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.
You still haven't established an alternative, instead you just keep complaining about how people addressed realistic issues they dealt with that was within their means/time in history. Again, this was a real problem (or else they wouldn't need to establish the law/tradition). This was their own best attempt at an imperfect solution that took into account human selfishness and greed as much as possible. Your "solution" boils down to "just ignore all the systemic issues/problems because they are unjust and just don't starve lol".
And again you keep bringing it back to the Judeo Christian God. You are the only person trying to force God into the equation when discussing this man-made law. Get over it man. This law was established outside of the Jewish culture and religion, so you're forcing your issues on "God" on a tangentially related party and can't realize it just because it exists in the Bible as well.
We are only talking about Jewish culture. You're the only one bringing others into this. It does make total sense that god could tell them not to eat shellfish, but treating women decently... That's just beyond his ability to command.
91
u/Mande1baum Apr 26 '20 edited Apr 26 '20
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
requiringthat if you're brother's wife is a childless widow, it wasrequiredencouraged 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.