Judah and Tamar (Genesis 38)

The text of Genesis chapter 38 presents the biblical reader/scholar with the account of Judah, who was the son of the Patriarch Jacob and the brother of Joseph and his daughter-in-law, Tamar.  This story functions as an extended portion of the genealogical texts that highlight the descendents of Abraham and the ancestry of the “house of David.”  The initial section of the narrative mainly puts the later interaction between Tamar and Judah in context, beginning with Judah’s marriage to Shua, a Canaanite woman (placing the “purity” of the burgeoning nation of Israel in a peculiar position).  The marriage of Judah to Shua results in progeny, producing three sons:  Er, Onan and Shelah.  The ascendance of the familial lineage of the house of Judah momentarily possesses the appearance of security.  Shua is “fruitful”/fertile, unlike a number of the other matriarchs in the Genesis narrative (Sarah and Rebekah); however, this relatively “peaceful” progenic procession is soon threatened.  Judah selects a wife for his firstborn son Er; a woman named Tamar.  The account of Er’s marriage to Tamar is brief, and ends in the next verse (Gen 38:7).  Er quickly dies because he is seen by the Lord as being evil and is annihilated as a result (possibly as a measure against further pollution of the decedents of Abraham, and subsequently the nation of Israel).  Upon Er’s death, and in accordance with the levirate marriage law Tamar is given by Judah to Onan, his second born.  The marriage between Onan and Tamar was intended to produce offspring for the deceased Er, and continue his familial claim.  The text reveals that this idea did not appeal to Onan.  As a result he spills his semen on the ground whenever he consummates the union with Tamar.  God is displease by this activity and puts Onan to death.  This reality is unsettling to Judah.  He realizes that he is obligated by levirate code to furnish Tamar with his third (and final) son Shelah.  Judah is concerned, however, that Shelah’s fate will mirror that which befell on his brothers and his familial line will be endangered if not eliminated.  It is also more than likely that Judah is motivated by normal paternal concern and views the marriage as an immanent danger to the well being of his last son.   Due to the fact that Shelah is not of age, Judah tells Tamar to leave and reside in the house of her father until Shelah grows up, which she does.  Once Shelah reaches the appropriate marriage age, however, Judah does not send for Tamar.  As a result of Judah’s negligence Tamar must procure “justice” according to the practices of levirate marriage through deceit.  She disguises herself as a prostitute, accosts and has intercourse with Judah in order to produce an heir for Judah’s household.  When the truth of the matter is revealed to Judah near the end of the text Judah indicates that he, and not Tamar, has engaged in illicit behavior.  This veracity of this reality is echoed by the Biblical text when Tamar is blessed with twin sons, Perez and Zerah.

Like all biblical texts Genesis 38 does not exist in isolation, but is placed within the Pentateuch in relation to other stories and themes.  Genesis chapter 38 represents a subplot within the Joseph narrative.  It is preceded by Genesis chapter 37 which contains the story of Joseph’s brothers selling him into slavery (with Judah playing a prominent role).  The story is followed by the story of Potiphar’s wife trying to seduce Joseph, which subsequently leads to his imprisonment following an accusation of rape.  Genesis chapter 38 fits into the general theme of deception and the dichotomy of justice/injustice which characterizes the Joseph narrative, as well as other portions of the Old Testament narrative (Genesis 27, 29, 42; 1 Samuel 28; 1 Kings 14, 20).  In the first instance Joseph’s brothers use deceit, “disguising” their brother’s coat with animal blood in order to convince their father that his favored son has been killed by a beast of some sort.  In Genesis 38 Tamar uses a “disguise” to obtain her personal and familial rights under the levirate marriage code.  In the final instance referred to in this context, Potiphar’s wife deceitfully uses Jacob’s garment in order to “disguise” an event and falsely accuse him of rape.[1] 

The story found within the text of Genesis 38 can also be placed within the greater narrative that relates to the fulfillment of the promise that God gave Abraham and his son Isaac apropos the great nation that would arise from their descendents.  It provides the biblical reader/scholar with pertinent information regarding the ancestry of the prominent Israelite King David, as well as an “historical” account regarding the patriarchal origins of the nation of Israel. 

Finally the story of Judah can also be found to fit within the Pentateuch in relation to its exposition of Mosaic Law.  It may be said that this story provides a certain amount of etiological relevance regarding the importance of the levirate obligation presented in Deuteronomy 25.  It can also be seen as an interesting exception to the prohibition against sexual relations between a father-in-law and his daughter-in-law discussed in Leviticus 18.

I.                     Concerns of the Text

1. General Concerns

The rights of the marginalized and the use of deception to rectify injustice must be seen as the dueling foci of this particular biblical text.  In this way the text may be seen to include a number of existential aspects relating to the human condition.  The text is permeated with social, religious, personal and legal/judicial elements.  As the central character is the heroine Tamar, the rights of women in relation to the theological concerns of that narrative as well as Israelite custom and Mosaic Law are tantamount to understanding the conflict and resolution within the Genesis chapter 38 narrative.

To begin, fulfillment of the levirate obligation in this particular instance also has a theological function within the biblical narrative.  The text of Genesis chapter 38 is another example of how human action is allowed to intervene in history and potentially impede the progression of God’s purpose.  Due to the fact that Judah was the son of Jacob through whom the “royal/chosen” lineage of Abraham was to be continued a breach of this familial line proves to be a significant obstacle to the divine promise.  Also, because Judah marries a Canaanite woman (Shua) the purity and legitimacy of the Abrahamic lineage is challenged.  If any of the children that Judah produced with Shua were allowed to continue the line of Abraham, the line would be “polluted,” as the sons of Judah and Shua were of partial Canaanite descent.  This was an issue of great importance for the early Israelite community.  This is made abundantly clear in Deuteronomy chapter 20 when the people of Israel are commanded to annihilate everything that breathes in the lands that are to be given to them as the “inheritance” which God had promised to Abraham.  This would appear to definitely exclude the possibility of intermarriage with a Canaanite in the lineage of the Israelites.  This reality leads one to question the possibility of Judah’s descendants providing the link necessary in the lineage of Abraham.  The fulfillment of the levirate obligation through Judah appears to rectify this theological conundrum.  “Judah’s insemination of Tamar, assuming that she is not a Canaanite, allows for the promised line to continue through Judah and Tamar rather than through Judah and his Canaanite wife.”[2]  Thus the religious and socio-political tensions that arise in the text due to Judah’s initial marriage to a Canaanite are resolved by the actions of the central heroine, Tamar.  The biblical scholar/reader is also informed that Perez is one of the heirs produced by the union between Judah and Tamar, so the purity of the Davidic-messianic royal lineage is preserved as well (Matthew 1:2-17).

In order to develop a clear conception of the situation within which Tamar found herself, one must begin by analyzing the status ascribe to women under Mosaic law and ancient near eastern custom in order to have a clear conception of Tamar’s predicament.  Indeed, having such an understanding helps to uncover the main impetus for Tamar’s seemingly peculiar actions.  In ancient Israel and during the patriarchal period the rights of women were ultimately united to their status in relation to the male members of society.  A woman was to be a part of either her father’s familial clan or that of her husband.[3]  A woman who was no longer a part of her father’s household and who had no husband resided in legal, social and political limbo.  The author Susan Niditch makes this clear by comparing the anomaly of the childless young widow with the example of the barren wife:

Even more anomalous is the young childless widow who has no hope of becoming a fruitful member of her husband’s clan once the husband is dead.  Indeed, she has altogether lost her tie with that clan.  Yet she, like the barren wife, no longer belongs in her father’s household.[4]

She did not have the right of property through inheritance and, outside of the charity provided by relatives, it was difficult for a woman to find a means of subsistence.[5]  Widows, along with orphans, Levites and sojourners, were to be provided for through systematic calendar based tithing (Deuteronomy 14:28-29).  The levirate marriage law could provide some relief to a young widow caught in this situation.  Though it may appear somewhat reprehensible to modern, western sentiment “the law must have also saved young childless widows from economic deprivation and from a sort of social wilderness, no longer under father, but having no husband or son to secure her place in the patriarchal clan.”[6]  This analysis shows the nexus of religious and social norms that Tamar faced and provides incite in relation to the violation of her personal rights.  It also provides one with a starting point to analyze the actions and measures available to Tamar for the purpose of seeking injustice.  The levirate code, if fulfilled, would actually provide Tamar with some respite with regard to her social and economic alienation in the context of her patriarchal culture.

                In recognition of the abovementioned realities the factors that provided the impetus to Tamar’s actions should be readily apparent.  As discussed above, a widow with no children would remain in economic, religious and socio-political limbo until she could produce an heir through levirate marriage, or until she died.  Tamar, recognizing that her personal rights were being violated, and that the opportunity for reconciliation through the levirate marriage law was now defunct, sought to remedy the matter according to the only manner available to her.  Due to the fact that a woman in Tamar’s position only had a limited recourse within the confines of Mosaic law, and due to the fact that her access to the remedy afforded her was being denied by the very person who was obligated to alleviate her situation (Judah), Tamar had little choice but to use means that would technically and legally be considered “illicit.”  Alice L. Laffey gives this situation more clarity in her book, An Introduction to the Old Testament: A Feminist Perspective:

Though she [Tamar] was not responsible for either Er’s evil or Onan’s, she would have been prevented – by both her brother-in-law and her father-in-law – from raising up a child to her dead husband.  She herself would have lived her days as a widow and died childless.[7]

A woman’s status within the context of the patriarchal period was intimately connected with her ability to produce children, a reality established by the tension in numerous biblical texts.  As such, Tamar’s social, religious and economic status was marginal at best.

                Consequently it is necessary to discuss the use of deception and disguise by the various personages referred to in the text to fully understand the issues related to the injustice associated with violation of personal rights and the rectification of such situations.  The rights of Tamar in relation to the levirate marriage law are first violated when her brother-in-law Onan uses the birth control method of coitus interruptus, spilling his semen on the ground, rather than impregnating her.  As such, Onan instigates the cycle of deception, as he gives the appearance of fulfilling his obligation by engaging in sexual intercourse with Tamar.  In reality, however, Onan is simply protecting his reputation and his own interests.[8]  It must be observed that Onan is also engaging in a certain level of abuse with regard to his sister-in-law.  He is given access to her as an object of sexual satisfaction, access which he uses multiple times, but he denies her one of her basic rights under Mosaic law; the right to offspring.  Tamar’s father-in-law Judah also engages in deception, promising that he would allow Tamar access to his third son Shelah in order to fulfill the compromised levirate obligation, though it is soon clear that he never actually intended to fulfill this promise.  Motivated by the fear of loosing his third son, he simply never allows Tamar to have access to Shelah upon his maturation.  Tamar responds to the deception of her father-in-law using deception.  She disguises herself as a prostitute, echoing the use of garments to deceive in Chapters 37 and 39 of the Genesis narrative, and deceives Judah, enticing him to fulfill the neglected levirate obligation.     

    

2. Specific Concerns

While discussing the use of deceit by the main protagonists and antagonists of the text of Genesis chapter 38, the question of justification inevitably arises.  One is led to ask whether Tamar or Onan are justified in their use of deception throughout the text.  As Onan’s use of deception results in divine retribution (Genesis 38:9) it appears clear that Onan’s deceit is not justifiable.  There are other considerations as well.  Onan’s use of deception is used in order to promote his own interest over and against his social obligations, as well as his obligation not to violate the personhood of his sister-in-law.  The author Mignon R. Jacobs has argued that this aspect of Onan’s deception is the true source of its reprehensible nature.  “Onan’s case suggests that no disguise or deception should be used to achieve personal gain if the personal goal violates an overarching social obligation.”[9]  Onan’s abusive actions towards his sister-in-law are also indicative of another aspect of his deed.  In violating Tamar in such a way, Onan reveals a personal inclination of hostility towards God’s creation, disregarding the “image” of God presented to him in the presence of his sister-in-law.  The creation account provided in the first chapter of Genesis is a key to understanding this concept.  Though Genesis chapter two presents a separate creation account for men and then for women, Genesis 1:26-27 indicates that God created both sexes in his image without distinction apropos relations of domination, subjugation, or importance.  By violating his duty to Tamar, Onan is in fact desecrating the image of God found within her personhood and being.  Jesus Christ would later clarify the command not to violate the image of God in such a manner in a way reflective of the concerns discussed here.  In the gospel of Matthew chapter 25 Jesus describes the relationship that exists between God and the marginalized members of society with regard to their possession of the Divine image: Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.” (Matthew 25:40)

On the other hand, Tamar appears to be not only justified, but vindicated by her deceit.  The fact that the text of the chapter ends with Judah praising rather than burning Tamar and condemning his own activity seems to support this view.  The fact that God blesses Tamar with two sons, one of whom is to be a prominent member of the Davidic-messianic line, also appears to give further credence to this line of argumentation.  Tamar is also justified for a number of other reasons.  While Onan’s actions are motivated by his personal desire to neglect his social and religious obligations, Tamar’s impetus appears to be her desire to fulfill her obligations to her dead husband Er, as well as to her father-in-law, by providing offspring.  As Mignon Jacobs points out “…Tamar’s righteousness is a product of her conformity to the goal to procreate.”[10]  Esther Fuchs takes this argument further stating that “…it is precisely Tamar’s selflessness, her alleged willingness to forget her right to Shelah and her relentless desire to fight for Judah’s interest that are valorized,” in this portion of the biblical text.[11]  Again, one must also note that Tamar was simply acting within the constraints placed upon her by her social and legal context.  She devised a plan and acted in a way that, though illicit, would rectify her situation and continue the patriarchal line.[12]

Judah’s central role within the context of this problematic situation cannot be denied.  Indeed, through his actions Judah is shown to be the dynamic catalyst of the story.  As the fundamental patriarch in Genesis chapter 38, his character and his actions must be seen as providing the momentum of the overall narrative.  For instance it is Judah who commands his second son Onan to fulfill his levirate obligation to his deceased brother Er (Genesis 38:8).  It is also Judah who commands Tamar to return to her father’s household until his third son Shelah reaches sexual/marital maturity, an odd command in light of the fact that Tamar is still bound to Judah’s household (Genesis 38:11).  It was Judah who withheld his third son through fear that he would be killed if he were married to Er’s widow Tamar (Genesis 38:14b).  Furthermore, as was briefly mentioned above, Judah could be held responsible for the turn of events from the very beginning.  It was Judah who violated precedence and married a Canaanite woman (Shua) and possibly forced the divine hand in this account.  The events of chapter 38 can be seen as a divine rectification to the impurity introduced into the Abrahamic lineage as a result of Judah’s marriage to Shua.[13]  It can be argued that Judah’s actions are responsible for the whole gauche and discomfited nexus of events of which the Genesis 38 narrative is a composite.[14]

III. Hermeneutical Significance

               

A.      General Reflections

That the text of Genesis 38 has implications for the contemporary world should be readily apparent.  The central focus is on the marginalized woman Tamar and her use of guile or deceit to obtain a certain measure of justice in relation to the legal code of her social context.  Though it is true that some women in Occidental culture have obtained a greater degree of freedom in the modern period, this reality must not be generalized.  A majority of the world’s women exist in a state of legal, social and economic marginalization.  In recognition of this fact, instances in which this particular biblical text could be meaningful applied are not difficult to locate.

Prominent examples can be found throughout what is referred to as the southern hemisphere of the globe.  Even though the Mexican constitution provides for the legal protection of the rights of women, the marginal status of women in Mexico is a de facto reality.  One only needs to look at the situation of women in the city of Juarez and the southern most state of Chiapas to confirm the veracity of the above claim.  In both instances women, particularly indigenous women occupy the lowest rungs of societal status.  They are abused, mutilated and murdered and are afforded little access to judicial remedy.  In the context of Juarez, the justice system appears to be the main opponent of women seeking justice as a community.  The courts, police and government officials appear to be more interested in closing cases than with the actual administration of justice.[15]  In the Chiapas this is also a matter of fact; however, the community of indigenous people within the state of Chiapas, especially the women members, have decided to rectify the institutional injustices they face by existing in defiance of them.  The state of Chiapas has been the locus of open rebellion against the government of Mexico since the government’s ratification of the NAFTA treaty in 1994.  The women of the Zapatista rebellion don masks in order to liberate themselves.[16]  Like Tamar, the Zapatista women temporarily hide their identities in the hope that eventually they will be fully realized.  Overall, for women who are concerned to see that justice is done, the only methods afforded them appear to be extra legal. 

Though women in North-western cultures may do better in superficial respects (i.e. they are given the choice to pursue occupations outside the maintenance of the home and family) the problems of injustice and domination are still prominent features of their daily existence.  Women of the global North-west still face prejudice and violence as a group.  The global condition of women is best expressed by J. Milburn Thompson in his text, Justice and Peace: A Christian Primer:

Women are oppressed and subjugated throughout the entire world.  Sexism is a characteristic of every society and culture on earth.  Indeed, only recently has feminism (a belief in the equality of the sexes) meaningfully challenged patriarchy…Although some nations have made significant progress toward the goal of gender equality, no society has reached that goal.[17]

That women as a group face a predicament similar to that faced by Tamar should be readily apparent.

B.      Specific Reflections

One can respond to the proposition that deceit is but a tool of necessity when marginalized members of the human community are seeking justice and the recognition of violated rights in a number of ways.  Some scholars and activists would not only validate the veracity of such a statement, but would argue that it is not adequate in itself.  The Marxist-feminist, psychoanalyst Luce Irigaray would argue that deceit maybe used, but that ultimately what is needed is the development of a gender-wide consciousness with regard to women’s oppression, followed by a “sexual strike.”[18]  Others would go further.  For instance, Sharon Smith locates the oppression of women within the nexus of power and fiscal affluence that characterizes the modern capitalist system.  In her book, Women and Socialism, Smith argues that what is needed is not merely deceit, but the total reorganization of the economic system with the result that women shall also be liberated.[19]  In short what is need is a revolution.  This is the path followed by the women of the Zapatista community of Chiapas, Mexico.

A more moderate view is also present.  This view holds that deceit is sometimes a tool to be used to rectify injustice, but does not necessarily allow for revolutionary change.  The author Melissa Jackson argues that Tamar had to use deceit, as this was the only option open to her.[20]  Since Tamar had no real legal or social power, she had to use trickery and disguise in order to rectify the unjust situation in which she found herself.

Some point out that the situational injustice does not necessarily justify the means proposed to rectify the situation.  As Jacobs argues, “the apparent absence of viable means does not automatically validate the use of an otherwise reprehensible method.”[21]  This would definitely be an argument used by those who oppose the use of violent measures (open rebellion in opposition of the state) to alleviate the injustice suffered by women.  It can also be an argument employed against the use of deception, or disguise.

Perhaps this is a false dilemma.  Perhaps Christian men are, in a manner similar to Judah, abdicating their responsibility when it comes to the rights of women.  One can argue that if Christian men participate in the patriarchal system of oppression and subjugation in anyway they are condemning women to share the fate of Tamar.  When Christian men give patriarchy even tacit support, women are forced to find their own means of adjudication, even if it is technically illicit.

Sources Cited

Fuchs, Esther Sexual Politics in the Biblical Narrative: Reading the Hebrew Bible as a Woman (Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000)

Hamilton, Victor P. Handbook on the Pentateuch: Second Edition (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2005)

Irigaray, Luce “The Sex which is Not One,” trans. Claudia Reeder, in New French Feminisms, ed. Elaine Marks and Isabelle de Courtivron (New York: Schoken, 1981)

Jackson, Melissa “Lot’s Daughters and Tamar as Tricksters and the Patriarchal Narratives as Feminist Theology” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, no 98 Je 2002

Jacobs, Mignon R. Gender, Power, and Persuasion: The Genesis Narratives and Contemporary Portraits (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2007)

Laffey, Alice L. An Introduction to the Old Testament: A Feminist Perspective (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988)

Niditch, Susan “Genesis” in Women’s Bible Commentary: Expanded Edition, ed. Carol A. Newsom and Sharon H. Ringe (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1998)

Ramirez, Gloria Munoz The Fire and the Word: A History of the Zapatista Movement (San Francisco: City Lights Books, 2008)

Rodriguez, Teresa The Daughters of Juarez: A True Story of Serial Murder South of the Border (New York: Atria Books, 2007)

Thompson, J. Milburn Justice and Peace: A Christian Primer (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 2003)

                

               

                         

---

[1] Victor P. Hamilton, Handbook on the Pentateuch: Second Edition (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2005), 129.

[2] Hamilton, Handbook, 129.

[3] Susan Niditch, “Genesis” in Women’s Bible Commentary: Expanded Edition, ed. Carol A. Newsom and Sharon H. Ringe (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1998), 25.

[4] Niditch, “Genesis,” 25.

[5] Melissa Jackson, “Lot’s Daughters and Tamar as Tricksters and the Patriarchal Narratives as Feminist Theology” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, no 98 Je 2002: 29-46.

[6] Susan Niditch, “Genesis,” 25.

[7] Alice L. Laffey, An Introduction to the Old Testament: A Feminist Perspective (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988), 46.

[8] Mignon R. Jacobs, Gender, Power, and Persuasion: The Genesis Narratives and Contemporary Portraits (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2007), 185-7.

[9] Mignon R. Jacobs, Gender, 199.

[10] Mignon R. Jacobs, Gender, 185.

[11] Esther Fuchs, Sexual Politics in the Biblical Narrative: Reading the Hebrew Bible as a Woman (Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 73.

[12] Mignon R. Jacobs, Gender, 197.

[13] Victor P. Hamilton, Handbook, 128-9.

[14] Mignon R. Jacobs, Gender, 200.

[15] Teresa Rodriguez, The Daughters of Juarez: A True Story of Serial Murder South of the Border (New York: Atria Books, 2007), 231-89.

[16] Gloria Munoz Ramirez, The Fire and the Word: A History of the Zapatista Movement (San Francisco: City Lights Books, 2008), 89-91.

[17] J. Milburn Thompson, Justice and Peace: A Christian Primer (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 2003), 103.

[18] Luce Irigaray, “The Sex which is Not One,” trans. Claudia Reeder, in New French Feminisms, ed. Elaine Marks and Isabelle de Courtivron (New York: Schoken, 1981), 99-106.

[19] Sharon Smith, Women and Socialism (Chicago: Haymarket Books, 2005), 154-197.

[20] Melissa Jackson, “Lot’s Daughters and Tamar as Tricksters and the Patriarchal Narratives as Feminist Theology” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, no 98 Je 2002: 33. 

[21] Mignon R. Jacobs, Gender, 201.