Replies

Biblical scholars have noted that "the marriage of a widow to the brother of her dead husband was to carry on the dead man's name and inheritance as well as to provide for the widow. The best way to 'carry on' a man's name and inheritance is through a line of descendants. If a widow married someone outside the family, her first husband's line would come to an end. God killed Onan because he refused to fulfill his obligation to his brother and to Tamar." This may have had even more important implications when we read that Tamar was in the line of descendents leading to Jesus Christ (King David's bloodline). Also, the inheritance to be carried on through Tamar (actually, through the tribe of Judah, of which Tamar was a member) is the covenant made between God and Abraham -- that the whole world would be blessed by one of Abraham's descendents, Jesus Christ.

Tamar had to go to great lengths to become pregnant (read the rest of this section), which, had Onan fulfilled his duty to the family, would not have been necessary.

Also, the book of Ruth refers to this obligation of a man's brother to the widow as "Kinsman Redeemer." It is a perfect picture pointing to what, ultimately, Jesus Christ's mission would be -- redemption. This work of Jesus Christ replaces the OT law about a man marrying his brother's widow.

Onan defied God and, as many have learned and will learn throughout history, defying God is not a good idea.

I'm surprised you didn't use as an example of...what? I'm not quite sure what your point was in bringing up Onan and Tamar, but suspect it was to show your belief that God is cruel and unjust and that the OT is just an archaic, dead collection of ridiculous laws. Anyway, I'm surprised you didn't use the children who died in the WTC as an example.

Just curious: Wasn't Patrick Henry a Christian??