by jimwalton » Thu Jul 09, 2020 12:04 pm
Great questions. Love to talk to you about these.
> Esau's and Joseph's wives
Isaac wanted Jacob to marry within the clan, just as Abraham had wanted for Isaac. Neither a Hittite (as Esau had done, Gn. 27.46) nor Canaanite wife—nor any outside-of-the-clan wife—would do. It serves as at least a tacit condemnation of Esau's marriages (26.34-35).
In their culture, arranged marriages were to keep the land in the family and in the tribe. Marriage was a clan event; individualism was unknown. One did what was best for the clan, for the perpetuation of the clan, and to retain ownership of the family land. Jacob is not to marry a Canaanite so that they are less likely to get assimilated in the land. To marry someone in the family would solidify the family identity.
Joseph's wives, by contrast, pose no risk of assimilation. He is given the wives by virtue of his office; there is no risk of him subtly becoming an Egyptian because of it. Even with Jacob, the issue wasn't xenophobia but risk of assimilation, spiritual compromise, and getting lost in the land. With Joseph, none of those are at hand. The marriage aligned him with power to cement his position (his father-in-law was a powerful priest), but it was no effect on this ethnic separation or his family identity.
> Chapter 38 shows us that Tamar "knew" three men. Judah slept with what appeared to be a random woman, yet he was blessed greatly by God.
First, Judah's marriage to a Canaanite is against God's directive (Gn. 24.3). We are getting quite the idea that these sons of Jacob are a reckless bunch. Unless something ties them together as a nation (like, say, centuries of slavery in Egypt), they will become bickering clans and probably either separate from each other or kill each other.
Second, sexual ethics in the ancient Near East (ANE) were different than what comes to us via New Testament teaching. Levirate law said that if a brother died and left a widow, another brother should impregnate her to continue the family line. In our era we go "ewwww....", but that was their way. But Judah here is even outside of that. It's the season of fertility (sheep-shearing season), so she dresses like a Canaanite sacred prostitute and seduces her father-in-law (another ewww....). It's the archetype of the trickster, common in the ANE. It's also an example of as a woman exerting her power over men. She, in a sense, sexually abuses him. Hey, since her dead husband can't impregnate her, and the brother (obligated by levirate law refuses to), and Judah refuses to give her another son, then Tamar will enact levirate law herself and seduce daddy-in-law. One way or another, she's going to get preggo.
Walton writes, "The Canaanite culture utilized cult prostitution as a way of promoting fertility. These devotees of the mother goddess Ishtar or Anat would reside at or near shrines and would dress in a veil, as the symbolic bride of the god Baal or El. Men would visit the shrine and use the services of the cult prostitutes prior to planting their fields or during other important seasons such as shearing or the period of lambing. In this way, they gave honor to the gods and reenacted the divine marriage in an attempt to ensure fertility and prosperity for their fields and herds."
I wouldn't say Judah was blessed by God. There's nothing in the text to that effect. Onan had been a jerk. Judah had been a creep. Tamar was manipulative and deceitful. God's ultimate plan is not derailed, even by this kind of sin and stupidity. He will see it through to the end no matter how bizarre and corrupt people are.
> Why would certain people groups be considered appropriate, while others weren't?
There were certain people groups whom the Israelites were more prone to be spiritually compromised with: Canaanite, Edomite, Ammonite, and Midianite. But there's also Jebusite and Hittite that were issues. Basically God wanted a people who would be separated unto Him. It wasn't xenophobia, but rather holiness. Along the way, we find that Rahab was Canaanite, Ruth was Moabite, Tamar was Canaanite—things happen. But the real concern was not marrying foreigners, but being dragged away from the true God and the covenant.
> And as for Judah, wouldn't his actions be considered adultery?
Yes, but the ANE had some weird (by our thinking) sexual standards. The law (Ex. 20.14) isn't so much concerned with sexual ethics as it is with paternity. It was to protect the integrity of the family line. In their world, if a married man had a tryst with an unmarried woman, it was not considered adultery. In this case, since Tamar was a widow, this would technically not be adultery. And since she was procuring an heir to maintain the family line, it was in line with their cultural values. I know—very weird to our way of thinking.
> Why would Jesus be a descendent of a seemingly adulterous relationship?
Jesus knew He was entering a sinful world, and even his ancestral line is sinful. There's no covering it up. There's no way to accuse that "Well, they thought Jesus was God because His ancestral line was pure." See, that's not it. In Jesus's line are Israelites, Canaanites, Moabites, various races, a prostitute (Rahab)—it's not the purity of the line that makes Him divine, and it's not the raggedness of the line that deprives Him of divinity. The humanity part of Him was pure humanity, like anyone else.