Genesis 38 confusion

[mackdog]

I was going over Genesis again to try and get a good idea about these events and understand the Judah line better. Now, its clear that only one of Judahs' 3 cannanite children (Er,Onan and Shelah) survived, and that the surviving one (Shelah) had no children, but JUDAH actually got Shelas wife Tamar (presumably an Isrealite) pregnant by accident. One can assume that Shelah either did not survive much longer, or simply did not have children. The part that I'm confused on, is when it says in Gen. 38:8-10. " Then Judah said to Onan, sleep with your brothers wife, perform your duty as her brother in law, and produce offspring for your brother. But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his, so whenever he slept with his brothers wife, he released his semen on the ground so that he would not produce offspring for his brother. What he did was evil in the Lords sight, so he put him to death also." The part I'm confused about is, WHY was Yahweh angry that the cannanite son did not produce offspring for him. Why did Yahweh not see the cannanite son as evil in the first place for existing?

[Israelite]

This woman later became Judahs wife correct? And Yasheu Christ is a decendent from her Am i right? Correct if if im wrong but I thout that Judahs two sons were killed so they would not bare a son unto this woman for she was to be with Judah. I understand your question and im not sure about God bieng mad at the Caninite. Thank you for your time i am sorry if i didnt help i am still learning myself.

[JamesTheJust]

Shelah had children but not by Tamar.

1 Chronicles 4:21
The sons of Shelah the son of Judah were Er the father of Lecah, and Laadah the father of Mareshah, and the families of the house of those who wrought fine linen of the house of Ashbea;


As I see it, the actual emphasis and meaning (assuming it is translated correctly) can be interpreted in many ways, depending on one's level of growth.

In the current age of Babylonian "Christianity", it is easy to get confused. As we draw away from that confusion, the meanings become clearer, in that we can see with new eyes, that the scripture has a CONSISTENT underlying theme.

YAH, through Christian Identity has removed this confusion, but it may take time as we grow, to see more clearly how all scripture fits into this CONSISTENT pattern.

Genesis 38

Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)

10 What he did was evil in the Lord’s sight, so He put him to death also.

This is vague to say the least. What did Onan do that was evil? Just as in YHWH considering the firstborn Er, to be immoral or evil and therefore HE slew him. What was it, or those acts which caused Er to be so bad that YHWH slew him?

I submit that YAHSHUA only ever called the children of the devil, evil. I submit that YAH never called HIS own; evil. I also submit that Onan's sin was NOT spilling his seed on the ground, but the fact that he defiled a pure Israelite virgin.

Judah should have known better. In fact we KNOW he knew better and later lamented his error.

[JamesTheJust]

Here is a snippet from one of Bill's (always excellent) articles, along with the link.

Seeing that the disbelieving Judaeans were descended from Cain – and so ultimately from the serpent (John 8:44; 1 John 3:12; Matt. 13:39) – it is then understandable how Yahshua could hold them responsible for the blood of all the prophets beginning with Abel, whom Cain slew, as recorded at Luke 11:47-51. It would have been criminal on the part of Christ to have made such a charge had it not been literally true. The Greek word which the A.V. renders “generation” in this passage is properly and much more appropriately translated “race”, speaking of fathers and sons both near and remote. Both Kenites (i.e. 1 Chron. 2:55) and Canaanites (i.e. the descendants of Judah’s son Shelah, Gen. 38:1-5; 1 Chron. 4:21-23) also infiltrated ancient Israel – and especially the tribe of Judah – in the earliest times, perpetrating much evil. One recorded example of a descendant of Cain slaying the priests of Yahweh is found in the story of Saul and the murderous Doeg the Edomite, at 1 Sam. 21:7; 22:6-19. It is those disbelieving Judaeans, the Edomites and other Kenites and Canaanites who long ago adopted Judaism, who caused all the trouble for the followers of Christ in the early centuries of the Christian era, and who are at it again today, with the support of derelict clergymen and ignorant, dishonest politicians.

http://www.christogenea.org/ShemiticIdioms

[Meggie]

On Thu Nov 18, 2010 7:47 pm:

I was going over Genesis again to try and get a good idea about these events and understand the Judah line better. Now, its clear that only one of Judahs' 3 cannanite children (Er,Onan and Shelah) survived, and that the surviving one (Shelah) had no children, but JUDAH actually got Shelas wife Tamar (presumably an Israelite) pregnant by accident. One can assume that Shelah either did not survive much longer, or simply did not have children. The part that I'm confused on, is when it says in Gen. 38:8-10. " Then Judah said to Onan, sleep with your brothers wife, perform your duty as her brother in law, and produce offspring for your brother. But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his, so whenever he slept with his brothers wife, he released his semen on the ground so that he would not produce offspring for his brother. What he did was evil in the Lords sight, so he put him to death also." The part I'm confused about is, WHY was Yahweh angry that the cannanite son did not produce offspring for him. Why did Yahweh not see the cannanite son as evil in the first place for existing?

Being new to this forum, I've been going over a lot of posts and came across the above. I know this was made about 4 1/2 years ago. It caught my attention because this was one verse that also confused me at one time. My "understanding" of the event is:

Onan was a product of a woman (Shuah) of a forbidden lineage, Canaanite (Gen 38:2; Deut 7:1-6). None of the Laws of God were given to forbidden lineages. God gave His Law only to Israel as a nation (Psalms 147:19-20), and that Law was kept by the physical father of Israel, Abraham (Gen 26:5). Abraham passed this Law on to his offspring (Gen 24:2-3, 37; 28:1).

God said a Canaanite could never enter into the congregation of Israel (Deut 7:1-6). Yet, here we see Judah, a son of Israel siring sons through a forbidden lineage. It seems Judah didn't seem to care if he corrupted the lineage of Christ as he chose a wife for Er, Tamar (Gen 38:6) obviously of the proper lineage, else she wouldn't be in Christ's physical father, Joseph's line (Gen 38:24-29, Mat 1:3).

We're told God killed Er because he was "evil" (Gen 38:7). The word translated "evil" in that verse is the Hebrew word "ra." It can be and has been translated many other ways. Almost all of them not good. It could be "harmful", "affliction", "grievous" or just plain "wrong" as it is so translated in Judges 11:27 in the KJV. The BDB says this can be applied morally. I see Er as being morally or genetically wrong because of his lineage. Since he was a product of a forbidden marriage, I think this would make him morally wrong as a husband for Tamar. I see God destroying Er BEFORE he can mate with Tamar. This would be God preserving the purity of Christ's line.

Then we see Judah attempting to apply God's Law of bringing up seed to a brother in an illicit union (Gen 38:8). Gen 38:9 seems to be the verse that is causing a great misunderstanding. The KJV translates it thusly:

KJV Genesis 38:9 And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother.

This verse seems to say Onan went in unto his brother's wife but practiced some sort of birth control so as to not impregnate her. Then the next verse seems to say God was angry because he didn't fulfill the "raising up of seed" to his brother and killed him too.

But this presents a dilemma for those of us who understand that this would make God double minded in that He would be condoning the breaking of His own Law against the Canaanites. Not to mention it would make impure the lineage of Christ's mother's husband, Joseph. This would mean Mary would break Deut 7:3. This would make Christ's half brothers and sisters part Canaanite. To us CI such a thing simply can't be.

I think verse 9 is improperly translated. Here is the literal Hebrew and it's definition with Strong's numbers in its order of Gen 38:9 taken from the BHS:

H3045 yada` (to know), H209 'Ownan (son of Judah), H3588 kiy (particle indicating causal relations of all kinds), H3808 lo' (a prim. particle, not (by impl. no), H1961 hayah (to exist, i.e. be or become, come to pass), H2233 zera` (seed), H1961 hayah (to exist, i.e. be or become, come to pass), H518 'im (a prim. particle; used very widely as demonstr., lo!), H935 bow' (to go or come), H413 'el (a prim. particle, prop. denoting motion towards), H802 'ishshah (a woman), H251 'ach (a brother), H7843 shachath (to decay, i.e. (caus.) ruin), H776 'erets (to be firm; the earth), H1115 biltiy ( prop. a failure of, i.e. not), H5414 nathan (to give), H2233 zera` (seed), H251 'ach (a brother).

It seems this verse can be read as "Onan (H209), knowing (H3045) surely (H3588) that it should not (H3808) come to pass (H1961) that he give (H413) seed, (H2233) continued (H1961), nevertheless (H518) to come (H935) toward (H413) the wife (H802) of his brother (H251) to corrupt (H7843) the nations or Israel (H776), not (H1115) to give (H5414) seed (H2233) to his brother (H251).

If you will notice the word "nations" is from the Hebrew word "erets" (H776) which is usually translated "ground" or "earth." However it can be and has been translated "nations" (Isa 37:18). You will notice in that verse that the word "nations" pertains to Israel. It is also translated "ground" thus causing the translators to think Onan "spilled" his seed on the ground. Gen 38:9 is the only verse in the Bible where Strong's H7843 (shachath) is translated "spilled."

In my understanding of this event, this would make sense, since God had destroyed one Canaanite from corrupting the Holy Lineage, He would surely do it again. What Onan did that displeased God was to make an attempt to destroy God's Holy Lineage and therefore His people. I contend that this event is exactly the opposite of what it's translated in the English translations.

What, to me is baffling is that Judah was so stiff necked, the death of two of his sons didn't perturb him from disobeying God. He still was going to give Tamar to his third illegitimate son, Shelah (Gen 38:11). The rest of the story tells of how Tamar had to trick Judah into impregnating her. Judah had to acknowledge Tamar was more righteous than he (Gen 38:26). Another example of God insuring the continuity of Israel's race.


What think ye?



Meggie

[MichaelAllen]

Meggie,

You should check that interpretation against the LXX and see what turns up.

[Meggie]

Meggie,

You should check that interpretation against the LXX and see what turns up.

HI Michael,

I see the LXX saying virtually the same thing. I will show why, at least to me, it says the same thing I will give my understanding as to why. Here is the LXX (Brenton translation) rendition of the verse:

LXE Genesis 38:9 And Aunan, knowing that the seed should not be his-- it came to pass when he went in to his brother's wife, that he spilled it upon the ground, so that he should not give seed to his brother's wife.

I will show my understanding of the phrase "that he spilled it upon the ground":
The Greek word translated "spilled" in that verse is "ekcheo" (G1632) and is defined by Strong's as "1) to pour out, shed forth 2) metaph. to bestow or distribute largely" The word has been translated "ran greedily" in Jude 11.

The word "it" is put into the text because the translator thought it was implied. Therefore it's not in the original text.

The next word "upon" is translated from the Greek word "epi" (G1909) and is defined as "1) upon, on, at, by, before 2) of position, on, at, by, over, against 3) to, over, on, at, across, against." It has been translated "against" in 29 verses in the KJV NT. Not once in those verses is it translated "upon" or "on."

The word translated "ground" is "ge" (G1093) and is defined as "1) arable land 2) the ground, the earth as a standing place 3) the main land as opposed to the sea or water 4) the earth as a whole 4a) the earth as opposed to the heavens 4b) the inhabited earth, the abode of men and animals 5) a country, land enclosed within fixed boundaries, a tract of land, territory, region." It can be and has been translated as "world" in Isa 37:18:

LXE Isaiah 37:18 For of a truth, Lord, the kings of the Assyrians have laid waste the whole world, and the countries thereof,

This verse applies to Israel. Therefore we see the same scenario as I described from the Hebrew. After Onan went in unto his brother's wife, Tamar he ran or went in greedily against the "world" or "nations" or "israel" and not to give seed to his brother.

[wmfinck]

Meggie,

Admittedly, I have not followed the entire post here. And if I read the original, it has been a long time, LOL. But I want to note one thing.

The word "ekcheo" (G1632) only means to pour forth, or to pour out. The rendering of "ran greedily" in the King James Version is a fanciful and artistic rendering of the translators, which made for some pretty and poetic language. But their rendering can not fairly be incorporated into the meaning of the original word.

Woe to them, because they have gone in the way of Kain and in deception they pour forth of the wages of Balaam and are destroyed in the disputation of Kore!

On another note, the motive Onan had to pour his seed on the ground does seem to have been greed. If Er had no heir, Onan could imagine the inheritance to have been his own. So why raise up seed for his brother?

[Meggie]

Meggie,

Admittedly, I have not followed the entire post here. And if I read the original, it has been a long time, LOL. But I want to note one thing.

The word "ekcheo" (G1632) only means to pour forth, or to pour out. The rendering of "ran greedily" in the King James Version is a fanciful and artistic rendering of the translators, which made for some pretty and poetic language. But their rendering can not fairly be incorporated into the meaning of the original word.

Woe to them, because they have gone in the way of Kain and in deception they pour forth of the wages of Balaam and are destroyed in the disputation of Kore!

On another note, the motive Onan had to pour his seed on the ground does seem to have been greed. If Er had no heir, Onan could imagine the inheritance to have been his own. So why raise up seed for his brother?

Hi Bill,

Thank you for your input on this subject. I do hope going back that far on this post was ok? I agree with you about the definition of the Greek word "ekcheo " (G1632). I did not intend my offering to be seen as giving that particular KJV rendering of "ekcheo " as a new definition. It was my feeble attempt to demonstrate the figurative meaning. While the word in Jude 11 is properly translated as "pour forth", I don't think it can be considered in a literal sense.

Those that went the way of Cain did so figuratively as something being poured out. In other words, they "gushed" into it. Friberg gives this explanation "...rushing headlong into some type of behavior to give oneself over to, plunge into, devote oneself to (JU 11)."

This, IMHO is what Onan did. He "knew" that this seed that he was about to plant was not to be his. It is my understanding that the Law of "raising up seed to a brother" was so the name of the brother would not vanish from Israel and the offspring would have the rights of the deceased brother (Deut 25:5-6).

I do not think this means Onan's seed would not be his seed. It only means that seed would take the place of his deceased brother. Can one man's seed really be another man's seed? His seed would be just taking the place of the brother that died. But it would still be his seed.

Brenton translates the beginning of Gen 38:9 as "And Aunan, knowing that the seed should not be his-". Could this sentence be saying that Onan/Aunan knew that the seed that was to be planted via Tamar should or was not to be his since he surely knew his mother was a Canaanite?

It seems Onan would be Knowing or understanding that the seedline that was to be Christ's was not to be contaminated and him being a Canaanite, Onan obviously was filled with hatred against the Holy seedline poured himself out in his quest to destroy it. In other words, he "rushed headlong" or "ran greedily" into this effort!

The Greek word immediately following "ekcheo (G1632) is "epi" (G19090 and is a preposition in the accusative which can mean, according to Friburg "hostility against." It is so translated here:

KJV Matthew 10:21 And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up AGAINST their parents, and cause them to be put to death.

As I see it, Onan "rushed headlong with hostility against" the "ge" (G1093). I know that G1093 is translated "earth" or "ground" most of the time. However, according to Thayer's it can mean a people (Eph 1:10; Col 1:16; Luke 4:25; Mat 2:6, 20).

Isaiah 37:18 renders G1093) as "world" as in the sense of Israel. In it's context Isa 38:9 would effect Israel and the lineage of Christ.

In my understanding Isa 38:9 is saying Onan rushed into Tamar with evil intent. This would be evil for Israel. That's why God destroyed him IMHO. Because he didn't go in unto Tamar to give seed to his brother's wife, but againt Israel and Almighty God. The Law of God is given only to Israelites and this particular Law wouldn't even apply to Onan.

If Canaanites would corrupt Israel and God forbade them to come into the congregation of Israel why would God destroy Onan for not doing just that? Wouldn't He appear double-minded for punishing Onan for not doing what He said not to do?

[MichaelAllen]

If Canaanites would corrupt Israel and God forbade them to come into the congregation of Israel why would God destroy Onan for not doing just that? Wouldn't He appear double-minded for punishing Onan for not doing what He said not to do?

Seems like it was double jeopardy for the canaanite sons of Judah. They weren't allowed to be with the chosen lineage, and yet, to fulfill a covenant if regarded as 'sons' by Judah, then they would have to...

It's rather clear the problems that come about when mixing with the canaanites.