Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Genesis 38:24
And it came to pass about three months after, that it was told Judah, saying, Tamar thy daughter-in-law hath played the harlot; and also, behold, she [is] with child by whoredom. And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt.
24. let her be burnt ] Judah, as the head of the family, acts as judge having power of life and death, cf. Gen 31:32. It is remarkable that the matter is not referred to Jacob; but, presumably, this story constitutes a separate tribal tradition, in which Judah stands as the chief authority.
Judah sentences her to death as an adulteress. He treats her as the betrothed of Shelah, and the childless widow of Er. The penalty for adultery in the Levitical law was death by stoning (cf. Lev 20:10 with Deu 22:22; Eze 16:40; Joh 8:5). Death by burning, the penalty of a priest’s daughter, Lev 21:9, was the more ancient usage. The penalty of burning is recorded in the Code of Hammurabi; and occurs in ancient Egyptian sentences for adultery.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Verse 24. Bring her forth, and let her be burnt.] As he had ordered Tamar to live as a widow in her own father’s house till his son Shelah should be marriageable, he considers her therefore as the wife of his son; and as Shelah was not yet given to her, and she is found with child, she is reputed by him as an adulteress, and burning, it seems, was anciently the punishment of this crime. Judah, being a patriarch or head of a family, had, according to the custom of those times, the supreme magisterial authority over all the branches of his own family; therefore he only acts here in his juridical capacity. How strange that in the very place where adultery was punished by the most violent death, prostitution for money and for religious purposes should be considered as no crime!
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Bring her forth to the magistrate, from whom she may receive her sentence and deserved punishment. Judah had not the power of life and death, at least not over her, who was a Canaanite, and who was not in his, but in her own fathers house. But he being a person of great estate and authority, and, as it seems, of obliging conversation, could do very much to persuade those who then had the power of the sword, either to draw it forth, at least in a just cause, on his behalf, or to sheath it upon his desire and satisfaction.
Let her be burnt, as guilty of adultery, which was punished with death by the laws of God, Deu 22:23,24, and of nations too, Jer 29:22,23. He chargeth her with adultery, because she was betrothed to Shelah. See Deu 22:23. This eagerness of Judah proceeded not from zeal of justice, for then he would not have endeavoured to destroy the innocent child with the guilty mother, against Gods law, Deu 24:16; Eze 18:20, but from worldly policy, that he might take her out of the way, which he esteemed a burden and a blot to his family.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
24. Bring her forth, and let her beburntIn patriarchal times fathers seem to have possessed thepower of life and death over the members of their families. The crimeof adultery was anciently punished in many places by burning (Lev 21:9;Jdg 15:6; Jer 29:22).This chapter contains details, which probably would never haveobtained a place in the inspired record, had it not been to exhibitthe full links of the chain that connects the genealogy of theSaviour with Abraham; and in the disreputable character of theancestry who figure in this passage, we have a remarkable proof that”He made himself of no reputation” [Php2:7].
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And it came to pass about three months after,…. The above affair happened, and when the pregnancy of Tamar began to be somewhat visible, as it does in women with child about that time:
that it was told Judah, saying, Tamar thy daughter in law hath played the harlot: her being with child being observed by some of the family, or her neighbours, and knowing that she did not cohabit with Shelah, who, according to custom, ought to have been her husband, concluded that she had had a criminal conversation with some other person, which they were officious enough to report to Judah:
and also, behold, she [is] with child by whoredom; which was judged to be a plain proof and evidence that she had played the harlot:
and Judah said, bring her forth, and let her be burnt: not that Judah can be thought to be a civil magistrate in a Canaanitish and Heathen city where he sojourned, and as such pronounced this sentence on her at once, or even had the power of life and death in his own family; and besides Tamar was not in his, but in her own father’s house: but the sense seems to be, that as he was a man of credit and esteem in the neighbourhood, and had an influence and interest in it; he moved that she might be brought out of her father’s house, and take her trial before the civil magistrates, and be committed to prison until she was delivered, for it would have been barbarous, and contrary to the law and light of nature, to have burnt her when quick with child, and then indeed to be burnt to death, according to the usage of this country; and as we find adultery in later times was punished with this kind of death, even among Heathens, Jer 29:22; as it was in Egypt in the times of Sesostris the second f; so Salaethus, prince of Croton in Italy, made a law that adulterers should be burnt alive, as Lucian g relates; as did also Macrinus the emperor, that those that were guilty of adultery should be burnt alive together, their bodies joined to each other h: and this criminal action of Tamar was judged adultery, because she was, of right, and according to a custom or law then in use, the wife of Shelah: the Targum of Jonathan intimates, she was judged deserving of this death, because the daughter of a priest; the same law obtaining among the patriarchs as did in the times of Moses,
Le 21:9; and some, as Jarchi relates, say she was the daughter of Shem i, the same with Melchizedek, priest of the most high God: one reason why Judah was in haste to have the sentence pronounced on her, and as soon as could be executed, was not only the disgrace she brought upon his family, but that she might be dispatched, and so his son Shelah freed from being obliged to marry her, which he did not care he should, and was glad of this opportunity to prevent it.
f Diodor. Sicul. l. 1. p. 54. g “Pro mercede conductis”. h Alex. ab Alex. Genial. Dier. l. 4. c. 1. i Shalshalet Hakabala, fol. 4. 1.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
| Birth of Phares and Zarah. | B. C. 1714. |
24 And it came to pass about three months after, that it was told Judah, saying, Tamar thy daughter in law hath played the harlot; and also, behold, she is with child by whoredom. And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt. 25 When she was brought forth, she sent to her father in law, saying, By the man, whose these are, am I with child: and she said, Discern, I pray thee, whose are these, the signet, and bracelets, and staff. 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. 27 And it came to pass in the time of her travail, that, behold, twins were in her womb. 28 And it came to pass, when she travailed, that the one put out his hand: and the midwife took and bound upon his hand a scarlet thread, saying, This came out first. 29 And it came to pass, as he drew back his hand, that, behold, his brother came out: and she said, How hast thou broken forth? this breach be upon thee: therefore his name was called Pharez. 30 And afterward came out his brother, that had the scarlet thread upon his hand: and his name was called Zarah.
Here is, I. Judah’s rigour against Tamar, when he heard she was an adulteress. She was, in the eye of the law, Shelah’s wife, and therefore her being with child by another was looked upon as an injury and reproach to Judah’s family: Bring her forth therefore, says Judah, the master of the family, and let her be burnt; not burnt to death, but burnt in the cheek or forehead, stigmatized for a harlot. This seems probable, v. 24. Note, it is a common thing for men to be severe against those very sins in others in which yet they allow themselves; and so, in judging others, they condemn themselves, Rom 2:1; Rom 14:22. If he designed that she should be burnt to death, perhaps, under pretence of zeal against the sin, he was contriving how to get rid of his daughter-in-law, being loath to marry Shelah to her. Note, It is a common thing, but a very bad thing, to cover malice against men’s persons with a show of zeal against their vices.
II. Judah’s shame, when it was made to appear that he was the adulterer. She produced the ring and the bracelets in court, which justified the fathering of the child upon Judah, Gen 38:25; Gen 38:26. Note, The wickedness that has been most secretly committed, and most industriously concealed, yet sometimes is strangely brought to light, to the shame and confusion of those who have said, No eye sees. A bird of the air may carry the voice; however, there is a destroying day coming, when all will be laid open. Some of the Jewish writers observe that as Judah had said to his father, See, is this thy son’s coat? (ch. xxxvii. 32) so it was now said to him, “See, are these thy signet and bracelets?” Judah, being convicted by his own conscience, 1. Confesses his sin: She has been more righteous than I. He owns that a perpetual mark of infamy should be fastened rather upon him, who had been so much accessory to it. Note, Those offenders ought to be treated with the greatest tenderness to whom we have any way given occasion of offending. If servants purloin, and their masters, by withholding from them what is due, tempt them to it, they ought to forgive them. 2. He never returned to it again: He knew her again no more. Note, Those do not truly repent of their sins that do not forsake them.
III. The building up of Judah’s family hereby, notwithstanding, in the birth of Pharez and Zarah, from whom descended the most considerable families of the illustrious tribe of Judah. It should seem, the birth was hard to the mother, by which she was corrected for her sin. The children also, like Jacob and Esau, struggled for the birthright, and Pharez obtained it, who is ever named first, and from him Christ descended. He had his name from his breaking forth before his brother: This breach be upon thee, which is applicable to those that sow discord, and create distance, between brethren. The Jews, as Zarah, bade fair for the birthright, and were marked with a scarlet thread, as those that came out first; but the Gentiles, like Pharez, as a son of violence, got the start of them, by that violence which the kingdom of heaven suffers, and attained to the righteousness of which the Jews came short. Yet, when the fulness of time is come, all Israel shall be saved. Both these sons are named in the genealogy of our Saviour (Matt. i. 3), to perpetuate the story, as an instance of the humiliation of our Lord Jesus. Some observe that the four eldest sons of Jacob fell under very foul guilt, Reuben and Judah under the guilt of incest, Simeon and Levi under that of murder; yet they were patriarchs, and from Levi descended the priests, from Judah the kings and Messiah. Thus they became examples of repentance, and monuments of pardoning mercy.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
Verses 24-26:
Three months after Judah’s liaison with Tamar, her pregnancy became evident and was brought to Judah’s attention. Though not so stated, it is implied that Tamar had left her father’s house to live once more with Judah and his family. The charge against Tamar: that she had become a prostitute, and had become pregnant in her whoredom.
Judah was highly incensed. He ordered that Tamar be put to death and burned because of her sin. His actions reveal a double standard apparent in almost every age. The world (and some’ Christians) does not consider a man to be as guilty as a woman in the matter of sexual immorality. But in the eyes of God, it is just as wrong for a man to commit sexual sins as for a woman. Judah did not consider his own guilt in seeking the services of a harlot. He was only concerned with the (presumed) guilt of his daughter-in-law.
Tamar presented the evidence that identified the man by whom she had become pregnant. This was Judah’s own signet, chain, and staff. He recognized these as his, and acknowledged his own culpability. Tamar was not innocent in the matter. There is no moral justification for what she did. But Judah was also guilty. Not only had he committed an act of sexual immorality; he had violated his own promise, and the Divine provision for preserving a family lineage.
Judah could not undo the sins he had committed. But he did show evidence of repentance and restitution. And God blessed that repentant spirit and included Judah’s offspring by Tamar in the lineage of Messiah (Mt 1:3).
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
24. And it came to pass about three months after. Tamar might sooner have exposed the crime; but she waited till she should be demanded for capital punishment; for then she would have stronger ground for expostulation. The reason why Judah subjects his daughter-in-law to a punishment so severe, was, that he deemed her guilty of adultery: for what the Lord afterwards confirmed by his law, appears then to have prevailed by custom among men, that a maid, from the time of her espousals, should be strictly faithful to her husband. Tamar had married into the family of Judah; she was then espoused to his third son. It was not therefore simple and common fornication which was the question for judgment; but the crime of adultery, which Judah prosecuted in his own right, because he had been injured in the person of his son. Now this kind of punishment is a proof that adultery has been greatly abhorred in all ages. The law of God commands adulterers to be stoned. Before punishment was sanctioned by a written law, the adulterous woman was, by the consent of all, committed to the flames. This seems to have been done by a divine instinct, that, under the direction and authority of nature, the sanctity of marriage might be fortified, as by a firm guard: and although man is not the lord of his own body, but there is a mutual obligation between himself and his wife, yet husbands who have had illicit intercourse with unmarried women have not been subject to capital punishment; because that punishment was awarded to women, not only on account of their immodesty, but also, of the disgrace which the woman brings upon her husband, and of the confusion caused by the clandestine admixture of seeds. For what else will remain safe in human society, if license be given to bring in by stealth the offspring of a stranger? To steal a name which may be given to spurious offspring? And to transfer to them property taken away from the lawful heirs? It is no wonder, then, that formerly the fidelity of marriage was so sternly asserted on this point. How much more vile, and how much less excusable, is our negligence at this day, which cherishes adulteries, by allowing them to pass with impunity. Capital punishment, indeed, is deemed too severe for the measure of the offense. Why then do we punish lighter faults with greater rigor? Truly, the world was beguiled by the wiles of Satan, when it suffered the law, engraven on all by nature, to become obsolete. meanwhile, a pretext has been found for this gross madness, in that Christ dismissed the adulteress in safety, (Joh 8:11,) as if, truly, he had undertaken to indict punishment upon thieves, homicides, liars, and sorcerers. In vain, therefore, is a rule sought to be established by an act of Christ, who purposely abstained from the office of an earthly judge. It may however be asked, since Judah, who thus boldly usurps the right of the sword, was a private person, and even a stranger in the land; whence had he this great liberty to be the arbiter of life and death? I answer, that the words ought not to be taken as if he would command, on his own authority, his daughter-in-law to be put to death, or as if executioners were ready at his nod; but because the offense was verified and made known, he, as her accuser, freely pronounces concerning the punishment, as if the sentence had already been passed by the judges. Indeed I do not doubt that assemblies were then wont to be held, in which judgments were passed; and therefore I simply explain, that Judah commanded Tamar to be brought forward in public; in order that, the cause being tried, she might be punished according to custom. But the specification of the punishment is to this effect, that the case is one which does not admit of dispute; because Tamar is convicted of the crime before she is cited to judgment.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(24) Let her be burnt.As being by law the wife of Shelah, Tamar was condemned by Judah in right of his position, as head of the family, to the punishment usual for adultery. In subsequent times, this penalty was limited to one who had married mother and daughter (Lev. 20:14); or to the daughter of a priest guilty of unchastity (Lev. 21:9). On this account, the Jewish expositors argue that Tamar belonged to a priestly family, and some even think that she was descended from Melchisedek.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
24. Let her be burnt How ready, like David, (2Sa 12:5,) to condemn before he knows his own share of the guilt and shame! His words evidence the existence of a law of severest punishment for one guilty of such sins long before the law of Moses on the subject . Comp . Lev 21:9; Deuteronomy 20:21-24 .
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘And it happened about three months after that it was told to Judah, saying, “Tamar your daughter-in-law has behaved as a prostitute, and what is more, she is with child by harlotry.” And Judah said, “Bring her out and let her be burned.”
Once her pregnancy became apparent Tamar was sure to be stigmatised. What possible explanation could there be? It was clear that she had behaved immorally. No doubt her father was horrified and immediately informed Judah. It was one thing for men to visit prostitutes, it was another for a daughter of the house to behave in that way. A lesson had to be taught.
It is possible that Judah was pleased to find a way of getting rid of Tamar. He probably had a conscience about her but was fearful lest she brought bad luck on his son. Thus what she had done gave him the perfect opportunity to dispose of her. As head of the household it was his to pass judgment on her. And his judgment is that she should die by burning.
She was only a dependent. She had no right to public trial. As widow of his first son and proposed wife to his third son, at least theoretically, it was his to pass the sentence. Her fate was in his hands. And there is no doubt that his sentence was severe, which brings home emphatically the strength of his conscience about her. Later burning was only utilised in the severest cases of prostitution (Lev 21:9), the more usual sentence was stoning so that all could partake in the punishment (Deu 22:22-24).
Nor seemingly did he question her about what had happened, as he should have done, for had she been forced in the open country she would not be punishable (Deu 22:25-27). Thus the hardness of Judah’s heart is brought out again. The result is that she is brought out to face her punishment, while Judah looks on mercilessly and probably even pleased that things have turned out this way. But it was then that he received a great shock.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
The children of Tamar
v. 24. And it came to pass about three months after that it was told Judah, saying, Tamar, thy daughter-in-law, hath played the harlot; and also, behold, she is with child by whoredom. And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt. v. 25. When she was brought forth for execution, she sent to her father-in-law, saying, By the man whose these are am I with child; and she said, Discern, I pray thee, whose are these, v. 26. And Judah acknowledged them, v. 27. And it came to pass in the time of her travail, that, behold, twins were in her womb.
v. 28. And it came to pass, when she travailed, that the one put out his hand, v. 29. And it came to pass as he drew back his hand, that, behold, his brother came out; and she said, How hast thou broken forth? This breach be upon thee; therefore his name was called Pharez v. 30. And afterward came out his brother, that had the scarlet thread upon his hand; and his name was called Zarah
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Gen 38:24 And it came to pass about three months after, that it was told Judah, saying, Tamar thy daughter in law hath played the harlot; and also, behold, she [is] with child by whoredom. And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt.
Ver. 24. Bring her forth, and let her be burnt. ] He was willing to be rid of her, for fear of losing his son Shelah, and therefore passeth a precipitate and savage sentence, to burn a great-bellied woman; which the very heathens condemned as a cruelty, in Claudius. a Howbeit there are that take these to be his words, not as a judge in the cause, but as an accuser. b “Bring her forth,” sc., into the gates, before the judges; and let her be burnt if found guilty, according to the custom of the country. We read not of any that were, by God’s law, to be burnt with fire, but the high priest’s daughter only, for adultery. Lev 21:9 Hence the Hebrews say, that this Tamar was Melchizedek the high priest’s daughter. But it is more likely she was a Canaanitish proselyte. Let us beware of that sin, for which so peculiar a plague was appointed, and by very heathens executed. See Jer 29:22-23 .
a Dio, lib. lvii.
b Verba Iudae de vivicomburio Thamarae, non sunt Iudicis, sed Accusatoris. – Alsted.
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Gen 38:24-26
24Now it was about three months later that Judah was informed, “Your daughter-in-law Tamar has played the harlot, and behold, she is also with child by harlotry.” Then Judah said, “Bring her out and let her be burned!” 25It was while she was being brought out that she sent to her father-in-law, saying, “I am with child by the man to whom these things belong.” And she said, “Please examine and see, whose signet ring and cords and staff are these?” 26Judah recognized them, and said, “She is more righteous than I, inasmuch as I did not give her to my son Shelah.” And he did not have relations with her again.
Gen 38:24 “Your daughter-in-law Tamar has played the harlot, and behold, she is also with child by harlotry” The PLURAL form is used here, which seems to imply that Tamar must have engaged in repeated sexual activities. What are the chances of one isolated encounter resulting in pregnancy? Her character was impugned by the very nature of her offense.
“Then Judah said, ‘Bring her out and let her be burned'” Judah, as the head of the clan, was still legally responsible for his daughter-in-law’s punishment. The idea of burning her seems to be a common punishment for an unfaithful wife (cf. the Code of Hammurabi, but in a slightly different sense). In the Mosaic legislation it was only the daughters of priests who were burned; other offenders were stoned (cf. Deu 22:20-24; Lev 21:9).
Judah gives a strong command.
1. bring her out, BDB 422, KB 425, Hiphil IMPERATIVE (i.e., out of her home into a public forum)
2. let her be burned, BDB 976, KB 1358, Niphal IMPERFECT used in a JUSSIVE sense (this was a community act)
Gen 38:25 “It was while she was being brought out” Some say that she waited until the last possible minute hoping that Judah would reconsider his judgment. Others assert that she waited until the most dramatic, public moment to embarrass Judah. As is the case in all the OT, and, for that matter, the NT, one’s psychological motives cannot be ascertained.
“Please examine and see, whose signet ring and cords and staff are these” Tamar asked Judah “to examine” the items (BDB 647, KB 699, Hiphil IMPERATIVE, Gen 38:25) and he does in Gen 38:26 (BDB 647, KB 699, Hiphil IMPERFECT). The same VERB is used here that is used in Gen 37:32-33; Gen 42:7-8 (twice).
Judah immediately recognizes his own possessions and realizes the appropriate, though somewhat questionable, acts of Tamar in the legal, religious setting of his own day. The term “righteousness” (BDB 842, see Special Topic at Gen 15:6) here does not refer to the fact that she is without guilt in the manner in which she acted, but she acted in ways more acceptable than Judah. This is a non-theological use of “righteousness” (cf. Gen 30:33). She risked a lot in order to bear this family heir(s)! Apparently she and Judah had no more sexual contact. It was not an act of lust, but, in my opinion, an act of religious faith (see note at Gen 38:13). In my opinion Tamar is the real heroine of this entire account (as Rebekah was earlier).
burnt. This was strictly in accordance with the Code of Hammurabi (157), which was then in force throughout Canaan. See App-15.
played the harlot: Gen 34:31, Jdg 19:2, Ecc 7:26, Jer 2:20, Jer 3:1, Jer 3:6, Jer 3:8, Eze 16:15, Eze 16:28, Eze 16:41, Eze 23:5, Eze 23:19, Eze 23:44, Hos 2:5, Hos 3:3, Hos 4:15
let her: Gen 20:3, Gen 20:7, Gen 20:9, Lev 20:10, Lev 21:9, Deu 22:21-27, Deu 24:16, 2Sa 12:5, 2Sa 12:7, Jer 29:22, Jer 29:23, Mat 7:1-5, Rom 2:1, Rom 2:2, Rom 14:22
Reciprocal: Gen 38:17 – Wilt thou Gen 46:12 – Judah Jos 2:3 – Bring Jos 7:25 – burned 1Sa 14:44 – thou shalt Job 31:11 – an iniquity Eze 16:38 – as women Mat 1:3 – Thamar Mat 1:19 – a public 1Co 6:16 – an harlot
Gen 38:24. Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt Some have inferred from this that fathers then had the power of life and death over their children. But if so, it is probable that some instance would have occurred and have appeared on record in which such a power was actually exercised. It seems very unlikely that Judah should have such a power, at least over her, who was a Canaanite, and who was not in his, but in her own fathers house. He probably only meant, Bring her forth to the magistrate, from whom she may receive her sentence and deserved punishment, as a person guilty of adultery, (having been betrothed to Shelah,) a crime formerly punished with death by the laws of God, and of divers nations. See Deu 22:23-24; Jer 29:22-23. This eagerness of Judah, however, proceeded not from zeal for justice, for then he would not have endeavoured to destroy the innocent child with the guilty mother, but from worldly policy, that he might take her out of the way whom he viewed as a disgrace and burden to his family. But perhaps, though he uttered this severe sentence in the heat of his passion, he would not have urged the putting of it in execution; or, as some think, by burning her he might mean no more than branding her in the forehead to denote her being a harlot.
38:24 And it came to pass about three months after, that it was told Judah, saying, Tamar thy daughter in law hath played the harlot; and also, behold, she [is] with child by whoredom. And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be {h} burnt.
(h) We see that the Law, which was written in man’s heart, taught them that adultery should be punished with death, even though no law had been given yet.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes