Judah and marriage Law

[Joe]

I am thinking that patriarch Judah's marriage to Bathshuah was not Lawful, and therefore I do not understand why he would stay with her.

Secondly I am thinking it would be unlawful for Judah to put-away Tamar.

Gen 38:26 And Judah acknowledged them, and said, She hath been more righteous than I; because that I gave her not to Shelah my son. And he knew her again no more.

[wmfinck]

As for Bathshua:

I think it is about obligation, when you screw up, you have to live with it.
The Israelites were stuck with the Gibeonites for much the same reason.

Furthermore, there was no law yet in Israel, although the marriage was manifestly improper. Likewise, Esau kept his Canaanite wives and children in spite of learning that it was wrong to have them.

In the days of Ezra and Nehemiah (Ezra chapter 10) the attitude was different because Israel was under the law.

As for Tamar:

It is also unlawful to take the wife of your son, and Tamar was still technically the wife of Judah's son, although Judah withheld Shelah from her.

Okay, so there was no law yet in Israel.

However there must have been a prevailing custom among the people. Tamar was still called by a word intrerpreted as "daughter-in-law" in reference to Judah (Genesis 38:24), and Judah "father-in-law" in reference to Tamar (Genesis 38:12). The Hebrew words involved do apparently have such a signification.

Reuben had bedded his father's wife outside of the law, and for that he was punished.

[Kentucky]

Pastor Don Elmore gave this sermon several years ago: http://fgcp.org/node/26

Mark

[Joe]

I appreciate the help.

In the days of Ezra and Nehemiah (Ezra chapter 10) the attitude was different because Israel was under the law.

I didn't realize that difference.

[aleajactaest]

William said

when you screw up, you have to live with it.

I think that Judah chose and wanted to live with Batshua.
In Genesis 38:1 "went down" = "3381 יָרַד yarad" means exactly what has been interpreted to say :
Judah left his brothers because, probably, he found them too haughty. So he went down from them.

I also think that Judah had a penchant for the Canaanites finding them more interesting then his own people. And, in any case, perhaps, Judah was trying to get ahead envisaging possible good business
with Canaanites.
Indeed, even later, Judah shows to have a better solution to save Joseph from his crazy brothers.
Can we call this Jewish approach????

there was no law yet in Israel

That's the culprit. --- No law, no sin. --- Or isn't it????
It has been always preached, among others, that Ham, Esau, Reuben, Simeon and Levi were bad according to the Law. But Abraham, Jacob, Joseph and Judah were good . . . according to what????

Don't you see it????
It looks like that the Law applies retroactively and punitively for some but not for others.

I think that something fishy is going on in the story of bible. - Actually I have an idea.
But first, I would like to hear from some of you.
I am very concerned for my White European = Adamite brothers and sisters.

[wmfinck]

But on the contrary, Judah screwed up just as much and in the same manner as Esau did. In Malachi chapter 2 Judah is taken to task for marrying the "daughter of a strange god", whjch is then related to much of the troubles in Judah.

But Yahweh had mercy on Judah, for the sake of the promises to the fathers, while Esau did not have that same mercy.

In any event, while these men were not covenanted to keep the law of God as the later Israelites were, they all did wrong neverthless. Esau learned that he did wrong. As a solution, he did more worng. Much of what you say about Judah may be right, but concerning his attitude we have so little recorded. We have more details concerning Esau.