Wednesday Genesis 38
At the national level, Judah was the prominent tribe in the south as Joseph’s sons (Manasseh, Ephraim) were the prominent tribes to the north. In both cases, Judah and Joseph’s family histories show the providential practice of choosing the younger son for prominence. Judah was the fourth son born to Leah, but he surpassed his brothers, who had discredited themselves in Jacob’s eyes (Reuben, Simeon and Levi). Joseph, though not the youngest of the twelve after the birth of Benjamin, held that position in name since he was the youngest born in Paddan-Aram. Also the sons of Judah and Joseph evidenced this providential feature. The peculiar birth story of the twins Perez and Zerah revived the celebrated struggle the twins Jacob and Esau experienced, which was previewed by a divine oracle that foretold the superiority of the younger child
The placement of the Judah-Tamar event has a narrative function for the entire Joseph narrative (see “Structure” below), but its position between the sale of Joseph in chap. 37 and the Joseph-Potiphar’s wife account in chap. 39 serves another important goal. By juxtaposition, chap. 38 calls for a contrast with the surrounding events of Joseph’s Egyptian sojourn. The strongest contrast is the innocent behavior of Joseph versus the wickedness of Judah’s household and the sensuality of Potiphar’s wife. Moreover, the descent of Judah brings to the fore the fragmentation the brothers experienced during this period
That Tamar should be interpreted sympathetically, a person victimized by the recalcitrant men of the household, may be intended when we compare her behavior with Potiphar’s wife. The latter is interested only in the sensual experience with the handsome young Hebrew, but Tamar to her credit, at least as recognized by Judah (v. 26), sought to fulfill her maternal calling in behalf of her husband’s family.
Strikingly, David’s daughter was named Tamar, who also suffered at the hands of rival brothers and was relegated to a childless life (2 Sam 13:20). When we remember Ruth’s marriage to Boaz, also in the lineage of David, we find a remarkable contrast between these two ancestresses of David. That such a comparison is called for is the allusion to Tamar’s twins in the elders’ invocation: “Through the offspring the LORD gives you [Boaz] by this young woman [Ruth], may your family be like that of Perez, whom Tamar bore to Judah” (Ruth 4:12). Both are childless widows who depended on family members to provide children, but whereas Tamar feigns the harlot, Ruth acts nobly when resisting the opportunity to entrap Boaz in an untoward way (3:7–14
Excursus: Levirate Marriage
The “widow” (ʾalmānâ) was not only the survivor of her deceased husband but a woman whose economic life was threatened when she no longer had a male provider/protector.114 A woman typically was dependent upon the male members of her household to provide for her sustenance—first her “father’s house,” including her father and brothers, and, second, upon marriage, her husband’s household, including her husband, sons, and the male members of her husband’s family (e.g., brothers and father). In the event a husband died childless, she was obligated to marry in her husband’s household (Deut 25:5–10). In turn the husband’s household was obligated to provide a male heir. The order of responsibility usually was with the brother(s) of the deceased husband, and in ancient Near Eastern practice the father of the deceased husband (her father-in-law) was eligible.115 The role of the male member of society not only cared for her general well-being but was the protector of the woman’s sexuality (e.g., Lev 21:9; Deut 22:13–21; Song 1:6). Any sexual impropriety committed by the woman reflected on the good name of her father before marriage and on the household of her husband (whether dead or alive) after marriage. When Judah directs Tamar to live as a “widow,” he is speaking of her chastity, for without a male protector (husband, son, brother, father-in-law) she had no automatic provision of a sexual partner in the family guaranteeing her a husband and eventually a child.
38:25–26 At the critical moment, Tamar revealed the saving pledge by sending the items with a message to Judah (v. 25). Although Judah and the men of the city appear to have complete power over Tamar’s fate, by her knowledge she maintains power over the bamboozled men. She did not make a direct charge but permitted Judah to draw the obvious conclusion. The language of the verse recalls the brothers’ request of their father regarding the identity of the torn robe (37:32): “sent” (šālaḥ) and “recognize” (nākar). The motif of “recognition” recurs here (see comments on 37:32). Judah “recognized” them and admitted his guilt.166 Judah’s remark did not mean necessarily that her action was approved; rather, Judah acknowledged that her motivation was consistent with the purpose of levirate marriage, whereas Judah had attempted to circumvent the custom. That the text adds that he did not have sexual relations with Tamar again showed that the patriarch had repented of his behavior. Although the sexual encounter was wrong, Judah was not satisfied with acknowledging the obvious. He no longer is ignorant of his circumstances or their broader importance (see comments on vv. 15–16). Judah’s insight into his guilt and the understanding of the reason that lay behind it points ahead to the character transformation the patriarch will fully undergo. Unlike Reuben and his brothers, Judah perceives the more important underlying issues of their actions, bringing about favorable results (42:2; 44:18–34). As Noble summarizes, “Judah shows a remarkable ability to bring the heart of the matter clearly into view, and thereby to enable his present circumstances to be seen from a new perspective.”167