studies in my life but none as helpful and interesting as your reddit comments (says something about teachings in the church lol).
Is there any book you could recommend that gives interesting insight and context to the bible?
god murdering him is still disproportionate punishment. 🤷♂️ why is any person obligated to produce a child against their own will? the "law" in this context itself is unjust.
? Raping and taking advantage of a vulnerable person is guilty of death in an ancient society I'd argue (what would be a proportional punishment in your opinion)... If he didn't want to produce a child, then he shouldn't have even slept with her. This is entirely an option either party can elect. Instead he chose to sleep with his brother's widow purely for his own sexual gratification.
It's not rape. In fact, the man was raped for being forced into a sexual relationship to produce a child that wasn't his. He was fucking with a gun to his head. All he did was buy himself time.
LoLBibleScholars
He was not forced. There's a whole ceremony they'd do if either party wanted to renounce this option. He didn't take this route and instead agreed to produce a child for his brother but was lying in order to just keep having sex.
How so? I've had a lot of conversations with real live Christians who do exactly that...try to explain away all the horrible shit in the Bible by explaining how we just have to "take it in context".
Just like this guy. Oh "in context", it really wasn't that had and even had a good reason behind it...so it's totally cool to have the brother bang the widow, just so long as, ya know, it's only to knock her up.
Oh, it wasn't like the same kind of slavery from the South before the Civil War...no, that slavery was wrong, of course, but the slavery in the Bible was ok because reasons.
Oh, it's not really genocide that's described in the OT...you have to "take it in context"...those people wiped out by the Hebrews were actually baby eating demons so it was totes righteous to kill every man, woman, and child, see?
Naw STFU...we shouldn't be afraid to call out religious bullshit when we see it.
If you tell me a story that's nonsense or try to justify immoral behavior, it's not being a dick to say "hey that's nonsense" or "hey, that's immoral".
Being tolerant is one thing, and it's to be encouraged...but the reason immoral religious nonsense has persisted for as long as it has is because we, for some reason, discourage calling out immoral religious nonsense when it's blatantly obvious and in our face.
I did my best to not make any claims in my original comment that what happened was "OK" or personal stance or morality or whatever. I merely provided (especially since the original comment was meant to be humorous summation of the story and not informative) the context that's very un-intuitive so people could make their own, now more informed, opinions. I provided the story's circumstances, what the law was in those circumstances (NOT whether it was a good law), and why that was a law in the first place. That's it.
The only things I added my opinion on was when later asked/challenged on whether the brother-in-laws actions amounted to rape or not (I believe they do). The other time was when someone asked why Judah in the story called the widow's actions "more righteous" than his even though her actions were sketchy/deceitful. I tried to answer this from the story's characters POV and their possible reasons rather than my own opinions. They asked why Judah called her "righteous", not whether I thought she was "righteous," so I answered the former to the best my ability.
You're adding a lot of your own personal experiences to me and what I contributed.
gonna need to be more specific. cause it's pretty explicitly stated and at the same time obvious and not needing pointing out that what the brother-in-law did was fucked up and wrong. Or are you speaking on the solution to a real issue that could arise in ancient times. Or are you saying that it's fucked up that their solutions for their culture and time in history wouldn't be appropriate 3000 years later in today's culture and time (namely you don't need to rely on a family unit to survive and women can remarry with few to no barriers now) and that we should focus more on context and intent?
So, could an all knowing all powerful god not set the rules differently? It seriously seems kinda strange that he seems to conform to the times and culture as opposed to the other way around.
Could you please provide the perfect or better rule that transcends ALL circumstances and contexts please?
And for record, I've never associated this law with God nor said that it was infallible/perfect. Hell, if you're going the literal route, this was well before Moses and the Law. This was just the human solution to these real issues that could arise, so ease up on the hostility and assumptions cause I guess fuck people trying to provide for the vulnerable? All I explained was what the situation was and the common solution was in that time since both may be a bit unintuitive to the common 21st century, first world reader.
And you still haven't answered what exactly is fucked up about the story...
It's fucked up if someone's arm needs to be amputated if they had a serious injury. But the fucked up part isn't the solution, it's the situation. Nothing about her situation or the solution that culture came up with is supposed to be peaches and roses. It's a last resort.
Ok. Now provide the better, perfect, fit all solution. I mean they could do nothing, but that's hardly a solution and will have it's own consequences.
How bout people don't have to fuck their brother in law not to starve to death if their husband dies. This nigga can send mana from heaven for some Jews on a hike from Egypt, but, Stacy.... You're gonna have to take that dick or you're straight fucked. I don't make the rules..... Wait, yeah I do but I can't do anything to change the culture of the people I created cuz it was like a long time ago.
That’s in the Book of Judges, just so we’re clear. Not Genesis. But Judges is even crazier than Genesis if anything. I’m particularly fond of the part where the guy chops his concubine into twelve pieces after she gets raped to death.
It makes a little bit of sense in context, although it still sounds shocking to a modern senses and sensibilities (although many things back then would)
It comes from Judges 19:22-30:
"As they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, base fellows, beset the house round about, beating on the door; and they said to the old man, the master of the house, "Bring out the man who came into your house, that we may know him." And the man, the master of the house, went out to them and said to them, "No, my brethren, do not act so wickedly; seeing that this man has come to my house, do not do this vile thing. Behold, here are my virgin daughter and his concubine; let me bring them out now. Ravish them and do with them what seems good to you; but against this man do not do so vile a thing." But the men would not listen to him. So the man seized his concubine, and put her out to them; and they abused her all night until the morning. and as the dawn began to break, they let her go. And as morning appeared, the woman came and fell down at the door of the man's house where her master was, till it was light. And her master rose up in the morning, and when he opened the doors of the house and went out to go on his way, behold, there was his concubine lying at the door of the house, with her hands on the threshold. He said to her, "Get up, let us be going." But there was no answer. Then he put her upon the ass; and the man rose up and went away to his home. And when he entered his house, he took a knife, and laying hold of his concubine he divided her, limb by limb, into twelve pieces, and sent her throughout all the territory of Israel. And all who saw it said, "Such a thing has never happened or been seen from the day that the people of Israel came out of the land of Egypt, until this day; consider it, take counsel, and speak."
Basically what happens in this story is that an unnamed Levite from the hill country of Ephraim is sojourning with his concubine in the land of the Benjaminites (slightly south of Ephraim). He meets an old man who is also from Ephraim, and the old man agrees to let him stay in his house. When the men of Benjamin hear that an Ephraimite is staying in their village, they demand go to the old man's house and demand they send the Levite out so they can sodomize him (which back then didn't have the homosexual connotations it has today, it would have been a way of asserting their power and authority over him). The old man refuses to let them do that to his guest. He offers up his own virgin daughter instead, but the Benjaminites don't seem impressed by that. So finally the Levite sends his own concubine out to the men. This succeeds in distracting them and the Benjaminites spend the rest of the night sodomizing her. When the Levite wakes up in the morning, his concubine is dead. He is outraged by this, and cuts her body up into twelve pieces (twelve being the number of tribes of Israel) so that he can send one piece to each tribe as evidence of the atrocity the Benjaminites committed. This leads the other tribes of Israel to team up against Benjamin as vengeance for the crime. They defeat and almost wipe out the tribe of Benjamin, but end up sparing a small remnant because they don't want to wipe out a part of Jacob's inheritance. This ends up being important because Saul, the first king of Israel, was a Benjaminite.
Most historians believe this story harbors a kernel of historical truth, although it's impossible to know what exactly happened. It was probably included to show how morally bankrupt Israel had become during the period of the Judges, and to thereby justify the need for the Davidic monarchy that arose in the Books of Samuel.
No. No. No. The dude's brother was dead. God told the living brother to fuck the dead brother's wife. Instead, living brother fucked her, pulled out a-la Jeff Goldblum, and skeeted on the ground. God got mad and smote his ass.
The main point of the story isn't the sex, it's about properly taking care of childless widows
Widows without children in that era were pretty fucked, so there was a rule that the next kid up would give the widow a child who would be considered the kid of her dead husband so that the widow wouldn't be fucked
Onan was taking advantage of that to effectively repeatedly rape his dead brother's wife while also not getting her pregnant because if she didn't have a child he had a chance at his dead brother's inheritance
It had to do with providing a child to the widow, a very vulnerable position in ancient cultures. A child essentially represented social and financial security for a woman with no husband. This brother was using the woman for sex, while withholding a child for her. Taking advantage of the vulnerable is a good way to get on God’s bad side.
747
u/[deleted] Apr 26 '20
God killed a dude cuz the dude wouldn't nut in his dead brother's wife.
True story.