Criswell
Theological Review 5.2 (1991) 247-57
Copyright © 1991 by
GENESIS 38: ITS CONTEXT(S) AND
FUNCTION
EDWARD
M. CURTIS
Often
analysis of the biblical text by critical scholars is based on
perceived textual anomalies so subtle and obscure
as to escape detec-
tion by all but those well
trained in critical methodology. The discon-
tinuity between Genesis 38 and
its surrounding context, however, is
readily apparent to even a casual reader.1
Genesis 37 begins the Jo-
seph story and continues to
the point of Joseph's being sold to
Potiphar in
describes a rather peculiar incident in the life
of
turns to the Joseph story and essentially repeats the
information in
37:36
before continuing to recount Joseph's experience in Potiphar's
household.
Most modern scholars have supposed that chapter
38 and the
Joseph
story come from different sources,2 but this does not
account
for why the material was inserted into the Joseph
story at this point.
Some
have argued that there was simply no other place to put the
Judah-Tamar
story because
chapter 37 and moves to
1 I recently asked a class to read the
Book of Genesis, and one student asked why
Genesis
38 was placed where it is. The student described his feeling about the way the
chapter interrupts the Joseph story as
"like hitting a speed bump,"
2 The general opinion among critical
scholars is that material about Joseph comes
from both the J and E sources; J combined the
traditional material into something like
the present Joseph story. According to this view,
Genesis 38 represents an independent
tradition which was incorporated into the present
narrative by J. For discussion of these
matters and references see, e.g., C. Westermann, Genesis 37-50 (
Publishing
House, 1986) 15-23; 46-50; J, A. Emerton, "Some
Problems in Genesis 38," VT
25 (1975) 346-60; G, W, Coats, From Canaan to
Criswell
Theological Review 5.2 (1991) 247-257
248
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
story is concluded. The chronological indicators
suggest that this is the
perspective of the narrative. The statement in Cen 38:1, xvhh
tfb yhyv
("it happened at that time"), while not a precise
indicator of time, sug-
gests that the incidents in 38 took place subsequent
to the events in
37,
while the circumstantial clause with which 39 begins, drvh Jsvyv
hmyrcm ("now Joseph had
been taken to
events of that chapter were simultaneous with those
reported in 38.3
Despite
the way the Judah-Tamar material interrupts the Joseph
story, certain literary indicators have long been
recognized as in some
way tying the two stories together.4 The most
striking of the parallels
between the stories is the repetition of the
words . . . hHlw/vhlwyv
rmxyv. . . rkyv . . . xn
rkh rmxtv/vrmxyv ("they/she sent...
they/she said,
'Please
recognize it'. . .he recognized . . . he said")
at climactic points
in chapters 37 an.d 38.5
Other suggested verbal parallels include the
descent in 3,,8:1 (i1"i1' "",
"
(drvy
Jsvyv, Joseph had been taken down ). Other thematic parallels,
will be pointed out below.
As Goldin points out,
these literary and thematic indicators sug-
gest that
whoever put the story as we
have it in its present position, must have
been guided by what seemed
to him a sound literary principle: either a
thematic or idiomatic connection
must be present between the story of
the sale of Joseph into
bondage and the account of
with Tamar.6
3 Even as these general chronological
indicators give some sense of sequence and
chronology to the narrative, it must also be noted
that the chronology appears to be pre-
sented from a Semitic
perspective rather than a modem Western one. In particular, the
chronology given in the Joseph story indicates that
22 years lapsed between the sale of
Joseph
by his brothers and the family's move to
famine (37:2; 41:46, 47; 45:6, 11). The list of those
entering
grandchildren of
married, had children, married them to Tamar,
sent her away to let Shelah grow
fathered Perez by Tamar (after it is obvious to
Tamar that
give her to Shelah despite
the "many days" that have passed and the fact that Shelah is
now old enough for marriage), and have Perez grow
up and father two children in the
space of 22 years. For a discussion of this question
and
4 These connectors were recognized by many
of the rabbis. For a summary of
these comments see Cassuto,
30-31; J. Goldin, "The Youngest Son or Where
Does Gene-
sis 38 Belong," JBL 96 (1977) 28-29; M. Kasher, Encyclopedia of Biblical Interpretation
(New
York: American Biblical Encyclopedia Society, 1962) 5.57-87.
5 37:32-33 and 38:25-26.
6 Goldin,
29.
Edward M. Curtis: GENESIS 38 249
Despite these indications of an intended
connection between
Genesis
38 and the Joseph story in the final form of the biblical text,
most scholars have focused on the meaning of the
text at some point
in a hypothetical prehistory of the text.7
Theories about the prehis-
tory of the text, however,
tend to be speculative and uncertain since
they are generally based on reconstructions of
history and culture for
which there is minimal evidence. It seems more
appropriate to con-
sider the meaning of the
passage in its present canonical context
since it is there that the tradition is fixed in its
final and authoritative
form. In the context of the canon, though, there are sometimes a num-
ber of smaller contexts
that influence and even determine the mean-
ing of an individual pericope. A major task of exegesis involves the
identification of the relevant
contexts in order to determine how they
affect the meaning of the passage. There are several
different contexts
that are appropriate for understanding the
Judah-Tamar story.
Genesis 38 reports interesting facts about
Judah, Tamar, the de-
scendants of
riage. Placing this, perhaps
once independent, unit into the Joseph
story gives it a meaning and significance beyond
those individual de-
tails. Its setting in the
larger context of the Jacob story further ex-
pands the significance, but
it is only when the unit is seen in the
context of the patriarchal narrative and God's
promise to Abraham
that the full significance of the story can be
appreciated. The various
contexts are not contradictory, but complement
one another, and each
contributes uniquely to the full impact of the story
intended by the
biblical author.
First of all, Genesis 38 functions in its own
right as a somewhat
independent and self-contained story about
The
story relates how
tled among the Canaanites
and married a Canaanite woman. If one
truly limits the context to Genesis 38, it is
impossible to tell whether
this was thought to be good or bad.9 In reality, of
course, if the story
circulated independently either before or after it
was placed in its
7 Emerton
("Judah and Tamar," VT 29 [1979] 403) for example, has argued that
"it
cannot be taken for granted that a story in Genesis
had a single meaning and purpose
and retained them unchanged throughout its history
first, probably, as an independent
unit of oral tradition and then a part of a written
document."
8 As O'Callaghan (Proceedings of the Irish
Biblical Association, "The Structure
and
Meaning of Genesis 38: Judah and Tamar" 5 [1981] 73-74) points out, both
the
significant vocabulary (numerous family/kinship
terms) and the content (
dants and their offspring)
make it clear that the subject of the chapter is
9 Emerton (VT
29, 410-13) argues that the story may have originated among the
Canaanites,
since there is no negative evaluation of the Canaanites and since Tamar, who
was probably a Canaanite, is presented in a more
favorable light than Judah or his sons.
250
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
present literary context in Genesis, the culture
would have provided
sufficient clues for evaluating
explicitly providing them in the story. What is
clear from the narrative
is that
took their lives. No details are given of Er's wickedness, but Onan's sin
lay in his refusal to father a child with Tamar,
his deceased brother's
wife, as the responsibilities of levirate marriage
required.
parently concluded that since
each son to whom Tamar was married
had died, she was a threat to the family, and he
devised an excuse for
delaying her marriage to his remaining son Shelah--a delay that he in-
tended to make permanent by simply ignoring her.
thwart the intent of levirate marriage and thus
deprive Tamar of her
right to bear an heir for the family, and perhaps of
her rightful place
in society as well,10 reflects badly on
tails about both the values of the society and the
institution of levirate
marriage.
The story is also important in terms of the
history of the tribe of
family (and in the broader biblical context the line
of Messiah). Ta-
mar's "virtue" in circumventing the problem
of
only protected her own rights but played a
significant role in preserv-
ing what was to become one
of the most prominent tribes in
Earlier
critical scholars supposed that the references to individuals
actually refer to the various clans in the tribe
of
their settlement and movement in Canaan.11
This idea, of course, pre-
supposes a late date for the material, but as Emerton points out, it is
possible that while the story is about
individuals, it also reflects in a
general way the later history and movement of
the tribes.12 Thus a
story about individuals may have continued to be used
beyond its rel-
evance for family history
because it generally reflected the situation
of the various clans in the tribe of
of the story is evident from the blessing given by
the people of Beth-
lehem to Ruth when her
engagement to Boaz (apparently through a
form of levirate marriage) was announced.13
10 S. Niditch
("The Wronged Woman Righted: An Analysis of Genesis 38," HTR 72
[1979]
143-49) has suggested that in ancient Israelite society "the young woman
is allowed
only two proper roles. She is either an unmarried
virgin in her father's home or she is a faithful,
child producing wife in her husband's or husband's
family's home" (145). By denying Tamar the
right to produce children -in the family,
bearing
She now becomes a true member of the patriarchal
clan" (148).
11 See Emerton, VT 29, 404-5 for references.
12 Ibid.
13 Ruth 4:19-20.
Edward M. Curtis: GENESIS 38 251
Genesis
38 also occurs in the context of the Joseph story, though
as Westermann has noted,
the chapter is not really an addition to the
Joseph
story, but rather "belong(s) to the conclusion of the Jacob
story.”14 Even so, the Judah-Tamar story
does interrupt the Joseph
story, and it must be interpreted in the context of
that material. A lit-
erary function of Genesis 38
is immediately apparent; it increases
tension in the Joseph story in much the same way
that cliff-hanger
endings in serials and soap operas increase
suspense and generate in-
terest. As
how Joseph fared in
to disappear from the reader completely for a time
just as he disap-
peared from the father and the
brothers."16
Commentators have long recognized that the
doctrine of retribu-
tion is set in clear relief
by the juxtaposition of Genesis 37 and 38. In
Gen
37:26-27
ite traders,17
and while it is not explicitly stated, it seems likely that
he was significantly involved18 in the plan to
slay a male goat in 37:31,
dip Joseph's tunic in the blood and present that
"evidence" to Jacob
for him to recognize in 37:32, and draw his own
conclusions about
what happened to Joseph.
cob of a child and deceiving him with evidence. In
chapter 38 Judah
loses two sons and, as Alter19 notes, the
deceiver himself is deceived
by the evidence he gave in pledge for the kid in
38:17. According to
the Midrash, "God
said to
By
your life, Tamar will deceive you with a kid.'... God said to
'You
said to your father, "Please recognize." By your life Tamar will
say to you, "Please recognize."’"20
14 Westermann, Genesis 37-50, 22.
15 J. G. Baldwin, The Message of Genesis 12-50 (
Press, 1986) 162-63.
16 G. von Rad, Genesis (Old Testament Library; Philadelphia:
Westminster, 1972) 357.
17 As a result of
present
kill our brother?" uses a word for profit (fcb) that has quite negative connotations, "illicit
gain."
18 At the very least,
Given
was si~ificantly involved
in this part of the scheme as well.
19 R Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic, 1981) 11. While the
terms
male goat (Myzf
ryfW) in 37:31 and kid (Myzf
ydg) in 38:17, 20 are not identical, both the
wording and meaning are sufficiently similar to
establish the literary connection.
20 Gen. Rab. 84:11-12 as cited by
Alter, ibid. As was indicated in the previous note,
the Hebrew terms for "male goat" in 37:31
and "kid" in 38:17, 20 are similar but not iden-
tical. The Hebrew expression
(xn rkh)
translated "please recognize" in the citation from
the mid rash is identical in Gen 37:31 and 38:25.
252
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
By
setting the Judah-Tamar story in the context of the Joseph
story, a deliberate contrast seems to have been made
between
conduct toward Tamar, who may have been a
Canaanite,21 and the
conduct of Joseph with another foreign woman, Potiphar's wife.
There
is no real basis for evaluating
woman and his subsequent behavior toward Tamar in
either the
Judah-Tamar
story or the Joseph story, and the implications of this
contrast between the two brothers are not clear
apart from the
broader context of the patriarchal narrative.
It has also been suggested that the incident
reported in Genesis
38
represents a turning point in the life of Judah.22 He appears in a
very negative light when he suggests the sale of
Joseph,23 as he does
in chapter 38 in his dealings with Tamar, in his
relationship to the
Canaanites (see below), and perhaps to the rest
of his family as well.
from his confession in 38:26 ("She is more
righteous than I, inasmuch
as I did not give her to my son Shelah"). Throughout the rest of the Jo-
seph story,
haps overly positive, he does appear to have
changed. In 44:18-34 he
intercedes for Benjamin before Joseph when he could
easily have
justified abandoning Benjamin in an Egyptian jail26
since he assumed
21 Certainly the daughter of Shua, whom
While
the text does not indicate the national origin of Tamar, as Emerton
points out
(VT 26 [1976] 90), "most
commentators believe that Tamar was thought by J to be a
Canaanite. ...The obvious implication is that Tamar
was a Canaanite." J. Sailhamer
(Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers
[The Expositor's Bible Commentary; 12 vols.;
it would likely have been mentioned. He suggests
that "through Tamar's clever plan,
then, the seed of Abraham was preserved by not being
allowed to continue through the
sons of the Canaanite. . . . The line was continued
through Judah and Tamar." The force
of this suggestion is reduced by the fact that at
other points in the Davidic Messianic
line there are foreign women such as Rahab and Ruth.
22 E.g., A
mond, 1983] 40) says that
Ithat point on is different from the way he appeared
in Gen. 37." See also
23 Goldin (JBL
96, 40-43) suggests that
thwarted Reuben's plan to rescue Joseph (which
was perhaps Reuben's attempt to get
back in his father's good graces) in order to
protect the position of family leadership
that had come to him essentially by default as the
result of his three older brothers
misdeeds (see, e.g., Gen 49:3-7).
24 Goldin (JBL
96, 43) argues that Genesis 38 is part of the theme of leadership in
Jacob's
family, and it may well be that a change in
theme. Goldin maintains
that chapter 38 is an important part of the vita of the one cho-
sen to lead the family.
25
Edward M. Curtis: GENESIS 38 253
that the boy had actually stolen the prime
minister's cup and thus de-
served the punishment he got. This suggests that
person than the one who 20 years earlier sold his
little brother as a
slave because of jealousy and irritation over
Joseph's dreams and his
favored status with Jacob and over the negative
reports that Joseph
brought Jacob about the brothers.
Genesis 38 also occurs in the context of the
Jacob story,27 and is
similar to other narratives about Jacob's
children (e.g., Genesis 34;
35:22-23).
As was noted above, the material may have been placed
here because of the general chronology of the events.
his brothers in the
and children went into
the end of the Joseph story. As Goldin
has made clear, however, a ma-
jor theme of both the Jacob
and Joseph stories is the question of who
will be the leader of Jacob's family, and the
narrative contains several
examples that illustrate that the usual principle
of primogeniture was
not the exclusive prerogative for leadership. At
times this was deter-
mined by the sovereign choice of God (e.g., the
choice of Jacob before
the twins were born [Gen 25:23]); in other
instances the normal right
was forfeited because of grossly improper behavior
(e.g., Reuben,28
Simeon, and Levi).29
that he was not the first born-or the second or even
the third born-
and despite Jacob's preference for Joseph. God's
providence is evident
in this even though .human factors such as the
brothers' irresponsible
behavior playa role as well. The possibility that
chapter 38 recounts
an event that began a transformation in
tribute to this theme also.30
Finally, the Judah-Tamar story is set in the
context of the entire
patriarchal narrative, and this context also provides
significant clues
to its meaning. It is well known that the promise
made by God to
that he had made with his father is an important
consideration in evaluating
27 See above, n. 14.
28 Goldin, 37-38,
makes the interesting suggestion that Reuben's sexual inter-
course with his father's concubine was not the cause
of his losing the birthright but the
result of his perception that he would be unjustly
passed over in favor of Jacob's favor-
ite, Joseph. Since
possession of the father's concubines apparently signified mastery and
authority over him, Reuben tried to take matters
into his own hands.
29 See Cen
49:3-7. Actually in the case of Jacob and Esau elements of both sover-
eign choice and
irresponsible human behavior can be seen. Alongside the pre-birth or-
acle declaring Jacob's rule
over his brother, Esau's disregard for the promise and its
spiritual dimensions seems to have contributed
significantly to his loss of the rights of
the firstborn.
30 See above and nn. 21-25.
254
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
Abraham
in Gen 12:1-331 dominates the entire patriarchal narrative.
The
provisions of that promise included an heir for Abraham (and for
his descendants as well), the land, and the
assurance that the descen-
dants of Abraham would become
a great nation that would bless all
the families of the earth. The stories of the
patriarchs revolve around
that promise and the various obstacles to its
fulfillment encountered
by the patriarchs. Abraham responded to God's call
and went to
to possessing the land--"Now the Canaanite
was then in the land"
(Gen
12:6). Then came a famine in the land that threatened his fam-
ily's survival in
mto
harem--a rather significant threat to the fulfillment
of the promise-
and she had to be extricated by God. The promise
was threatened by
Sarah's
barrenness, by the command to sacrifice Isaac, by Isaac's not
being married at age 40, and then by Rebekah's barrenness. Jacob's
forced exile from the promised land32
threatened the fulfillment, and
the obstacles did not end with Jacob's return from
For Abraham and Isaac the threats to the promise
seem to focus
primarily on the heir; in the case of Jacob they
shift primarily to that
part of the promise involving the land. As the
promise theme contin-
ues to unfold in the Jacob
story, a theme introduced earlier is devel-
oped in a way that is
relevant for understanding Genesis 38. As was
noted above, it is difficult to evaluate
woman on the basis of either Genesis 38 or the Joseph
story. The Ja-
cob story taken together with the broader
patriarchal narrative does
provide a basis for such a judgment. As Abraham
was about to send
his servant to
mally swear that he would not
take a wife for Isaac from among the
Canaanites
(Gen 24:4). This same anti-Canaanite perspective is evident
in 26:34-35 where Isaac and Rebekah's
displeasure over Esau's mar-
riage to two Canaanite women
(see also 28:8-9) is emphasized. Genesis
34
from the Jacob story suggests one reason for this
perspective.
Genesis 34 relates an incident in which a
Canaanite named
Shechem had sexual relations with Jacob's
daughter Dinah and
31 E.g., in response to the question of
where the impetus for the thematic develop-
ment throughout the
Pentateuch comes, D. J. A. Clines (The
Theme of the Pentateuch
[
must be: the promise to the patriarchs, with its
various elements, and in its various for-
mulations." For a detailed
study of this subject see C. Westermann, The Promises to the
Fathers (
Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1978) 84-99.
32 On this see E. Curtis, "Structure, Style
and Context as a Key to Interpreting Jacob's Encounter
at
Peniel," Journal of the Evangelical
Theological Society 30 (1987) of 129-37, esp.135-37.
Edward M. Curtis: GENESIS 38 255
approached her family requesting permission to
marry her. In his ne-
gotiations with Jacob, Hamor, Shechem's father and the
Canaanite
leader, described the advantage that such an
arrangement would have
for the family of Jacob: "Intermarry with us;
give your daughters to us,
and take our daughters for yourselves. Thus you
shall live with us,
and the land shall be open before you; live and
trade in it, and ac-
quire property in it" (Gen 34:9-10). When the
sons of Jacob imposed
circumcision as the condition for
the marriage, Shechem explained to
his fellow citizens why they should submit to this
and afterward said,
“Only
on this condition will the men consent to live with us, to be-
come one people" (34:22). What was viewed by
the Canaanites as a
significant advantage (becoming one people), was
viewed by the bibli-
cal authors as a significant threat to
spective provides a basis for
judging
The
story of Dinah in Genesis 34 shows that the Canaanites living in
the land constituted a major threat to the promise
in that assimilation
with the Canaanites would make it impossible for
Abraham's descen-
dants ever to become a great
nation as Gen 12:3 predicts.
Canaanites
represented a threat to the family in that it would be
more difficult to maintain the family's distinctive Yahwistic values in
isolation from the other family members. Settling
among the
ites and intermarrying with
them posed the significant risk of being
assimilated with them (ie.,
becoming one people).33 It is likely that
constitute evidence for
proper by the biblical author. It is possible that the
repetition of the
verb Fyv, "he turned
aside" in 38:1, "he turned aside to a man, an Adul-
lamite, whose name was Hirah"; and 38:16, "he turned aside to her
[ie., the
prostitute] by the road" is meant to suggest that
committing fornication in both instances (first
spiritually and then
physically), an even closer parallel if Tamar was a
Canaanite. Hirah,
33 This theme continues into the Book of
Judges. As Block ("The Period of the
Judges:
Religious Disintegration Under Tribal Rule," in
in Honor of Roland K Harrison led. A Gileadi;
suggested, literary indicators make it clear that
the editor of the Book of Judges is making the
point that --the spiritual condition of the people
inhabiting the
settlement period is the same as it had been at the
beginning. It has made no difference that the
identity of the people has changed. ...He has exposed
the total Canaanization of Israelite society."
Thus
the threat anticipated in Genesis proves to be fully legitimate. The close
parallels between
the story of
Judges
19 makes it clear that interaction with the Canaanites has resulted in
assimilation of their
values to the point where the Benjaminites
are little different from the people of
and
256
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
22)
for the woman with whom
narrator (v 15) uses the word hnvz, “harlot, prostitute." Perhaps the
Canaanite's
use of a term replete with connotations of Canaanite fer-
tility worship would remind
the reader that cult prostitution consti-
tuted an important part of
Canaanite worship.
Even as the story of Dinah and Shechem in chapter 34 implies
the threat the Canaanites posed to the fulfillment
of the promise to
Abraham,
the Judah-Tamar story shows that
uted to the problem by his
behavior.34 As Ross points out, chapter 38
“present[s] a picture of a corrupt family.
sible course: he had earlier
moved the sale of Joseph, then separated
from his brothers and married a Canaanite, and now
had seen the
fruit of that marriage thoroughly evil.”35
He further notes, “If it had
been left up to
Canaanites."36 Aalders
says that the events of chapter 38 “especially
bring to light the critical danger that threatened
the 'chosen seed' if
they remained in
only lead to the people of
Canaanites and eventually being absorbed by
them.”37
This suggests another important connection with
the Joseph story
although the verbal and literary connectors are
not explicit ones. Gene-
sis 38 shows that living in
fulfillment of God's promise to Abraham because the
sons of Jacob were
unable and/or unwilling to resist assimilation with
the Canaanites. The
family of Judah, the leading spokesman for the
brothers, and the one
destined to become the leading tribe and father
of the royal and messi-
anic line, was threatened
with extinction as a result of
34 In strong contrast to
ing the advances of a
married foreign woman. It is true that Joseph does marry an Egyp-
tian, and the daughter of a
priestess at that. There are no indications in the text that this
was viewed negatively and that this constituted a
threat to the promise or the future of
Abraham's descendants or to proper Yahwistic values. It is unclear whether it was the
context (ie., Joseph
was living in
other than Egyptians. In addition, Pharaoh apparently
arranged for the marriage) or if
it was Joseph's character that caused the biblical
author to view that marriage to a for-
eign woman as appropriate.
Generally Egyptians were not viewed in the same over-
whelmingly negative terms as
Canaanites though at a later time Solomon's marriage to
an Egyptian princess was viewed negatively and was
seen as a major step that set
Solomon on the course that led hIm to apostasy. ;
35 A P. Ross, Creation and Blessing (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1988) 616.
36 Ibid. 619.
37 G. C. Aalders,
Genesis (Bible Student's Commentary;
2 vols.;
Zondervan,
1981) 2.191.
Edward M. Curtis: GENESIS 38 257
Joseph's
time in
did much to insure the survival of Jacob's family
during the famine
that affected the entire Near East, but there
appears to be a signifi-
cance that goes beyond the
short term. Gen 43:26-34 describes a meal
that Joseph ate with his brothers in
to them. Verse 32 explains that Joseph, the
brothers, and the Egyp-
tians ate separately. This
was done, according to v 32, because "the
Egyptians
could not eat bread with the Hebrews, for that is an abom-
ination to the Egyptians."
Likewise, Joseph's family was allowed to
live in the area of
Egyptians
lived, because "every shepherd is an abomination to the
Egyptians"
(46:34). The situation in
in
lation was far less
significant, not because of the Israelites but rather
because the Egyptians would not have anything to
do with them. In
because the Egyptians considered them to be an
abomination. Thus
Jacob's
family was placed in a cultural environment where God's
promise that they would become a great nation
could be fulfilled.
As Aalders suggests,
"Jacob's descendants had to leave
they were to develop as a separate and distinctive
people. It was im-
perative that they be moved into
a situation where they could not pos-
sibly mix with their
countrymen. This, of course, happened in
a lvdg
yvg "a great nation," as predicted in Gen 12:2 is
suggested by Jo-
seph in 50:20, "You
meant evil against me, but Cod meant it for good
in order... to preserve many people alive [br Mf tyHhl]." While the
same kind of direct verbal correspondence that often
links passages
and ideas is not found here, it seems likely that Mf, "people,"
and yvg
"nation,”
are essentially synonymous here and that Joseph's statement
is related to the situation found in Exodus 1. Exod
dxm
vmcfyv, "the people have become very numerous and
strong," and
this prompts the Pharaoh to do something about a
situation he consid-
ers quite dangerous (e.g., Exod 1:7, 9, 12, 20). It seems likely that the
statement in Exodus is meant to emphasize the
fulfillment of the
promise to make Abraham's descendants into a
great nation.
Recognizing the various contexts in which the
Judah-Tamar story
is set is essential in understanding the
significance of the events
described in Genesis 38. The contexts complement
one another, and
each provides unique information that illuminates
the purpose(s) of
the story intended by the biblical author.
38 Ibid.
This
material is cited with gracious permission from:
The
www.criswell.edu
Please
report any errors to Ted Hildebrandt at: