Congregation Book Study:
Chapter 3, par. 19-21 (Box on page 34)
Theocratic Ministry School
Bible Reading: Genesis 36-39
Jehovah strikes down two of Judah’s sons, Er and Onan. (Gen. 38:6-11) We don’t know why Er was struck down, but Onan was nixed because he greedily refused to provide children for his dead brother to carry on his line. (Onanism is an old term for masturbation, showing that the tendency to misapply Bible texts to support a doctrinal point of view isn’t limited to our writers. What Onan actually did was engage in premature withdrawal.) Now one might wonder why Jehovah took a personal hand in killing these two men, while ignoring Judah’s sin of copulating with what he believed to be a temple prostitute. Jehovah also failed to act against two of Jacob’s sons when they slaughtered all the males of Hamor’s tribe, and there was no retribution on Jacob’s sons for selling Joseph into slavery. One might wonder why the selective application of punishment for sin.
True, there was no law from God in those days so sin was not defined beyond the law of the conscience and that of human tradition. There were limits of course. The cities of Sodom and Gomorrah exceeded them and paid the price. Still, Jehovah allowed men to rule themselves and suffer the consequences. So, why the selective application of justice? Why kill a man for failing to continue a bloodline, but do nothing when other men committ mass murder? I don’t know for sure and I would love to hear what others have to say on the subject. For my part, one thing comes to mind. Like Adam, Noah was told to be fruitful and fill the earth. (Gen. 9:1) This was a law given by God. God’s purpose was to produce a seed for the salvation of mankind. It has been suggested that the reason for the flood was to put a stop to Satan’s efforts to destroy the seed. This seed was to come through the line of Abraham. Continuity of the seed was the element of utmost importance.
Could it be that Onan’s action was seen as direct disobedience to one of the very few laws Jehovah had directly communicated to mankind? Could it be that like the relatively minor sin of Ananias and Syphira, Onan’s sin would have set a dangerous precedent, a small piece of corrupting leaven at a crucial point in the development of Jehovah’s purpose; and therefore had to be dealt with so as to establish a key principle for all to learn from henceforth?
No. 1: Genesis 37:1-17
No. 2: Why Resurrected Ones Will Not Be Condemned for Their Past Deeds – rs p. 338 par. 1
The point we are trying to make is that people are not resurrected just to be judged and condemned. That is correct, but the way we get to that conclusion is flawed. We use Romans 6:7 to attempt to prove that past sins are not counted against someone because he has been acquitted of his sins. The context of Romans chapter 6 indicates that the death is spiritual and the acquittal occurs for Christians. So this does not apply to the resurrection of the unrighteous. (See What Type of Death Acquits Us of Sin.) An acquittal means one is judged as innocent. Would Jehovah resurrect sinners and pronounce them as innocent if they have not yet exercised faith in the redeeming power of his Son’s sacrifice? Would someone like Hitler be resurrected as a man acquitted of his sin, no longer required to repent to those he had hurt so as to gain forgiveness? If so, then why resurrect such a one still in a sinful state? Why not just grant him perfection since he has paid for his sins already?
There is nothing to indicate that the sins of one’s past are forgiven just because one has died. Death is the punishment for sins. A judge does not acquit an accused man by sentencing him. If a man told me, “I served 25 years of hard labor so that I could be acquitted of my crime”, the first thing I’d reach for would be my dictionary. The resurrection of judgment is just that, a resurrection that ends in a judgment, for good or bad. Each will have to repent for all his sins to be redeemed.
No. 3 – Abigail-Display Qualities That Honor–it-1 pp.20-21
10 min: Offer the Magazines During March
10 min: Local Needs
10 min: How Did We Do?
Third announcement: “When engaging in public witnessing using a table or a cart, publishers should not display Bibles. However, they may have Bibles available to offer to individuals who request one or who demonstrate sincere interested in th truth.” [Italics in text]
I suspect this is a cost control issue. However, what are we donating funds for, if not to promote God’s own word? And are we not the ones who donate for the literature we place? If I wish to donate for 10 or 20 or 100 Bibles, what right does anyone on earth have to say how I should put them to use. This, of course, would never have been an issue when we charged for the literature. That we are instructed to hide the Bible while displaying publications of men seems to indicate that we have our priorities wrong.
It irks me that the “table or cart” work is the domain of selected pioneers. We are told that we are not allowed to engage in this work unless duly authorized to do so. Can you imagine the trouble you would get into if you took it upon yourself to set up a display cart on any street corner in your city or town? If you were to do so and the elders showed up and asked: “By what authority do you do these things? And who gave you this authority?” (Mat. 21:23) You could reply, Jesus Christ and quote Matthew 28:19. You’d still get in trouble just like the apostles did, but that’s good company to be in. (Acts 5:29)
“the penalty for being discovered by the “powers that be” in the organization is significant and not to be taken lightly.”
What a sad state of affairs we are all in, in supposedly ‘Jehovah’s organisation’. More like George Orwell’s 1984
That will be another great blessing from Jehovah! It’s great that you take your time.
Besides the security there is also the integrity part. I hope this place can stay a safe harbor where we can all be one minded in searching truth in a positive way.
Amen! I agree In Need of Grace!
Meleti & Apollos, Our knowledge is like a foot of a babe. The shoe is our love. As the babe grows, it’s feet grow, and needs bigger shoes. If we don’t grow in love at the same pace as gaining this wonderful knowledge, we risk becoming puffed up. So might we hope a sub forum dedicated to growing our shoes? I think we are just as much starving for a deeper discussion of growing in Christian qualities as in knowledge. See, there is a point where it’s not sufficient anymore to know what is more true, we need (I need)… Read more »
Apollos has been working on just such a meeting place, a discussion forum, for several weeks now. If we had only normal security concerns, it would have been up already. However, as we tested and re-tested, we came to see more security loopholes. Perhaps we are being paranoid, but the penalty for being discovered by the “powers that be” in the organization is significant and not to be taken lightly. We have managed to plug almost all of them and those remaining are being taken care of. Of course, one never knows for sure, but I think when it goes… Read more »
Interesting thought for the day based on the bible reading: Genesis 39:10 accurate translation: And as she spoke to Joseph day after day, he would not listen to her, to lie beside her or to be with her. Our translation and a few others wrongly translate lie “with her”. The Hebrew word is ’ê·le·hā, which means unto her, beside her. It means seeking just being close to someone. It doesn’t mean lie with her or sleep with her as in Genesis 34:7. This makes us appreciate how well Joseph’s conscience worked. He saw the tell signs of her actions and… Read more »
Hi Meleti and all, thanks for letting me know that I have not yet covered some important points that are at variance with my model, because I thought that I had addressed pretty much all issues; hence it would be useful if you, and everybody else, would keep on pointing out the areas of difference as you each perceive them, because I am just as you are in wanting to make all pieces of the puzzle fit neatly, if at all possible, so I view this very much as a community project, despite my at times strongly put views and… Read more »
Hi Sargon, thanks for posting the excerpts from those commentaries, and for sharing your views. Yes, you observe well that Paul is talking about us dying to our former fleshly, sinful way of life, but this metaphorical death cannot acquit or declare us guiltless from our transgressions, UNLESS it be admitted that PHYSICAL death would indeed procure this result for us. Acts 13:39 To illustrate my point: Just imagine you take me to court for having run over your bicycle, even though I have already given you a hundred dollars for the damage; I would still have to prove to… Read more »
Ross, you seem to be simply restating your position without addressing the many valid counter-arguments raised by Anonymous, Apollos, and others. If we are to accept your reasoning on this, we will need to see how those arguments that appear to disprove your position are wrong. If you could address those it would be advantageous to all.
In Need of Grace, Thank you for your kind help. Meleti has indicated that he will address my questions in a future article.
I appreciate the wisdom of your advice.
We can all wait and see how this is addressed in the future.
Hi ‘Observer17,’ since I have never heard of that theory, I doubt that my views are similar; my point about a person being in a position to redeem another, is merely an exercise in the theoretical possibilities and their limits, as far as legal admissibility are concerned, rather than the formulation of an actual doctrine by me, although after considering all possibilities and their implications, a clear scriptural position might be attainable, which is the real purpose of all our endeavors here, I believe. If Meleti deems it advisable not to post the link to this other theory, I would… Read more »
Hi Ross, 🙂
…or you could write me at my email address:
I posted this in response to Meleti’s comment from earlier today, but I thought I might get more help if I posted it to “Leave a Reply”, rather than replying to an earlier post which gets lost when you “reply” to a comment. Meleti, I find myself getting more and more confused as we all search for understanding and Truth. I really appreciate your comment. It gives me the clarity to ask the questions that have arisen in me. Are you saying that Christians who have been tested to the point that God can grant them the free gift of… Read more »
hey sis There are certain things which the bible is crystal clear on, there are things where the bible is dubious or silent about. I think as JW maybe the main issue we have is that we feel we need to know and know the truth about everything. That is the very thing that brings us in trouble each time. Things we know for certain: – Jesus died for us – Jehovah invites us via his spirit to be a son to him. – As long as we will abide in Jesus, we will have no judgement to us. (We… Read more »
Hi Apollos, thank you for raising your interesting objections, and, yes, you understood me correct, in that I believe that you could substitute for me in death, if ALSO you were in some way found responsible for circumstances that led me to commit the crime for which I got the death penalty; otherwise, every judge would reject your offer, no matter how well meaning or touching it might be, because justice could not be shown to be served in such a case. I think that Psalm 49 would support my conclusion in this, but I am willing to elaborate a… Read more »
Hi Apollos, Meleti and all, good points, so, yes, in theory you could die for my sins, but then you would need to find someone who would offer to pay for yours, prior to your giving yours for mine, who in turn also could not help you out, before finding someone willing to step in for him, and so on. Hence, for any substitution to have legal merit and moral efficacy, it must address criteria of both relevance and equivalency of value, as well as obviously being predicated upon the existential reality that death is indeed the ultimate punishment, because… Read more »
Hi Ross First off, I thank you for arguing this position. I am keen to get to the bottom of the scriptural truth of this, and I do respect your logical ability to reason on this and other points. Now, you propose that in theory we could die for each others sins if we could just complete the circle. The way you appear to have interpreted Psalm 49 is that each life has the value to redeem itself, but no more than that. In other words to address the first few paragraphs of your response, I could in theory choose… Read more »
I don’t believe Paul is referring to death and resurrection in these verses. Would anyone care to discuss what several other Bible commentaries also conclude? I’m interested in hearing some thoughts.
I mean literal death and resurrection. And clearly he’s not talking about wicked people. See verse 1
Hi Ross, 🙂 You said: “…good points, so, yes, in theory you could die for my sins, but then you would need to find someone who would offer to pay for yours, prior to your giving yours for mine…” Isn’t that exactly what is taught in the “Scapegoat” Theory, being currently taught by some former Jehovah’s Witnesses on the net? These former Jehovah’s Witnesses (for over 20 years) teach & believe that it is Almighty God’s Original Purpose to have Jesus’ blood [killed first “goat”] uniquely applied to the second “goat” [an imperfect human] which is in turn next used,… Read more »
God’sWordIsTruth, Jesus did not come through Judah’s Canaanite wife. Instead he came through Perez, the son of Tamar and Judah. Tamar was married to Er, Judah’s firstborn son whom Jehovah put to death because he was wicked. That left Tamar the widowed daughter-in-law of Judah. Judah told her to wait until his son She’lah grew up and she would marry him. Judah apparently changed his mind because the wedding never took place. When Tamar heard that Judah was going to Tim’nath to shear his sheep. she removed her widow’s garment and dressed like a harlot and went and waited for… Read more »
“God’sWordIsTruth, Jesus did not come through Judah’s Canaanite wife. Instead he came through Perez, the son of Tamar and Judah.”
We are in agreement . Was Tamar a Canaanite?
I googled Ta’mar and it would seem she was a Hebrew, which would have been in accord with keeping the blood line to Jesus pure. Genesis 38 does not indicate that she was a Canaanite. I found the following information: “Ta’mar is a Hebrew and not a Canaanite name and it is tolerably certain that Ta’mar was a Hebrew, a descendant of one of Abraham’s numerous sons by Keturah or his concubines, or of the parallel family of Nahor.” http://www.biblefellowshipunion.co.uk/2004/Mar_Apr/Tamah.htm Ruth 4:11-12; 18-22 refers to “the house of Pe’rez, whom Ta’mar bore to Judah” and shows the blood line from… Read more »
I made my comment based on my belief that Tamar was a Jew. But like you after researching a bit yesterday I am not so sure…..
GWIT, I am so sorry if I misunderstood your comment to be a question….and went into so much unnecessary detail in response. Even though our communication seems to be limited, isn’t it grand and exciting that we are both doing research on our own to seek the truth? In the end, the Truth is all that matters.
Why are you apologizing? No need sis
I appreciated the information . I needed a refresher on that account anyway. Your take on the account was more exciting for me read than the insight book or other sources I came across yesterday (very dull) lol
BTW you didn’t misunderstand… it was a question 🙂
I am not sure why there is not a clear cut answer as to whether she was a Jew or not. Judah had no problem taking Canaanite wives for himself so it is possible she could have been a Canaanite.
Our current understanding of Romans 6:7 is an issue that is dear to my heart. I think that we’re taking that scripture completely out of context. The key to understanding Romans 6:7 is to look at it together with the previous verse – Romans 6:6: “because we know that our old personality was impaled with [him], that our sinful body might be made inactive, that we should no longer go on being slaves to sin. For he who has died has been acquitted from [his] sin.” It seems to me that Paul was not making the point that death acquits… Read more »
One more point: We take it for granted that the “unrighteous” that will be resurrected (Acts 24:15) refer to ignorant sinners and not wicked people. But I have not seen a single scripture in all the NT that gives such a definition of the word unrighteous. Furthermore, there are scriptures that use the word “unrighteous” to refer to the wicked! “What! Do YOU not know that UNRIGHTEOUS persons will not inherit God’s kingdom? . . .” (1 Corinthians 6:9) “Jehovah knows how to deliver people of godly devotion out of trial, but to reserve UNRIGHTEOUS people for the day of… Read more »
I think everyone is wicked and unrighteous who does not abide in Jesus. We are declared righteous only because of our faith. By that token the righteous who are resurrected are true Christians, or old testament people of true faith. They will NOT be judged by Jehovah or Jesus. (John 5:24)
The rest is per definition unrighteous and wicked, because they don’t have Jesus or Jehovah. These will get judged, each one according to their deeds. (Revelations 20:13.)
I have a couple of theories of what is going to happen w these unrighteous which I’ll try to write up later.
Excellent arguments. I very much agree with your reasoning in this matter. That is very close to my take on it too. Thank you for presenting it so clearly. One possible difference I have is whether these unrighteous will be condemned out of hand. Yes, I understand that they experience a resurrection of “judgement”. But what that judgement is remains to be seen. I think of the “truth and reconciliation committee” in South Africa after the apartheid era. Justice had to be publicly seen to be done in order for healing to take place, but that neither meant a) an… Read more »
Very well written!
I know that I’ve said this before on this post regarding your commentary on Romans6:7 but it is really well written and scripturally sound. I’ve read it many times. Your comment is definitely a keeper for me. I printed it out and put it in my ragged and torn Reference bible for future reference 🙂
Thank you very much for posting this.
As I begin reading other Bible commentaries I’m starting to see that the level of Watchtower Bible knowledge and scholarship is appallingly poor.
After all, were the only people who have managed to tragically butcher the meaning of Matthew 24:45.
Hi Sargon, That is so funny you mentioned that… I have decided to research (again) regarding whether Jesus died on a cross or stake. I came across a passage in the it-1 p. 1190-1191 “Since the wrists have always been considered by anatomists as part of the hands, some medical men think the nails were driven between the small bones of the wrists to prevent the stripping out that could have occurred if they had been driven through the palms.” I have read that passage at least ten times over the years… but this time around I thought what “medical… Read more »
Read the entire chapter 6 of Romans. If you read the entire chapter you can see a possibly different meaning. In my opinion, Paul here is talking about dying as slaves to sin. Verse 2 gives us what I believe to be the proper context. Romans 6:2- Certainly not! Seeing that we died with reference to sin, how can we keep living any longer in it. 6:4 So we were buried with him through our baptism into his death,+ in order that just as Christ was raised up from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also… Read more »
Sargon, your commentary references catch the drift of Paul’s argument in Romans 6. The two things that trip most in their understanding of the passage is (A) Reading Romans 6:7 without reading the context, which is standard practice in WT publications. And (B) The NWT’s incorrectly inserting “his” before “sin” in verse 7.
Interesting… In the RNWT the brackets are gone….
7 For he who has died has been acquitted from [his] sin.
has been justified
The article before “sin” (τῆς) is actually feminine to agree with ἁμαρτίας (sin). As one of the comentaries above stated, Paul is referring to “sin” as a master that a person is freed from when he dies. The “for” (γὰρ) at the beginning of verse 7 ties the principle of verse 7 back to the statement in verse 6, that a baptized Christian (who has figuratively died via their baptism) should no longer live a life of sin.
Jimmy……I agree with your comment even though I broke out laughing because I remember hearing (old, old, old folks) speak of a song by Jimmie Rogers called Honeycomb. Part of the chorus says “Got a hank o’ hair and a piece o’ bone And made a walkin’ talkin’ Honeycomb”. Jimmy Rogers’ song was refering to a man lovingly talking about his wife . Whereas Rutherford used that phrase about women…..well, because he could. The lyrics and song are here: http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/jimmie_rodgers/honeycomb.html On the serious side, we have yet another reason to appreciate Jesus and his message for us because he brought… Read more »
Hi Meleti and all, the legal admissibility of Christ dying a substitutionary death for us, rests on the self evident principle, and accepted reality, that he who has died a physical death, is free of any and all claims against him in this world, no matter how large or grave they might have been, because death is the ultimate penalty to atone for one’s crime. Does this reality, then, make Christ’s death obsolete? Absolutely not. Just because someone died for his sins, and is thus acquitted of all guilt before God and man, does not give that person a claim… Read more »
“Self-evidence” combined with a misapplication of Rom 6:7 to back it up raise red flags to me. As Meleti noted, the Bible simply says that “the wages sin pays is death”. That does not imply that those who have died are now guilt-free. It means that their death was as a result of their sin. You ask how Jesus’ death atones for us if our own death cannot? The answer is that his blood is perfect (complete and fit for the purpose) whereas ours is not. In theory according to your reasoning (and that of the WT), I could atone… Read more »
Here is my take on it: dieing is full payment of your sins, but it does not give you a RIGHT to live. The question is about the man who died for sin. if he is resurrected, what state is he in? my thoughts are this: 1. Jehovah could re-create him. Perhaps with a “more perfect” body less inclined toward sin. I do not see a point in re-creating a man with same weaknesses in the same weak body and weak mind and subject him to the same test he failed earlier. If he is to be resurrected, it has… Read more »
Alex, you raise an interesting question with your third point. Faith is about believing in the character of God. Those who reach the end of the 1000 years will be sinless like Adam but not perfect. They will have to undergo a test of faith to be declared righteous like Christians today. The evidence of God will be incontrovertible in those days as it was in Adam’s day. But faith isn’t about believing in God’s existence but rather it is believing in his word.
“Jehovah could re-create him. Perhaps with a “more perfect” body less inclined toward sin. I do not see a point in re-creating a man with same weaknesses in the same weak body and weak mind and subject him to the same test he failed earlier. If he is to be resurrected, it has to be to pass the “Adam-test”. I believe no righteously-inclined man should inherit the second death without having the SAME chance as Adam: prove obedient under SIMILAR circumstances!” We know that Jehovah has given Jesus the authority to raise the dead. Why does the resurrected person have… Read more »
Your question is clear (to me at least).
Evidently God does treat those who are going to heaven as “sinless” as long as they continue to remain within the arrangement of atonement. This is the fundamental Christian hope. It is the creation of more than one Christian hope that creates confusion as far as I can see.
That’s an interesting answer and I’m hitting a wall lately that I cannot reason out of …..
Do you believe that there is an earthly hope? I understand that is probably a loaded question….
GWiT, There are so many ways to answer that. We probably all know many people who hope to live forever on earth. So yes, there is “an earthly hope”. However, I’m pretty sure that isn’t what you were asking. Does the Bible hold out the hope of living on earth, and if so is it a hope for Christians? (I think that is probably closer isn’t it?) I’m still not sure that it’s an important question to be asking. According to the Christian Greek scriptures the hope of Christians is to be “always with the Lord” (1 Thes 4:17). What… Read more »
“Does the Bible hold out the hope of living on earth, and if so is it a hope for Christians? (I think that is probably closer isn’t it?)”
That is my question exactly.
I have never heard it summed up that way(scripturally) . Your view is a balanced one.
I agree that the location doesn’t matter as long as we are with God. Yet, the emphasis is location, location, location in our religion.
I guess the answer is …. we really don’t have a way of knowing for sure.
Hi GWIT Been away from the keyboard for a while. To through my hat into this ring, I see a fundamental difference between Christians and those who are resurrected in the resurrection of the unrighteous. Christians are not simply followers of Christ but must carry his torture stake and walk where he walked and die his death. What that means is that Christians do not get the heavenly reward without being tested as the Christ was. They are still sinners, but have been tested to the point that God can grant them the free gift of life. Those who are… Read more »
Hello there Meleti! 🙂 That makes a lot of sense and it is scriptural. I always believed that people on the earth during the thousand year reign ( those who survive Armageddon) will be given the opportunity to exercise faith in Christ. People will still be imperfect and die during this reign . They will still marry and have children and continue life as before …the only difference is that the kings and their armies will be gone and Satan and his demons will be in the abyss. The dead are raised once the thousand years have ended. The thousand… Read more »
Meleti, I find myself getting more and more confused as we all search for understanding and Truth. I really appreciate your comment. It gives me the clarity to ask the questions that have arisen in me. Are you saying that Christians who have been tested to the point that God can grant them the free gift of life, when they are resurrected, they will go straight to heaven? When the ones who have NOT been tested to the point that God can grant them the free gift of life, will they be resurrected to life on this earth and then… Read more »
To ImACountryGirl and GodsWordIsTruth,
There are so many questions here, that I think it best to address them in a post. I’ll do that, but first I have to get my long overdue third installment on disfellowshipping posted. Bear with me.
Sounds good Meleti….Looking forward to it.
“Dieing is full payment of your sins, but it does not give you a RIGHT to live.”
It does not give you a right to live but does it legally prevent Jehovah from recreating you? If you have paid off your sins, why does there have to be a basis to resurrect – recreate – you? Did God need a basis – a ransom – to create Adam and Eve initially?
Anonymous, I fail to understand your question.
Adam had no right or claim to be created.
God has every right to do as he pleases.
“Dieing is full payment of your sins, but it does not give you a RIGHT to live.” I took it that by saying the above you were implying that a person paying for his sins by his own death still needs a ransom as a basis for a resurrection. (Correct me if I misunderstood you). But I don’t see why a ransom would be needed to resurrect someone who has paid for his sins. “Adam had no right or claim to be created” I agree. And equally, no ransom was needed by God as a basis for creating Adam. So… Read more »
This is a sound argument.
Ross, I don’t think you’re grasping the meaning of the verb “to acquit”. It means to be declared innocent. When do not say that a murderer was acquitted of his crime by virtue of being executed. To illustrate how those unrighteous ones who have died and been resurrected cannot be seen as having been acquitted of past sins, consider this example: a murderer is sentenced to died. A lethal injection is administered. The man is declared dead. Then the doctors revive him. Has he paid for his crime? Would justice be served were he now set free? Not convinced? Say… Read more »
Hello all, “Revelation 20:5 says that those resurrected in the resurrection of the unrighteous are dead in God’s eyes until redeemed at the end of the thousand years. So even though they are resurrected, they will be no more alive than they were in their past life. Therefore, their sins, past and future, will all be calling of their wage, and only by repenting for all of them and accepting the free gift of undeserved kindness will they die to their sins and be acquitted–declared innocent–and obtain everlasting life.” “You ask how Jesus’ death atones for us if our own… Read more »
None of the Bible commentaries I have read believe Paul here is referring to the death of the physical body. I’ll continue with my comments below.
In the OT, women were mere chattels, for men to with as they pleased. Rutherford, it seems picked up on this, as he had the same low opinion of women- he regarded women as ‘bags of bones and hanks of hair’. His words, as quoted in the Watchtower Sept 15, 1941 p 287
Speaking of the depth of Judah’s sin “copulating with what he believed to be a temple prostitute”. Judah was also willing to pay a pretty high price in his bartering with Tamar to have sex, namely leaving his signet ring, his bracelets and his staff as collateral for the kid from his flock which he promised to send her. Later, when he sent his friend with the kid and he couldn’t find her, Judah said “let her take them for herself, in order that we may not fall into contempt”. Gen 38:6-11. It seems hypocritical that when he later found… Read more »
“why the selective application of justice? Why kill a man for failing to continue a bloodline, but do nothing when other men commit mass murder? I don’t know for sure and I would love to hear what others have to say on the subject. For my part, one thing comes to mind. Like Adam, Noah was told to be fruitful and fill the earth. (Gen. 9:1) This was a law given by God” *speculation alert* We know that Jesus was to come from Judah’s line . Judah took a Canannite wife and from our recent reading about Jacob/Dinah we know… Read more »
GWIT, I don’t think Judah understood that any mixed-race child he had with his Canaanite wife would be ineligible to carry on a pure blood line. If Ta’mar had somehow married Judah’s remaining son, that baby would have been mixed-race also. But Ta’mar may have realized this and that would explain why she tricked Judah into having sex with her because being a Jew, she understood that the only way to carry on Judah’s line and keep it pure would be for her to have Judah’s baby. What really puzzles me about the whole thing was that God knew all… Read more »