Good evening, and welcome to EBible Fellowship’s Bible study in the book of Genesis.  Tonight is study #4 in Genesis 38, and we will be reading Genesis 38:5-10:

And she yet again conceived, and bare a son; and called his name Shelah: and he was at Chezib, when she bare him. And Judah took a wife for Er his firstborn, whose name was Tamar. And Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the sight of JEHOVAH; and JEHOVAH slew him. And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother. 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. And the thing which he did displeased JEHOVAH: wherefore he slew him also.

I will stop reading there.  I would like to mention something before we continue discussing Onan and his spilling of the seed, and the whole idea of a brother raising up seed to his dead brother.  It said in Genesis 38:5:

And she yet again conceived, and bare a son; and called his name Shelah: and he was at Chezib, when she bare him.

I mentioned that Shelah is a type and figure of the elect, and his name means “prosper,” and we read in Psalm 122:6: “Pray for the peace of Jerusalem: they shall prosper that love thee.”  Shelah was born at Chezib, and Chezib is Strong’s #3580 in the Hebrew concordance, and it comes from Strong’s #3576, which means “liar,” or “lying.”  For example, this word is used in Psalm 116:11:

I said in my haste, All men are liars.

That reminds us of the Scripture in Romans 3:4: “…let God be true, but every man a liar.”  All men are liars.  If Shelah is a type and figure of the elect, then why is God telling us that he was born in Chezib?  He was born in a place that identifies with “lies.” 

It is really not a problem for us to understand this if we go to Psalm 58:3:

The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.

The word “lies” is Strong’s #3576, which is related to the word translated as “Chezib,” and it is the related word used in Psalm 116:11.  Here, it tells us that the wicked are born speaking lies.  And that would be true of God’s elect in practically every case, although there would be rare exceptions, like John the Baptist, for those that were saved in the womb.  Otherwise, we were children of wrath even as others, and we had desperately wicked hearts, deceitful above all things, and therefore we were born speaking lies.  And Shelah represents those that God would save, but he was born in the “lie.”   I just wanted to point that out.

Now let us go down to Genesis 38:8-10:

And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother. 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. And the thing which he did displeased JEHOVAH: wherefore he slew him also.

In our last study, I went to Matthew 22 and read the account of when the Sadducees came to Christ, and that account is recorded in at least three of the Gospels.  The Sadducees made reference to this Law of Moses in Matthew 22.  It says in Mathew 22:24-27:

Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother: Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh. And last of all the woman died also.

They put forth this scenario in an attempt to ensnare Christ and the truth of the Bible, but one thing we can gather is what we read in Genesis 38 where a first son dies without a son, then the second son goes in, and if he also dies without seed, then the third son goes in, and so forth.  There is really no point at which one is to say, “That is enough.  We have tried this seven times, and I am not giving any more of my sons.”  There is no question in the Sadducees’ scenario that this was to be done, and that one would continue to make the attempt with successive sons, without a maximum number.  Certainly the Sadducees were drawing from this passage because there does not seem to be anything like this passage where we see two sons that were slain by the sword, and now the third is to go in unto his brother’s widow.  We read in Genesis 38:11:

Then said Judah to Tamar his daughter in law, Remain a widow at thy father's house, till Shelah my son be grown: for he said, Lest peradventure he die also, as his brethren did. And Tamar went and dwelt in her father's house.

Shelah was probably a teenager, like 14 or 15.  But Judah was saying, “I am not going to give him to you right now, but let him first be grown,” and he is implying that he would continue with the attempt to raise up seed.  He was saying that Shelah would be given to Tamar, but he was actually just trying to shield and protect his son from suffering the same fate as his brothers.

And this was all based upon the Law of Moses as we saw in the Sadducees’ question, so let us go to Deuteronomy 25:5-10:

If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her. And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel. And if the man like not to take his brother's wife, then let his brother's wife go up to the gate unto the elders, and say, My husband's brother refuseth to raise up unto his brother a name in Israel, he will not perform the duty of my husband's brother. Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak unto him: and if he stand to it, and say, I like not to take her; Then shall his brother's wife come unto him in the presence of the elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face, and shall answer and say, So shall it be done unto that man that will not build up his brother's house. And his name shall be called in Israel, The house of him that hath his shoe loosed.

Here, we can see some definite similarities with the Law of Moses and what is happening historically in the family of Judah in Genesis 38.  We understand that the Law of Moses came many hundreds of years after the things we are reading about in Genesis 38, and yet this is part of the Law of God. The Law of God is an eternal Law.  Even before God laid down the Law, there was the Law of God, or there was the Word, and Christ is the Word.  When we read the Bible, we are reading eternal principles, so it is not surprising, for instance, that early on it was impressed upon Cain and Abel to make an offering.  One offering was acceptable, and one offering was not acceptable.  Yet we do not read any stipulation laid out as there would be later in the books of Leviticus, Numbers, and so forth, where God will stipulate how offerings were to be made.  But there was understanding and knowledge that an offering had to be made, and that would identify with the eternal principle that the Lord Jesus Christ was the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, which occurred in eternity past. The idea of a sacrificial offering to God in regard to sin is an eternal principle because of that, and so too the idea of a brother dying without a child, and then the “near kinsman,” or closest brother to him, performs the duty of his brother by marrying the woman, and that firstborn son would succeed the name of his brother, as it says in Deuteronomy 25:6:

And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel.

That statement that says, “that his name not be put out of Israel,” explains the spiritual meaning of this whole thing. Basically, the “kinsman redeemer” is performing the role of the redeemer to his dead brother so that his dead brother’s name not be put out of Israel.  Spiritually, that points to Christ stepping in to perform the role of “kinsman redeemer” in salvation.  That is, He was a man, as we are men, and He bore our sins in a human body on a “tree,” at the foundation of the world, meaning that He was cursed, just as anyone hanging on a tree is cursed.  Because of His performance of the duty of the “kinsman redeemer,” our names were not put out of the kingdom of God.

God speaks of the sinner that God did not die for, and for whom Christ did not do the duty of the “kinsman redeemer.”  He speaks of blotting His name out of the  Book of Life.  His name is put out of Israel, spiritually.  His name is put out of the kingdom of heaven, and he will die, and at the end he will be remembered no more. 

This is not so for the elect, as Christ performed this duty for us.  And that is, ultimately, the spiritual picture in Genesis 38, and the problem with Onan is that he did not like this idea at all.  We can gather that because of what it says in Genesis 38:9:

… 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.

He did not want to give seed to his own brother.  Oddly, that is also emphasized in this account in Deuteronomy 25:7:

And if the man like not to take his brother's wife, then let his brother's wife go up to the gate unto the elders, and say, My husband's brother refuseth to raise up unto his brother a name in Israel, he will not perform the duty of my husband's brother.

In our account in Genesis 38, it displeased the Lord that Onan would not perform this duty.  He did some of it by marrying her and having marital relations, and yet he spilled the seed on the ground, and that displeased the Lord.  And that is the case here where it says, “And if the man like not to take his brother's wife…”  He cannot just walk away, saying, “Oh, this is not for me.  Get somebody else.”  Notice what happens to him in Deuteronomy 25:8-9:

Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak unto him: and if he stand to it, and say, I like not to take her; Then shall his brother's wife come unto him in the presence of the elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot…

What does that mean?  What could be in view by the loosing of his shoe off his foot?  It means that he is going to be “barefoot,” or “naked.”  It is language that tells us that this man would be “spiritually naked.”  He would have no covering, and he will be in his sin.  Then it goes on to say in Deuteronomy 25:9:

… and spit in his face…

And that was a shameful thing, and it would indicate that he is under the curse, just as they spit upon the Lord Jesus because He was representing at the cross the bearing of the sins of His people.  God’s wrath was upon Him, and He was a curse.  He was made “shame” for us.  Obviously, we now understand that He was not actually bearing sin at the cross, but He was demonstrating what He had done.  So these are horrible things that are equal to the idea of the Lord slaying someone, as Onan was slain.

We also see another account in the book of Ruth concerning a “kinsman redeemer.”   Boaz is a near kinsman to Naomi, and Ruth is really standing in the place of Naomi.  She was a younger woman who had married one of Naomi’s sons who had died.  But there was a nearer kinsman than Boaz, so Boas called him before the elders of the city, and it says in Ruth 4:1-8:

Then went Boaz up to the gate, and sat him down there: and, behold, the kinsman of whom Boaz spake came by; unto whom he said, Ho, such a one! turn aside, sit down here. And he turned aside, and sat down. And he took ten men of the elders of the city, and said, Sit ye down here. And they sat down. And he said unto the kinsman, Naomi, that is come again out of the country of Moab, selleth a parcel of land, which was our brother Elimelech's: And I thought to advertise thee, saying, Buy it before the inhabitants, and before the elders of my people. If thou wilt redeem it, redeem it: but if thou wilt not redeem it, then tell me, that I may know: for there is none to redeem it beside thee; and I am after thee. And he said, I will redeem it. Then said Boaz, What day thou buyest the field of the hand of Naomi, thou must buy it also of Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of the dead, to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance. And the kinsman said, I cannot redeem it for myself, lest I mar mine own inheritance: redeem thou my right to thyself; for I cannot redeem it. Now this was the manner in former time in Israel concerning redeeming and concerning changing, for to confirm all things; a man plucked off his shoe, and gave it to his neighbour: and this was a testimony in Israel. Therefore the kinsman said unto Boaz, Buy it for thee. So he drew off his shoe.

We can see the similarities regarding the man taking off his shoe.  This was many hundreds of years after the Law of Moses.  I am not sure what happened in the meantime.  Maybe this was a “watered down” version of what had been written.  We have seen that kind of thing during the church age concerning the Law of God.  Once the church handles it for a few centuries, it may come out “similar, but different,” which would be unfaithful.  I am not sure of the differences here.  It seems more polite and kind, but that does not mean it was more faithful.

Anyway, the kinsman said, “I cannot redeem it.”  He was unwilling.  He did not want to do it.  Why?  It was because he might mar his own inheritance.  So maybe that will help us understanding why Onan spilled the seed.  The Hebrew word translated as “spilled” is the same word translated as “mar” in Ruth 4:6: “…lest I mar (spill) mine own inheritance.”   This word is also translated as “lose,” “destroy,” and “corrupt.”  I think it would carry the idea of “losing” one’s inheritance.  What Onan did with the seed caused it to perish by spilling it on the ground. 

And yet the truth is coming forth that there is actually an inability of man to perform the role of “kinsman redeemer,” lest he lose his own inheritance.  We know the Bible says, “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.”   We all needed redemption.

We will get into this more in our next study.  As we continue in Genesis 38, this chapter has everything to do with the “kinsman redeemer.”  It is interesting how God placed it here in the midst of the story of Joseph that we were reading in chapter 37, and which we will pick up again in chapter 39.  And God gives us this chapter right in between, and it has everything to do with the Gospel.