Deuteronomy 15:1-11

I.                   Content and Context

The text of Deuteronomy 15:1-11 presents the biblical reader scholar with an account of the Šěmittāh law.  This title is given to the legal codes found within the context of the first eleven verses of Deuteronomy due to the fact that the Hebrew verb Šěmittāh (shemitah) is allotted a place of primacy within the text.  This verb literally translated means “dropping,” and this is exactly the idea presented with Deuteronomy 15:1-11.[1]  Essentially the verses found within this chapter of Deuteronomy provide a discourse on the remission of debts (or “debt release/relief”).  The text indicates that every seventh year, creditors, meaning here anyone who holds a debt “against a neighbor…who is a member of the community,”[2] are to remit their claims of debt against their fellow Israelites.  The sole rationale given for this command, or law is that the “Lord’s remission has been proclaimed.”  In other words, those individuals who have made financial provisions for other members of the Israelite community must annul (or at least suspend) the debt that is owed to them because the Lord has told them to do so. 

Not every indebted individual is guaranteed relief via application of this law.  A clear distinction is made between members of the community of Israel and those of foreign descent or ancestry.  Remission of debts is only promised for one’s fellow Israelite.  The third verse of Deuteronomy indicates that “[o]f foreigners” one may exact an obligation of debt even during the Sabbatical year.  Consequently, the applicability of the remission laws discussed in Deuteronomy chapter 15 is limited to particular persons according to the biblical text.

Deuteronomy 15:4 becomes a site of interruption apropos the recitation of the law.  The tone of the narrative switches from command to promise.  The biblical passage which includes Dueteronomy 15:4-6 includes a number of promises for the community of Israel.  These include the promise that there “will, however, be no one in need among” the people of Israel and that the Lord will bless the land which the people will take possession of if they follow his commandments.  A final blessing/promise is given in verse six, indicating that Israel will become the financial center of their region due to the abundance which God will bless them with if they obediently observe his commands.

Within the final portion of the Šěmittāh law text, which begins in Deuteronomy 15:7 and extends to verse eleven, one finds a divine admonishment.  Here the author of Deuteronomy is careful to caution the Israelites to be generous with any needy member (or members) of their community which they might encounter.  This particular portion of the text also addresses the internal tensions and motivations of the wealthy members of the community of Israel that this command might elicit, reminding them that if they lend “generously” and “ungrudgingly” the Lord will bless them.  The final verse of the debt remission passage is a reminder that there will always be those in need and, as a result, the Lord commands that provision be made for their needs.

I.                   Concerns of the Text

1. General Concerns

The text of Deuteronomy 15:1-11 has two fundamental foci.  The first of these is the material necessities of the debt laden poor.  The second focus is correlative relationship between obedience to divine decree and the divine blessing which is the promised result of such obedience.  Due to the fact that the text is concerned with such visceral realities as debt, poverty and the coexistence of these states with material affluence, the text is permeated with social, religious and personal elements.  Though there is no central character (i.e. no particular poor person is named as the focus of the text) the general applicability of the situation addressed indicates that a number of existential aspects relating to the human condition are at issue as well.

The concern for the poor that is expressed within the Deuteronomic text expresses a key theological principle.  It shows that God is concerned with individual members of Israelite society as well as the Israelite community as a whole.  This concern for debt laden individuals also expresses a divine concern for the marginalized members of the social order.  The theological scholar Raymond Brown makes this point in his book The Message of Deuteronomy: Not By Bread Alone.  Within this book Brown states that since throughout Deuteronomy frequent reference is made to the “well-being of the whole community,” one might expect the individual members of the population of Israel to be overlooked.[3]  This is not the case.  “Although the Lord was creating a ‘people’ (14:2), that did not mean that individuals were disregarded or devalued.  In God’s sight every single man, woman or child, rich or poor, was of infinite worth (for everyone belonged to him) and special care must be taken over their distinctive needs.”[4]  In recognition of this state of affairs, it should be apparent that a divine concern for the impoverished, the needy and those burdened by debt proves to be a central concern of the text.

The second major theme in the passage of Deuteronomy 15:1-11 is of a theological nature.  Throughout this portion of the biblical text one finds a recurrence or repetition of the divine promise that godly beatitude would accompany obedience to the covenant.  The promise of divine blessing in return for covenant obedience found in Deuteronomy 15:5 appears to be an echo of Deuteronomy 6:3, Deuteronomy 7:12-16 and Deuteronomy 8:1.  Within each one of these passages the Deuteronomic narrative indicates that there is a direct correlation between the Lord’s blessing and the Israelites’ observance of divine law.  The author David F. Payne makes an interesting observation apropos the correlation between the abundance of divine blessing and a diligent observance of the law.  Within the text of his book Deuteronomy, Payne states that “[i]t is one thing to make a law enforcing the cancellation of debts at a specific time; it is quite impossible though to force richer citizens to make loans, and we can see that the passage is an appeal, a plea for generosity.”[5]  The solution to this problematic situation, according to Payne, is the covenant.  Though one might not be able to coerce the affluent citizens of society to give loans to the impoverished, one could strongly encourage it by making it one of the conditions for divine favor.  “The basis is the covenant; the covenant bound Israelites together in unity as the people of God.  Israelites therefore had moral obligations towards each other; and if moreover as a nation they fulfilled their obligations towards God, then his blessing could eliminate poverty.”[6]

           

B.  Specific Concerns

Deuteronomy 15:1-11 provides the affluent, particularly creditors, with direct and clear instruction regarding the application of the Šěmittāh legal codex.  This was briefly discussed in the initial section of this essay.  The biblical text indicates that every seventh year, creditors are to remit their claims of debt against their fellow Israelites.  Again, the rationale given for this is simply because the Lord has commanded it; however, the divine interest in the well-being of the poor and debt impoverished fits well within the theological spectrum of Deuteronomy, as well as the Pentateuch as a whole.  Even though this part of the Deuteronomic legal code is presented simply as divine decree, a contextual examination of Deuteronomy 15 and its emphasis on the treatment of the poor reveals a broader theological focus.  

That the concerns of the fiscally poor (those who are oppressed by debt) are dealt with in the chapter of Deuteronomy that follows the chapters which deal with idolatry (Chapter 13) and stewardship (Chapter 14) is likely the result of intentional editing.  The issues of idolatry, just stewardship and one’s response to the impoverished (particularly those who impoverished as a result of debt) are integrally linked.  This reality is essentially what is at issue in Jesus’ admonishment that one cannot “serve God and wealth.”[7]  Here Jesus admits the possibility that one could possibly be brought into a relationship with money, or material wealth which obscures ones relationship with God; affluence could be given an equal or superior position in relation to God in one’s consciousness.  This would undoubtedly result in an attitudinal shift in relations to one’s fellow human beings.  Pablo Richard, the Latin American liberation theologian, provides insight into the essential qualities of idolatry which relate to the situation of oppression that often accompanies debt:

The yoke of power engenders idolatry, and thus corrupts life.  Idolatry is a trap, in which oppressive power gains access to a “spiritual” and “transcendent” world that hides and legitimizes oppression.  This trap impedes both the oppressor and the oppressed from becoming aware of oppression and simultaneously acts as an obstacle to knowing God.[8]

It should be readily apparent that the possibility of such a pattern of idolatrous hegemony could be introduced into a relationship of debt and obligation.  Indeed, all interpersonal bonds that are rooted in debt can potentially degenerate into relationships of brute power, coercion and, ultimately, idolatry.  It is easy to see the idolatry of the oppressor.  The oppressor is no longer equal to the one he oppresses.  To a certain extent he controls the livelihood and well-being of the oppressed.  The one who oppresses places himself in a deified position over his fellow man.  In another sense the person who oppresses other individuals on the basis of debt, deifies or fetishizes things (money/cash/agricultural wealth).  The aforementioned individual places his trust in material wealth and his ability to acquire it and not in God.  It is with this in mind that Jesus equates an obsessive interest in monetary affluence and idolatry.  Pablo Richard clarifies this point:

It is not just a matter of money, but of being a slave to money.  “To serve,” in Greek, is douleuein – that is, “to be a slave,” “to be a servant.”  An antagonistic parallel is drawn between “serving God” and “serving money.”  Money is a substitute for God and, as such, is an idol.  This fetishization of money is also a fetishization of all human, social, and political relationships.[9]

The Šěmittāh law of remittance prohibits the establishment of fiscal relationships based upon perpetual debt obligation and, in so doing, prohibits (or at least was intended to prohibit) the establishment of an idolatrous relationship to wealth within the community of Ancient Israel.

That the concept of debt remission is related to just stewardship is less obvious.  In the modern context stewardship is often associated with frugality and thrift.  The cancellation or suspension of debt appears to run contrary to the principles of wise investment and intelligent monetary management.  Of course this perspective assumes a market structure based on capitalist exchange; something quite different from the ancient Israelite economy.  The problem runs deeper than mere econo-cultural difference.  More fundamentally the principle of debt remission is linked to just stewardship with the concept of radical dependency as developed by the biblical scholar Thomas M. Mann.[10]  This is a theme found throughout the Pentateuch more generally and, for the purpose of this essay, throughout Deuteronomy more specifically.  Debt remission not only gave the debtor relief from his obligation, it also allowed the creditor the opportunity to provide a material witness to his faith that God was ultimately the sources of his wealth, not his own business savvy or the debt obligations which he owned.  As Mann discusses in his book Deuteronomy, one of the key tests that the Israelites were to undergo upon there arrival in the promised land of Canaan was the test of abundance.  As he points out “material contentment leads easily to spiritual atrophy.”[11]  To better understand the point that Mann is making, it is important to look at another passage from Deuteronomy.  This passage is found in Deuteronomy 8:17-18:

Do not say to yourself, “My power and the might of my own hand have gotten me this wealth.”  But remember the Lord your God, for it is he who gives you power to get wealth, so that he may confirm his covenant that he swore to your ancestors, as he is doing today.[12]

Mann states that when one does not follow this particular scriptural “reminder” the result is often “not only theological amnesia [forgetting that God is the source of all material wealth] but also moral insensitivity – an inability to sympathize with those who have not made it…”[13]  The Šěmittāh law allows one to affirm that God is the source of wealth, as well as to show one’s sympathy with those effected by poverty and debt.

            The text does not seem to indicate that poverty is inevitable.  Raymond Brown affirms the position that poverty “is not remotely necessary in God’s economy.”[14]  The two points above simply represent negative formulations of the covenant obligations with regard to the law of debt remittance.  If, on the other hand, the wealthy and powerful Israelites held their neighbor in the same regard as the Lord and blessed them with financial assistance, God promised that he would honor his covenant and bless the community of Israel.  The difficulty with this claim then arises with the eleventh verse of Deuteronomy 15, which appears to indicate that there will always be impoverished people within the community.  Brown responds to this interpretation by stating that this verse is present because “the Lord knows that everyone will not obey his word…some people will always be greedy and selfish” and, therefore adequate provision must “be made for those who are destitute…”[15]

            One of the more difficult elements of this biblical passage is its exclusivity.  Deuteronomy 15:1-11 is addressed to the Israelite creditor and defines the creditor’s obligation to the Israelite debtor only.  The creditor must provide a remission or dropping of debt for his “neighbor.”  With respect to the foreign debtor, however, the Israelite creditor may demand repayment of the full debt obligation even within the time-frame of the seventh year.  This is not simply nationalist fervor, xenophobia or racism at work within the Deuteronomic narrative.  Rather it appears to be a legal method intended to prevent divisions based upon economic and class matters from arising within the Israelite community.  The Israelites were to regard one another as kin.  The persistence of debt obligations would have proved detrimental to the cohesive functioning of Ancient Jewish social and religious life.  Raymond Brown describes this reality succinctly:

The matter of relationship is supremely important.  The creditor must not regard his fellow Israelite as a tiresome debtor, an expensive irritant in his business affairs.  Although the debtor owes money he must not be made into an enemy.  The unfortunate debtor is a fellow Israelite and, even more, a brother…bound by ties of love and loyalty.  Creditor and debtor alike are joint members of God’s family with one Father caring for them all.[16]

II.                Hermeneutical Significance

1. General Reflections

Modern situations which provide one with an opportunity to apply the theological lessons of the text are myriad.  That the text of Deuteronomy 15:1-11 has implications for the contemporary world should be apparent.  The central focus of the text is those impoverished by debt, and the descritption of the actions which the affluent members of the community were expected to take with regard to alleviating their suffering during the Sabbatical year.  In the wake of the financial crisis of 2008 and 2009 large sectors of the American and European population have become fiscally unhinged and enmeshed in vast quantities of debt.  Though this reality is not entirely new for the populations of Third World nations, the aforementioned financial crisis had a highly negative impact that only exacerbated already tenuous economic conditions.

In the interest of familiarity, it is helpful to look at the modern American context following the financial crisis.  Large sectors of the population are unemployed and homeless due to the mortgage and banking debacle of 2008.[17]  Christian Marazzi has pointed out that in the present situation “companies and indebted consumers are…showing signs of difficulty repaying their debts because the amount of sales (for the companies struggling with the drop of demand) and available incomes (for the domestic economies confronted by inflation)” are falling.[18]  Although there have been some indicators that the worst of the economic crisis is over, a large portion of the American population is now persisting in a state of unrelenting impoverishment and degradation.  The text of Deuteronomy 15:1-11 could prove to be very useful in addressing the issues of poverty and debt integrally linked with the present economic crisis.

There are, however, a few challenges that present themselves when one attempts to determine appropriate responses to the financial crisis while reading Deuteronomy 15:1-11.  I am referring of course to the apparent exclusivity and sepcificty of the Deutronomic text in question.  What is meant by this is simply that the wording of the text appears to render attempts at application out side of the Israelite community erroneous and mistaken.  This is because the text addresses only the affluent, Israelite creditor with regard to his relationship to the impoverished Israelite debtor.  As the theological scholar Raymond Brown points out, however, this is not entirely the case:

Although the provisions and stipulations of these verses cannot be mechanically transferred from an Israelite agricultural milieu to late twentieth-centruy technological society, it has presuppositions and priorities which are just as important as when they were first given.[19]

Finally, one more important question must be dealt with.  Given the stipulations and assumptions of the text of Deuteronomy 15:1-11, one is led to question who is ultimately responsible with regard to the well-being of the poor and impoverished.  It should be apparent, from the discussion of the 2008 financial crisis that the issues of debt and poverty are still quite pertinent.  For the modern Christian community there is particular Gospel text that may be of some help.  The aforementioned text is Matthew 25:40.  In this particular biblical passage Jesus states that “just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.”[20]  Of course this text is addressed to individuals who consider themselves to be members and practitioners of the Christian faith, so it can do little to speak to those outside of the “body of Christ;” however, the implications of its message seem clear.  If one does claim allegiance with respect to the Christian faith, then ultimately it is that individual’s responsibility to care for the needs of the poor with which that individual comes into contact.

Work Cited

Bachmann, Mercedes García “Deuteronomy” in Global Bible Commentary, J. Severino Croatto et. al, (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2004)

Brown, Raymond The Message of Deuteronomy: Not By Bread Alone (Downers Grove, Illinois: Inter-Versity Press, 1993)

Lucita, Eduardo “A Crisis in Capitalism,” International Socialist Review no 62 Nov-Dec 2008

Mann, Thomas M. Deuteronomy (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995)

Christian Marazzi, The Violence of Financial Capitalism (Bellinzona, Switzerland: semiotext(e)

Payne, David F. Deuteronomy (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1985)

Richard, Pablo “Biblical Theology of Confrontation with Idols” in The Idols of Death and the God of Life: A Theology (Pablo Richard et. Al) (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1983)

The People’s Bible: New Revised Standard Version with Apocrypha (Minneapolis: Fortress Press)

---

[1] Mercedes García Bachmann, “Deuteronomy” in Global Bible Commentary, J. Severino Croatto et. al, (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2004), 60.

[2] The People’s Bible: New Revised Standard Version with Apocrypha (Minneapolis: Fortress Press) Deuteronomy 15:1-2.

[3] Raymond Brown, The Message of Deuteronomy: Not By Bread Alone (Downers Grove, Illinois: Inter-Versity Press, 1993), 164.

[4] Raymond Brown, The Message of Deuteronomy, 164.

[5] David F. Payne, Deuteronomy (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1985), 93.

[6] David F. Payne, Deuteronomy, 94.

[7] The People’s Bible,  Matthew 6:24

[8] Pablo Richard, “Biblical Theology of Confrontation with Idols” in The Idols of Death and the God of Life: A Theology (Pablo Richard et. Al) (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1983), 18.

[9] Pablo Richard, “Biblical Theology of Confrontation with Idols,” 21.

[10] Thomas M. Mann, Deuteronomy (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995), 93-94.

[11] Thomas M. Mann, Deuteronomy, 93.

[12] The People’s Bible, Deuteronomy 8:17-18

[13] Thomas M. Mann, Deuteronomy, 94.

[14] Raymond Brown, The Message of Deuteronomy, 167.

[15] Raymond Brown, The Message of Deuteronomy, 167-168.

[16] Raymond Brown, The Message of Deuteronomy, 166.

[17] Eduardo Lucita, “A Crisis in Capitalism,” International Socialist Review no 62 Nov-Dec 2008: 5.

[18] Christian Marazzi, The Violence of Financial Capitalism (Bellinzona, Switzerland: semiotext(e), 2010), 74.

[19] Raymond Brown, The Message of Deuteronomy, 166.

[20] The People’s Bible: New Revised Standard Version

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.