Marrying 10 Times

[Deborah13]

C'mon you guy's didn't Jesus tell the woman she had 5 husbands ? Yes He did because she slept with 5 dudes, c'mon now.

Jesus agreed with her that she DID NOT have a husband at the present time.
Joh 4:16 Jesus saith unto her, Go, call thy husband, and come hither.
Joh 4:17 The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no husband:
Joh 4:18 For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly.
He tells her that she has had five husbands in the past, the man she has now is not her husband.

also consider that the rapist would be put to death if there was a witness. remember he could marry if she cried out and there was none to rescue her. if there was one whom rescued her then the man was put to death.

I believe he was put to death if she was betrothed to another man. But if not, he was forced to marry her.
It doesn't say this but I suspect one reason was because she may have gotten pregnant and the child would be considered illegitimate if she didn't have a husband.

As far as I know, our tradition of the poor sap paying his ex-wife alimony even if she's the one who doesn't want to stay (and even if she gets up with another man) is based on a horrible misunderstanding of Leviticus 21:7-11 NASB...

Thanks that's what I was looking for, the scripture. I've never heard that but you are probably correct. But I don't see how anyone can get that out of this scripture.

That implies that by virtue of the sex act he has taken on a kind of marital kind of responsibility for the woman. Because of what marriage is I don't disagree with that completely.

She may be pregnant. Someone needs to be responsible for the care of her and the child. That's my best guess. And then of coarse the idea of her no longer being a virgin, she is no longer as desirable.

 

[Deborah13]

Deborah if a man lays with a women they become one flesh, if penetration happens.

God's definition of marriage can be found in Genesis 2:24: "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." In the Bible, the Hebrew basar is often translated as "flesh," but however it is interpreted, it always refers to the physical part of humanity. What does it mean, then, that a man and woman become "one flesh" in marriage?

That cannot be the definition of marriage. I just showed you scripture both in the OT (rapist scenario) and in the NT (the one you have now is NOT your husband), Jesus' words not mine.

The most obvious way is through sex. This is borne out in 1 Corinthians 6:16 when Paul says even a man with a prostitute becomes one flesh with her. The act of sex is a manifestation of "one flesh" physically and a metaphor for the other ways a married couple joins together.

You are pulling 1 Corinthians out of context. Paul does not call this act marriage, he calls it fornication.
1Co 6:16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.
1Co 6:17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.
1Co 6:18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.
1Co 6:19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
Paul isn't telling them that they are married to the harlot, God forbid. He is reminding them of what one flesh is suppose to look like and it's not fornicating with a harlot.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Jesus agreed with her that she DID NOT have a husband at the present time.
Joh 4:16 Jesus saith unto her, Go, call thy husband, and come hither.
Joh 4:17 The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no husband:
Joh 4:18 For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly.
He tells her that she has had five husbands in the past, the man she has now is not her husband.

While I can see Lewis' point, I had forgotten that I share this passage with people who insist that by virtue of being committed to each other (sexually) they are married in God's sight.

It seems there is a distinction to be made between being 'one' by virtue of sexual union, and being married. I don't think Jesus would have said the woman and her lover were not 'one', but it's also clear that he said her lover was not her husband. Being 'one' and being married have to go together.

She may be pregnant. Someone needs to be responsible for the care of her and the child. That's my best guess. And then of coarse the idea of her no longer being a virgin, she is no longer as desirable.

IMO, that is the primary responsibility in marriage--take responsibility for the consequences of becoming 'one'.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

And then of coarse the idea of her no longer being a virgin, she is no longer as desirable.

Hey, it's a guy thing.
What can we say?

 

[Deborah13]

Hey, it's a guy thing.
What can we say?

Who ever said it was just a guy thing?

 

[Lewis]

And again she slept with 5 men in the past so penetration did take place and she became one flesh, which marries them. So Jesus said she had 5 husbands and the one she is with now is not her husband, now is that because they have not had sex yet ?

 

[Deborah13]

While I can see Lewis' point, I had forgotten that I share this passage with people who insist that by virtue of being committed to each other (sexually) they are married in God's sight.

It seems there is a distinction to be made between being 'one' by virtue of sexual union, and being married. I don't think Jesus would have said the woman and her lover were not 'one', but it's also clear that he said her lover was not her husband. Being 'one' and being married have to go together.


IMO, that is the primary responsibility in marriage--take responsibility for the consequences of becoming 'one'.

I think there is more to the flesh than just the physical body. See what you think.
1Co 6:16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body [soma]? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh [sarx].
4983 sṓma – the physical body.
Transliteration: sóma
Short Definition: body, flesh
Definition: body, flesh; the body of the Church.
4561 sarx: flesh
Transliteration: sarx
Short Definition: flesh, body
Definition: flesh, body, human nature, materiality; kindred.
Eph 5:30 because members we are of his body [soma], of his flesh[sarx], and of his bones;
Eph 5:31 `for this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined to his wife, and they shall be--the two--for one flesh [sarx];'
Eph 5:32 this secret is great, and I speak in regard to Christ and to the assembly;
In this one he is leaving one old kindred to be united with a new kindred, family.
When I think of marriage by the definitions of sarx, more than one of those seems to describe what a marriage is. When we think of it being a picture of Christ and His Church/Bride, we see kindred, of one nature/mind, not being unevenly yoked, etc.
God didn't make us to be the same as wolves, swans, or any of the other animals the mate for life, even sharing the care of the offspring. So I believe God definition of marriage is much bigger than just two physical body [soma] copulating.

 

[About the Son of God]

Deborah if a man lays with a women they become one flesh, if penetration happens.

God's definition of marriage can be found in Genesis 2:24: "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." In the Bible, the Hebrew basar is often translated as "flesh," but however it is interpreted, it always refers to the physical part of humanity. What does it mean, then, that a man and woman become "one flesh" in marriage?

The most obvious way is through sex. This is borne out in 1 Corinthians 6:16 when Paul says even a man with a prostitute becomes one flesh with her. The act of sex is a manifestation of "one flesh" physically and a metaphor for the other ways a married couple joins together.

Read more: http://www.compellingtruth.org/one-flesh-marriage.html#ixzz3X9EuTHIL

Lewis, you are indeed correct. They do become one flesh through sexual union.
Even prostitutes become one flesh....

That doesn't mean they are married, and that's what is becoming a sticking point here.

Jesus made the distinction when he refused to say : "Those who become one flesh, let no man separate" but rather said "Therefore, those whom God has joined, let no man separate". It's indisputable that Eve was Made by God for Adam, specifically in that story. Jesus also said, regarding Pharisaical interpretation -- "Moses allowed YOU" to divorce... thereby subtly implying that the Pharisees were into porn, in place of marriage ; For Jesus also says, "except in the case of porn (oft translated Adultery, but harlotry, idol worship, incest, etc. all would qualify as versions of pornea.)

The issue is that pornea is specifically perversions condemned by law.
God also gave the law, therefore -- any attempt at marriage against the Law is not going to be something which God "Joins". That is the simple rule as to when a marriage "CAN" be separated.

If a man lays with a woman, when the law says he must pay her a dowry -- then that is no marriage.
Moses goes into some detail on this for rape cases, as well...

 

[About the Son of God]

I think there is more to the flesh than just the physical body. See what you think.
1Co 6:16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body [soma]? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh [sarx].
4983 sṓma – the physical body.
Transliteration: sóma
Short Definition: body, flesh
Definition: body, flesh; the body of the Church.

Must be a vague Strong's number definition.... I'd like to add a little clarification, for Strongs isn't wrong -- but vague:
Soma just means "body", as in anything which has a discernible shape, eg: it could be bones, hair, and/or flesh... or most often, it means all of it together -- formed into a recognizable shape.

But, Sarx is more specifically, Flesh ; as in focused on specific parts of the body, eg: the muscle/meat and the liquids proper to those areas of the body, eg: such as meat with the blood in it , or the "slime" of the earth from which man is made.

For example: To be come one flesh with Christ, according to the law of Moses, and looked at carefully -- does not require sexual union; but it does require acquiring the *living* *flesh* (and optionally, blood even if separated from the body....) for those are the things which have the spirit and *life* within them.

Notice in John 6:51 it says σάρξ (sarx) not just soma, and later Jesus goes to some length in order to get his semi-deaf auditors to understand it must be living flesh, not merely that which is dead -- but only that which has new life ; Not canibalism, but the transference of life from one body to another -- much as a mother gives a child the milk from her breasts ; a fluid produced from her flesh to give "life!"

In Genesis, 2 and Ephesians it says "sarx", and that focuses on the donation from a person's body and blood (directly or indirectly) that is always necessary in giving life.

Again -- there is a distinction, for flesh AKA. "sarx" without life, is not marriage nor a covenant, nor a valid oath...
Notice how this dovetails into what Paul says in Romans 7:2-3

So, again -- if the marriage is life giving, it is not to be separated; but if it is not life giving, it can be separated.
If someone sins, or perverts a marriage in the very act of entering into it -- I would say that marriage is subject to divorce if there is no hope of repentance. If there is not love, "from the beginning".

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Who ever said it was just a guy thing?

I don't know. Apparently it's not(?)

 

[Deborah13]

If a man lays with a woman, when the law says he must pay her a dowry -- then that is no marriage.
Moses goes into some detail on this for rape cases, as well...

Just a note here. Prenuptial agreements are Biblical, under Moses' Law. They are to protect one from a hardhearted spouse. Whether it be the husband or the wife.

Must be a vague Strong's number definition.... I'd like to add a little clarification, for Strongs isn't wrong -- but vague:
Soma just means "body", as in anything which has a discernible shape, eg: it could be bones, hair, and/or flesh... or most often, it means all of it together -- formed into a recognizable shape.

Sheesh...I thought I put a link to the full definitions, much to long to post here. I was trying to raise some people's curiosity so that they would investigate for themselves the difference in the words used in the same verse.
It's clear to me that the one flesh of marriage is very different then an a sexual act with a harlot. So here is the link.
http://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_corinthians/6-16.htm
The contractual agreement with a harlot is not the same as the marriage contract.
Judah went into Tamar thinking she was a harlot. His contractual agreement with her was for payment of a kid goat.
Nowhere does scripture even imply that by doing this he had entered in to a marriage contract. It would have been an illegal incestual union.

But, Sarx is more specifically, Flesh ; as in focused on specific parts of the body, eg: the muscle/meat and the liquids proper to those areas of the body, eg: such as meat with the blood in it , or the "slime" of the earth from which man is made.
For example: To be come one flesh with Christ, according to the law of Moses, and looked at carefully -- does not require sexual union; but it does require acquiring the *living* *flesh* (and optionally, blood even if separated from the body....) for those are the things which have the spirit and *life* within them.
Notice in John 6:51 it says σάρξ (sarx) not just soma, and later Jesus goes to some length in order to get his semi-deaf auditors to understand it must be living flesh, not merely that which is dead -- but only that which has new life ; Not cannibalism, but the transference of life from one body to another -- much as a mother gives a child the milk from her breasts ; a fluid produced from her flesh to give "life!"

In Genesis, 2 and Ephesians it says "sarx", and that focuses on the donation from a person's body and blood (directly or indirectly) that is always necessary in giving life.

Again -- there is a distinction, for flesh AKA. "sarx" without life, is not marriage nor a covenant, nor a valid oath...
Notice how this dovetails into what Paul says in Romans 7:2-3

So, again -- if the marriage is life giving, it is not to be separated; but if it is not life giving, it can be separated.
If someone sins, or perverts a marriage in the very act of entering into it -- I would say that marriage is subject to divorce if there is no hope of repentance. If there is not love, "from the beginning".

I agree. You have explained it better than I did. 'Sarx' can have a negative or positive implication. Sarx, is so much more than Soma.
Rom 7:5 for when we were in the flesh [sarx], the passions of the sins, that are through the law, were working in our members, to bear fruit to the death;
No one would think that Paul is speaking here of the physical body [soma] but that he is referring to the old nature [sarx] before conversion. Here it is used in a negative position.

 

[Lewis]

Two Become One Flesh
http://www.dyingtocontrol.com/two-become-one-flesh/

 

[Deborah13]

Two Become One Flesh
http://www.dyingtocontrol.com/two-become-one-flesh/

His man needs to be challenged into looking at the difference between the words 'body' and 'flesh' in the Greek.
There has to be a reason that Paul used two different words in what he is describing.

He is pulling the scripture out of it's context. Paul clearly goes on and calls this act with a harlot, Fornication.
The marriage bed is Never spoken of as fornication (porneia). All fornication is sin.

Maybe just maybe if he got his head out of the fleshy [sarx] carnal nature, he could see the one flesh [sarx] spiritual nature.
Does a marriage end when a spouse can no longer have a sexual relationship with their spouse? Because if that is what makes a marriage, then there would be no marriage without it. 2
He quotes the leaving father/mother kindred to enter into the husband/wife kindred. Thinking that is done by sex? He needs to study the definition of sarx as kindred.

 

[About the Son of God]

Just a note here. Prenuptial agreements are Biblical, under Moses' Law. They are to protect one from a hardhearted spouse. Whether it be the husband or the wife.

Sheesh...I thought I put a link to the full definitions, much to long to post here. I was trying to raise some people's curiosity so that they would investigate for themselves the difference in the words used in the same verse.

Sorry if I stepped on toes.... I'm a bit quick to post sometimes.

The contractual agreement with a harlot is not the same as the marriage contract.
Judah went into Tamar thinking she was a harlot. His contractual agreement with her was for payment of a kid goat.
Nowhere does scripture even imply that by doing this he had entered in to a marriage contract. It would have been an illegal incestual union.

I never really thought about that contract carefully.
But I'm not quite sure that would be considered "incest". I mean, Adam and Eve's child (Seth) could not be accused of incest just because he married a sister -- for there was no law against incest at that point in time. Eg: The creation of man before the fall was not, I suppose, intended by God to be subject to genetic family defects as man was to have a way to receive "life" continually eg: from the tree of life. But since, of course, the fall made him susceptible to genetic illness, and laws of nature -- at some point in time (which I'm not clear on) incest became unlawful; I'm not entirely certain if the laws on incest were part of the result of Moses' making contractual agreements with God concerning Israel, or if they were a result of prolonged examination of sicknesses which over time man was becoming more and more susceptible to, or what? eg: Abraham still claimed that Sarai was his "sister" -- although they shared only one parent (or possibly grandparent) ; so -- it's clear that earlier figures in history could be excused from incest laws, or have them not apply.

In the case of Judah, Tamar's husband was dead. (Paul / Romans 7:2 again) So, I think she was no longer bound to a husband according to Paul, because "the Law" includes not only the statutes Moses added, but also those of the Patriarchs.

Worse, regarding Tamar; her husband(s) had displeased the Lord and was in a deadly sin at the time of her first and second "marriages". So, There is no real evidence that either husband had actually loved her from the beginning, eg: that she had a valid marriage in Gods eyes, for God is Love and love is necessary for Marriage to be joined by God;

What happened with Judah/Tamar is a double edged legal sword -- speaking metaphorically -- for Judah could potentially have used her complaints against his sons as evidence she had no right to be part of the family, and therefore no right to Selah, but on the other hand he gave her the signet ring and staff as a pledge which are the very indications she was part of the family and thereby placed the question of her loss of virginity to someone "outside" the family in legal doubt.

If all of Israel was "in" Abraham, when he tithed to Melchizadech -- therefore the seed (or at least the slime) of the father, is quite possibly understood as already being "in" his sons. It's difficult to see, exactly what reasoning applies to "illegal" and "legal" when the children are clearly the flesh of their father.... eg: Judah is -- in some sense -- the flesh of Er and Onan.

So -- (even though I don't normally disagree with you) -- I tend to think there may be in fact a legal basis for Tamar claiming that she was not a harlot, eg: like Leah who earlier snuck into Jacob's bed. Does Judah not say, "She is indeed more just than I" ? ( Genesis 38:26 ) hmmm.. did Judah every "remarry" after that incident ??

But, it's also obvious that equating marraige to merely joining flesh -- would cause every parent to be automatically married to their child's spouse. That leads to some thorny interpretive problems....

hmm.... I also find it very, very, curious that Genesis would state something based on Adam concerning the marriage law, which I don't see how it could apply or even be derivable from the Genesis text -- vis -- that the man would "LEAVE his father and mother"; for that in the context of Adam would mean he had to leave a parent [God?] in order to cleave to Eve -- it's perhaps easier to understand that Law in Christ, who came "from" the father (incarnation) in order to become one flesh with a wife (the church); for he had to empty himself in order to become man.

 

[Deborah13]

Sorry if I stepped on toes.... I'm a bit quick to post sometimes.

I didn't take it that way at all. Sometimes when I am focused on an issue I forget the niceties of communication and it can sound harsh. But with me, never fear, I'm not easily offended.

so -- it's clear that earlier figures in history could be excused from incest laws, or have them not apply.

I agree. In fact, I believe that genetic disorders probably never happened until after those laws were given.

but on the other hand he gave her the signet ring and staff as a pledge which are the very indications she was part of the family and thereby placed the question of her loss of virginity to someone "outside" the family in legal doubt.

Hum..I think I don't understand your point. I don't remember her being a virgin at this time, just childless, and when Judah gave her those items he thought he was giving them to a prostitute as a pledge until he brought her the payment of a kid goat.

So -- (even though I don't normally disagree with you) -- I tend to think there may be in fact a legal basis for Tamar claiming that she was not a harlot, eg: like Leah who earlier snuck into Jacob's bed. Does Judah not say, "She is indeed more just than I" ? ( Genesis 38:26 ) hmmm.. did Judah every "remarry" after that incident ??

Oh I think Tamar had every right to claim she wasn't a harlot. Judah had broken a vow. He had in effect betrothed his youngest son to her and not followed through.
I don't see in scripture were he married again. But I don't believe he considered himself married to Tamar either.
Gen 38:26 And Judah acknowledged them, and said: 'She is more righteous than I; forasmuch as I gave her not to Shelah my son.' And he knew her again no more.

hmm.... I also find it very, very, curious that Genesis would state something based on Adam concerning the marriage law, which I don't see how it could apply or even be derivable from the Genesis text -- vis -- that the man would "LEAVE his father and mother"; for that in the context of Adam would mean he had to leave a parent [God?] in order to cleave to Eve -- it's perhaps easier to understand that Law in Christ, who came "from" the father (incarnation) in order to become one flesh with a wife (the church); for he had to empty himself in order to become man.

I agree. I believe that scripture is talking about the kindred relationship. Not that his parents are no longer his flesh/ kindred but that his flesh/kindred/sarx relationship with his wife supersedes that previous flesh union.
Not something that is there in the case of Adam. But in the case of the Christ, as a man, we maybe see that in His words when He says His disciples are His family, His mother, brothers, sisters.

 

[About the Son of God]

Hum..I think I don't understand your point. I don't remember her being a virgin at this time, just childless, and when Judah gave her those items he thought he was giving them to a prostitute as a pledge until he brought her the payment of a kid goat.

It's not a well explained thought. In Jewish writings, which are coming to mind especially because Lewis shows a star of David in his icon, and the topic he is speaking about has many Jewish rabbinical undertones; so I suppose I chose my words subconsciously on the basis of my memory jogging me that in midrash, and rabbinical writings, there were disputes as to whether or not she was virgin on account of how the sons died. Er was slain in the betrothal period, and the son who could have bedded (onan) clearly spilled the seed before the sexual act -- and God slew him for it; meaning she had never been penetrated or at very least, not gotten the seed. So she is virgin in the sense of not having seed, ever; even if in modern terms we understand that Onan's method of contraception is generally pretty ineffective. Some of the rabbis then go on to talk about the veil at great length -- which is disturbing to me, for the rabbis appear to understand veiling as an indication or advertisement that a woman is virgin and "modest".and nothing else.

Exactly why they see only that interpretation, I don't know, for in my limited knowledge of the nature of the subject -- covering or hiding of the face, is also what a modern harlot does in exposing or emphasizing the body parts and not the person. Having intercourse or (being with God) with the veil still on -- is a form of perversion in a union ; eg: 2 Corinthians 3:14 ; or Exodus 34:35 ; Pornography is generally, and often, I would say -- faceless sex -- as much as possible.
But consider marriage, for example eg: the word -- Revelation -- signifying the opposite -- that of un-veiling, or 'removing' the veil as is done in wedding ceremonies when a virgin becomes a wife. To have a veil is a sign of virginity, then, I admit (though not exclusively such a sign) eg: something approximating it's virtues.

Jewish rabbis seemed to me to be more concerned about how to explain that Tamar might have tricked him into thinking she was not completely virgin in our sense of the word, and not betrothed so that he would be willing to take her for she would not get him in trouble with another man -- and he would not be responsible for having married her beyond the contract price.

So -- I think the Rabbis speak about Judah wanting virginity more in the sense of her having a lack of Paturation; rather than virginity in the English sense of the word -- for they speak of her probably breaking her hymen herself to accomplish her goal.

I don't see in scripture were he married again. But I don't believe he considered himself married to Tamar either.
Gen 38:26 And Judah acknowledged them, and said: 'She is more righteous than I; forasmuch as I gave her not to Shelah my son.' And he knew her again no more.

I don't follow your thought here.
Didn't you just say that a marriage does not end because sex does ?

Is it not also probable that even if Judah thought he had married her inadvertantly, (like Leah and his father Jacob), that Judah could be ashamed for a number of reasons, one of which is that he was in a competing position with his own son ?

Sometimes a court case or death sentence can not be carried out merely because the crime can not be proven to a standard required to carry out the sentence because of a technical detail. For example: Jesus said regarding the adulteress brought into the temple; Does no one accuse you?

And, then -- only because it takes two or three witnesses to put someone to death, Jesus says: "Then neither do I" -- followed (If I remember correctly) by a statement that is in fact stating something equivalent to an accusation in some sense of the word: "Go and sin no more."

So -- I really wonder what's happening when Judah says: "I did not give her to him" rather than saying the more technically correct, "him to her" . For he is implicitly stating that Tamar belonged to him, after all; and why would he want to do that for -- Judah is not the father of Tamar that he should giver her "away" -- and it's the son who leaves father and mother according to the scriptures, not really the other way around with the woman; -- But the linked homily of our previous poster, the two would be equivalent I would think in the pastor's mind ; for it is about rights for the son to start another relationship according to him. ?

I wonder, Do we have evidence that Shelah was free to marry a different woman, eg: did he marry ? Are there any children of his in the genealogies ?? It would be nearly scandalous if there were not...

 

[Deborah13]

I don't follow your thought here.
Didn't you just say that a marriage does not end because sex does ?

Yes, I did. But if Judah considered himself married to her wouldn't he be disobeying God by avoiding this marital duty?
He had already broken one vow to her and he would break another?

that Judah could be ashamed for a number of reasons, one of which is that he was in a competing position with his own son ?

I don't know. We could speculate but I don't see it in scripture.

 

[Lewis]

Did not God say, that a man shall leave his mother and father and become one flesh ? If you and a women have sex you marry them without the ceremony, this is not hard, it is God's Word. It is one of the reasons that God is against fornication and adultery. Because every time you have penetration with another woman you marry them without the ceremony

 

[About the Son of God]

Yes, I did. But if Judah considered himself married to her wouldn't he be disobeying God by avoiding this marital duty?
He had already broken one vow to her and he would break another?

Oh no... it's not THAT easy....

I might agree that he could be accused of "delaying" -- but where is the proof that he had legally broken it, rather than being within his rights ? for, how long is "too long" according to scripture ? I would think that's more along the lines of "whenever" a spouse if forced to beg again for her rights -- not anything to do with a time-clock. And if the woman isn't even asking anymore (reason unspecified), maybe the man would be wiser to abstain ?

When a woman does something gravely offensive to a man even if in private -- then there are scriptural examples of that ending the bedroom relationship; and I don't know whether to bother arguing it's "mutual consent" or not, but I still don't see that any breaking of vows is necessarily going on. Eg: 2Samuel 6:20-23 ('heos' AKA until the day she died...).

I don't know. We could speculate but I don't see it in scripture.

I don't see it, and if it's not because I missed it -- that's part of the problem.
It's not llke Shelah committed the sin of Onan, or Er ; and arguably it was his father's mistake -- not his.
Yet, it really does look to me like Shelah's posterity is totally cut off. No children.

I'm not sure where this is going, but -- What do you think is the motive for Judah with-holding Tamar from Shelah in the first place ? eg: before the pregnancy, and then afterward ? ( I won't pursue the line of thought beyond that, it's I suppose getting out of scope. )

 

[Deborah13]

how long is "too long" according to scripture

I was thinking of the command to multiply combined the marriage bed vow. But anything else is speculation, it just doesn't say. One might be that he had provide the children for his son Er, so it was fulfill but by the father rather than a brother.

I'm not sure where this is going, but -- What do you think is the motive for Judah with-holding Tamar from Shelah in the first place ? eg: before the pregnancy, and then afterward ? ( I won't pursue the line of thought beyond that, it's I suppose getting out of scope. )

Again speculation. Two of his son's had already died after marrying Tamar without giving her children, maybe he was afraid of losing the last son.