Onan and his spilled seed

[leecappella]

Hi. I've been thinking about Onan and God's anger at him for spillng his seed. The says God killed Onan for doing this. What did God expect Onan to do with his seed? If it was to impregnate his sister in law, doesn't this imply that God condoned such a thing? What say you? Thanks.

 

[Bingley]

Well, yes, God did condone it. If a widow was childless, her late husband's brother was supposed to marry her and their first child would count as the deceased's.

Deuteronomy 25: 5-9

5 If brothers are living together and one of them dies without a son, his widow must not marry outside the family. Her husband's brother shall take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to her. 6 The first son she bears shall carry on the name of the dead brother so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel.
7 However, if a man does not want to marry his brother's wife, she shall go to the elders at the town gate and say, "My husband's brother refuses to carry on his brother's name in Israel. He will not fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to me." 8 Then the elders of his town shall summon him and talk to him. If he persists in saying, "I do not want to marry her," 9 his brother's widow shall go up to him in the presence of the elders, take off one of his sandals, spit in his face and say, "This is what is done to the man who will not build up his brother's family line." 10 That man's line shall be known in Israel as The Family of the Unsandaled. (NIV)

This was the basis for the Sadducees' question to Jesus in Matthew 22:23-28

23That same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question. 24"Teacher," they said, "Moses told us that if a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and have children for him. 25Now there were seven brothers among us. The first one married and died, and since he had no children, he left his wife to his brother. 26The same thing happened to the second and third brother, right on down to the seventh. 27Finally, the woman died. 28Now then, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of them were married to her?" (NIV)

 

[prodromos]

This was the basis for the Sadducees' question to Jesus in Matthew 22:23-28

23That same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question. 24"Teacher," they said, "Moses told us that if a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and have children for him. 25Now there were seven brothers among us. The first one married and died, and since he had no children, he left his wife to his brother. 26The same thing happened to the second and third brother, right on down to the seventh. 27Finally, the woman died. 28Now then, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of them were married to her?" (NIV)

Ah yes, the Sadducees were quoting the situation of the young woman Sarah in Tobit chapter 3.

 

[horuhe00]

It would be nice if you'd continue and write Jesus' answer instead of making us look it up for ourselves...

 

[leecappella]

Thanks for all of your answers. I kind of thought it was something that was expected of them to do. However, it seems to me that if God would command such a thing, it seems like something that is not God-like. Please don't think me irreverant or blasphemous, but is a brother sleeping with his deceased brother's wife a godly characteristic? That was then, this is now. Would that be considered godly today? Does this story originate from a book that was indeed God's will or a story that was written by mankind who lived in a culture who put God's name on what they culturally sanctioned? Do you guys see what I am saying here about this act and God's commandment of it? Why would it not be okay to do today (not saying it should be) when it is something that was once commanded of God to others of long ago. If God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow, why would something once 'okayed' by God then not be 'okayed' today? Thanks.

 

[Bingley]

Ah yes, the Sadducees were quoting the situation of the young woman Sarah in Tobit chapter 3.

Where does it say in Tobit that Sarah's seven husbands were brothers?

 

[prodromos]

Where does it say in Tobit that Sarah's seven husbands were brothers?

It doesn't explicitly, but according to the law when a man died childless, his brother had to marry his widow to raise up a descendant for his deceased brother (see Genesis 38:6-14).

 

[Macca]

Thanks for all of your answers. I kind of thought it was something that was expected of them to do. However, it seems to me that if God would command such a thing, it seems like something that is not God-like. Please don't think me irreverant or blasphemous, but is a brother sleeping with his deceased brother's wife a godly characteristic? That was then, this is now. Would that be considered godly today? Does this story originate from a book that was indeed God's will or a story that was written by mankind who lived in a culture who put God's name on what they culturally sanctioned? Do you guys see what I am saying here about this act and God's commandment of it? Why would it not be okay to do today (not saying it should be) when it is something that was once commanded of God to others of long ago. If God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow, why would something once 'okayed' by God then not be 'okayed' today? Thanks.

This command was to ensure the continuance of each family line, so that no land went out of the tribal inheritance.
Considering that this is not the case any more, I don't believe it is right for today.
Macca.

 

[Bingley]

It doesn't explicitly, but according to the law when a man died childless, his brother had to marry his widow to raise up a descendant for his deceased brother (see Genesis 38:6-14).

I'm not disputing that that was the law. However, the fact that a man was obliged to marry his brother's widow if the deceased had no children doesn't mean that every widow who remarried was marrying her late husband's brother.

 

[leecappella]

No one seems to be touching on the issue that God accepted such a thing. Does this sound like God or humankind adding God's name to the custom?

 

[Crazy Liz]

I'm not disputing that that was the law. However, the fact that a man was obliged to marry his brother's widow if the deceased had no children doesn't mean that every widow who remarried was marrying her late husband's brother.

True. If her husband had no brother, she was free to marry someone else.
[bible]Ruth 1:11-14[/bible]

Tamar was agunah - not allowed to marry anyone except her late husbands' brother. This is why Judah said:
[bible]Genesis 38:26[/bible]

 

[Katydid]

No one seems to be touching on the issue that God accepted such a thing. Does this sound like God or humankind adding God's name to the custom?Yesterday 11:13 AM




G-d accepted it. There actually isn't anything wrong with that, and even today, if my husband were to die, and his brother wanted to marry me, there isn't a law that can stop it. There was a reason for it though. Israel was a small nation, at war alot, if one family line was wiped out, it could turn out to be devastating. It was to pass on the line of the family. Remember that until recently (relatively) a man's greatest joy was having a son to pass on his family name to. The other reason is that in that time, a woman did not have the means to support herself, this is why Ruth had to go behind the harvesters to pick up the leftovers. It would have been more cruel to tell these widows, "sorry you have to make it on your own" when most men were looking for "pure" women, women of their own. So a widow may remain single for life, without that law in place.

 

[Crazy Liz]

No one seems to be touching on the issue that God accepted such a thing. Does this sound like God or humankind adding God's name to the custom?

Interesting question. As I read the OT, this seems to have been a custom that became incorporated into the Mosaic Law. I think there are a number of customs that were "understood" as the social background of the Mosaic Law. My personal view is that these were neither endorsed by God for all times and places, nor condemned by God. However, a number of them were moderated by God, and we should pay attention to these, as giving some insight into God's view of these social customs and institutions.

For example, the Mosaic Law assumes the existence of slavery, but it limits the duration of slavery for a male Israelite slave and limits the sexual rights of a master WRT female slaves, Israelite or alien. If a master or his son has sex with a female slave, she thereby obtains all the rights of a wife, and can no longer be sold.

Based on the Tamar story, it is apparent that the levirate custom prexisted the Moasaic Law, but as someone else pointed out, it was incorporated into it. We see it mentioned again in Ruth, and can gather there that if the deceased husband had no brother and the widow wished to remarry, the closest living male relative of the husband basically "had first dibs," but could release her through a legal ritual.

I think your opinion is that levirate marriage seems to you too close to incest for you to feel comfortable with the idea, and you think of it somewhat like slavery - an evil custom that God allowed to continue for a while.

I don't look at it that way, but as a social welfare system, designed as a way to see that childless widows still belonged to the family and had someone to care for them. Other societies have different mechanisms for providing for the elderly and vulnerable. This one is probably no better and no worse than other means that might be devised. It assures that there will be (if possible) a subsequent generation to care for the widow in her old age.

 

[firefly106]

The reason why God condoned it back in OT times was to make sure every family line was continued. Jesus had not been born yet, so any break in a family line was serious.