See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/326262079

THE FOUR OT WOMEN IN MATTHEW'S GENEALOGY OF JESUS

Article · December 2011

CITATIONS READS
0 7,837

1 author:

Christopher Naseri Naseri

University of Calabar
23 PUBLICATIONS   5 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Son of God Studies View project

Bible and Parenting View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Christopher Naseri Naseri on 25 April 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 1

THE FOUR OT WOMEN IN MATTHEW’S GENEALOGY OF JESUS

Christopher Naseri-Mutiti Naseri

St. Joseph Major Seminary
Ikot Ekpene

KOINONIA VOL. 5, NO. 2, December, 2011, 1-22.

Matthew and Luke give an account of the conception, birth and infancy of Jesus (cf. Matt
1:18-2:23 and Luke 1:26-38; 2:1-52). This information provides materials for reflection on the
person and mission of Jesus himself as God and man. The evangelists enhance their message on
the humanity of Jesus by tracing his ancestry to historical figures and events prior to him in the
genealogy (Matt 1:1-17; Luke 3:23-38). Jesus is identified in the two genealogies as historically
belonging to a family of men and women.
The two genealogies are modelled on OT genealogies in Genesis, Numbers, Ezra and Ruth
among others. Female names are generally rare in OT genealogies (see Gen 5; 11:10-32).
Matthew on the other hand and in contrast to Luke mentions four women apart from Mary in his
genealogy. They are Tamar (1:3), Rahab (1:5a), Ruth (1:5b) and the wife of Uriah (Matt 1:6;
Bathsheba). The inclusion is in this perspective catchy. This article studies the four women and
their stories in the OT in view of establishing the evangelist’s probable reason for mentioning
them. They are a clue to the novelty and import of the Matthean genealogy.
Much has been written on the relevance of these four women in the story of Jesus. In
establishing this relevance attentions have been paid primarily to their characters, their status as
women, their origin and their trade. Their appearance on the list of names has equally been
linked to the circumstances surrounding Mary’s conception of Jesus. It is necessary to study the
portion of the genealogy that concerns them in Matthew, review the information given by the OT
on them, compare their lives and identify a common pattern, read this pattern with an eye on
Mary and show
 2

how, conscious of these common elements, Matthew uses the genealogy to signal the
eccentricity of the Messianic era.

I. MATTHEW 1:1-17

Matthew begins his account of the story of Jesus with the genealogy and places his birth
narrative only after his record of the ancestors of Jesus (cf. Matt 1:1-17); this narrative pattern is
modelled after the sequence found in Gen 5-9 where a genealogy precedes the story of Noah.
The pericope is an inclusion with Christ, David and Abraham mentioned at the beginning and
end of the account in 1:1 and 1:17. The concluding part of the narrative in 1:17 has Abraham –
David – Christ against Jesus Christ – David – Abraham in 1:1. The ordering in 1:1 provides the
author with the literary device to begin his identification of Jesus in v. 2 with Abraham in an
ascending order. The reversed order in 1:17 underscores the end of the family tree and indicates
that Matthew’s motive is to trace Jesus’ origin to Abraham through David. It accentuates the role
of David and Abraham in the story of Jesus as primary figures in the family tree leading up to
Jesus himself. As son of Abraham Jesus is identified with God’s promised blessings to humanity
and his consequent openness towards non Jews (Gen 17:5). As son of David he is identified with
the royal figure of Davidic descent through whom the promised restoration of his people’s
fortune is to be realized (2 Sam 7:12-16). The title Christ identifies Jesus with the Messiah and
presents him as the fulfilment of the Jewish messianic hopes.
The period from Abraham to David is the high point in the story, but between David and
Jesus there is an intervening exile identified as the dark side of the story. It constitutes a
depression on the line between the Davidic pole and the Jesus pole of the family tree. As an
event then the Babylonian exile mentioned for the third time in 1:17 is accorded a pride of place
by Matthew in the story leading up to Jesus. Along with Abraham and David it constitutes in
Matthew a hub around which the story of Jesus is to be read and interpreted. Jesus is identified as
the one in and through whom the hope of avoiding such failure/judgement is enkindled.
 3

Matthew identifies three spans of fourteen generations each between Abraham, David, the
Exile and Jesus. Incidentally the Hebrew consonants that make up the name David are three dwd
and have a value of 4+6+4. The three consonants would represent the three intervening blocks of
generations while the numerical value of the three letters which add up to fourteen represents
each of the fourteen generations. This is a play on numbers gematria and for those who are given
to symbols, it may have informed Matthew’s purpose because it corroborates his identification of
Jesus as the ‘Son of David.’ Jesus completes the number of David for the third and last time and
in v.17 stands out as the goal of Israel’s history.1
The genealogy is made up of a list of male names responsible for the generation of progenies
in an uninterrupted line leading up to Jesus. On the whole it is founded principally on a father-
begets-son structure exclusive of mothers and daughters. In vv 3.5.6 we have that which is
implied in other verses of the genealogy in relation to the female role:

• v. 3 Judas begets Perez and Zerab by Tamar

• v. 5a Salmon begets Boaz by Rahab
• v. 5b Boaz begets Obed by Ruth
• v. 6 David begets Solomon by the wife of Uriah.

In v. 16 Joseph and Mary are mentioned in relation to Jesus but the verb beget is used (in its
passive form) of Mary and not of Joseph.

• v. 16 Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom (Mary) Jesus was born.

Like the four women Mary is linked to the verb beget by the preposition ek (by) but in contrast to
them the begetting is not in collaboration with the male figure Joseph, hence the passive verb
‘was born’ identified as ‘divine passive.’ This is further

1
For details on the symbolic interpretation of Matt 1,17 cf. Joachim Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus
(London: SCM Press, 1969), 292; Raymond E. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah (Garden City, NY: Doubleday,
1977), 80.
 4

emphasized in the use of the same preposition ek to identify the Holy Spirit with the birth of
Jesus in v. 18:

• v. 18 she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit ek pneumatos hagiou.

The introduction of the four women breaks the exclusive male context of the genealogy, but
the case of Jesus’ birth by Mary heightens even the novelty introduced by the inclusion of the
four women. With Mary not only is woman’s role identified and incorporated, it is introduced to
the near exclusion of man’s in the begetting. Jesus is descended from Mary who is indeed
married to Joseph her husband, but Mary’s husband is not Jesus’ physical father. 2

II. THE FOUR WOMEN AND THEIR OT STORIES

The names Tamar, Rahab, Ruth and Bathsheba are part of the OT story of Israel and are
mentioned in the narratives. I intend to review in this section the stories associated with each of
these names in the OT. This will imply attempts at identifying the names with these OT
personalities. Do the names mentioned by Matthew in his genealogies refer to the personalities
who bear these names in the OT narratives especially in relation to the actions associated with
them?

A. TAMAR

Tamar is identified by Matthew as the woman through whom Judah the son of Jacob
generated Perez and Zerah (1:3). Gen 38:1-30 confirms these names and union, there is no doubt
therefore that Matthew is referring to the Tamar of this story. The story of Tamar is situated in a
family and in relation to the family as the nucleus of the society it betrays human passion, love,
procreative anxiety and honour. She is thought to be a Canaanite who was married to Judah’s
first son Er. After the death of her husband she was given into levirate marriage to Er’s brother
Onan so that he might raise children and continue the inheritance of his

2
Wim J.C. Weren, “The Five Women in Matthew’s Genealogy,” CBQ 59 (1997): 292.
 5

deceased brother. Conscious that the offspring from Tamar would not be legally his Onan
sabotaged the intent of the relationship by practicing coitus interruptus at each sexual encounter
with Tamar and was struck death by God. Afraid of the two deaths, Judah attempted to avoid the
death of his third son Shelah by asking Tamar to go home to her people and wait, thus ending her
dream of a child for her late husband and welfare.
Tamar took matters into her own hands and played the prostitute to raise a descendant for her
late husband Er through her Father-in-law Judah. A risk which taken on behalf of her late
husband was consequently interpreted by Judah the victim as righteousness Gen 38:26. Judah’s
failure to follow the law prompted Tamar to take drastic measures to ensure that justice was
done. The abnormal birth led to twins one of whom was Perez mentioned in the genealogy as the
ancestor of David (Ruth 4:12. 18-22; 1 Chr 2-4) and Jesus (Matt 1:3). Through Perez therefore
she is notably mentioned in Matthew account of the genealogy as the ancestress of Jesus.
Tamar’s story raises the questions of social responsibility and justice especially in relation to
women: Tamar used her resources to reverse the oppressive and inhibitive strategy taken by
Judah who in this case was an authority figure. Judah in an attempt to preserve the life of his
remaining son Shelah put the future and welfare of Tamar in jeopardy. She intervened to
establish a descendant for Er her late husband using her resourcefulness as a woman. Judah’s
solution to the death of his first two sons in relation to Tamar was realistic but selfish; realistic
because to enhance his own descendant it was necessary and wise to preserve the life of his
surviving son; selfish because his solution had no provision for the welfare of Tamar and
amounted to the wrong use of power in the family and the community. 3
On the other hand, Tamar’s solution was instinctive (self preservation) and represents the
possibility that sometimes when

3
G. Coats, “Widows Rights: A Crux in the Structure of Gen 38,” CBQ 34 (1972): 461-66; J.A. Emerton, “Judah and
Tamar,” VT 29 (1979): 403-15; S. Niditch, “The Wronged Woman Righted: An Analysis of Genesis 38,” HTR 72
(1979): 143-49.
 6

put in a life threatening situation many are often tempted to do everything within their reach to
survive. By using her very resources as a woman to play the whore Tamar reversed her fortune
and thwarted the oppressive and sterile solution proposed by Judah. She replaced Judah’s
solution with her own which turned out to be productive in the preservation of the descendants of
Judah and Er. It is precisely this undying desire for the preservation of her husband’s descendant
that the OT in Judah acknowledges her righteousness and attributes sin to Judah instead (Gen
38:26).4
What motivated her was legitimately customary (levirate marriage) but does her intention
(end) wholesome and worthwhile as it was allow for such a fraudulent or deceptive sexual
activity? Her action was rebellious and went against established authority and custom and would
normally be considered offensive. She went beyond the law to enhance the provision of the law.
She would be condemned absolutely by most religious people. It is out of this deceptive activity
of Tamar that God has chosen to advance his plan for the emergence of the Messiah according to
Matthew. The first evangelist wishes to instruct that from even the worst situation God is
disposed to make best his plan for humanity. By her action Tamar stands outside of the
community of promise but proves to be faithful to what God intends for that community of
promise. 5

B. RAHAB

Rahab is identified as the woman with whom Salmon fathered Boaz the father of Jesse who
subsequently fathered David (Matt 1:5a). The name occurs three times in the NT. The form
Raa,b is used in Heb 11:31 and in James 2:25. Joshua 2:1-24 gives an account of a certain
prostitute Rahab (translated in the LXX as Raab) who saved the lives of the two men sent by
Joshua to reconnoitre Jericho. Matthew’s Greek however uses the form Rachab. She is of the
Canaanite nations and probably a secular

4
Later Rabbinic exegesis however exonerate Judah and consider his action compelled by God himself. See Tag. J.,
II on Gen 38:26.
5
Terence E. Fretheim, “The Book of Genesis,” in The New Interpreter’s Bible vol. 1 (Nashville, TN: Abingdon
Press, 1994), 607.
 7

prostitute without any cultic or sacred affiliation. She hid the two Israelite spies on the roof of
her house and thus saved their lives from attack by her king and his men. She consequently
enhanced the fulfilment of God’s covenant-promise of land to his people by assisting Joshua
conquer Jericho. Her cooperation with Joshua’s team was seen as loyalty to the cause of Yahweh
and his people. As a reward for this loyalty she was on her request spared with her whole family
and given a place outside the camp of Israel (cf. Josh 2:13; 6:17.25). The nature of her request
identifies her legitimate and objective concern for the welfare of her family.
The relatively few verses dedicated to her in the OT do not indicate that she was married, or
had any sexual intimacy with Salmon. She is rather identified in rabbinic texts as the wife of
Joshua, a pious convert or proselyte and the ancestress of priests and prophets.6 Ruth 4:21 and 1
Chr 2:11 however provide the OT evidence that Salmon was the father of Boaz. One would
therefore not be wanting in materials to argue that Matthew may not be referring to ‘Rahab the
prostitute’ in Joshua. But the established identity of the other three women in the OT mentioned
also in Matthew virtually swings the argument in favour of identifying Matthew’s Rahab with
the same OT Rahab in Joshua. Heb 11:31 and James 2:25 are however more distinctive in their
reference to ‘Rahab’ as the personality mentioned in Joshua.
Like Tamar she is a prostitute and deceptive towards the king in relation to the spies. Her
misleading the king and his men would indicate her instinct for self preservation in an attempt to
bluff the authority that had not cared to provide for her and her family. Her choice of prostitution
as a means of sustenance may have been occasioned by this negligence. The text has not
however indicated this. She represents the marginal in their fight against the dominant in the
society. With the opportunity for a better lot looming she preferred to take her chance, made a
fool out of the king and his men and reversed her fortune and the wrong she and her family had
suffered. In her deal with Joshua’s representatives she used her resources; her house and her
shrewd combination of

6
Mekilta, Exod 18,1.
 8

hindsight and foresight to procure for herself and her family liberation from extermination. She
was a prostitute but not unintelligent, she was a Canaanite hence non-Jew but not unsympathetic
towards the cause of the Israelite God and unaware of his power. This is evident in the carefully
outlined Deuteronomistic language and theology in Josh 2:8-11 thought to be a late element in
what otherwise seems to be fairly early material. 7
Rahab is mentioned both in Heb 11:31 as a model of faith and in James 2:24 as a model of
justification by works. She combines both and satisfies the complementary theory of necessary
coexistence between faith and good works in James 2:17.26. Cooperation with the plan of
Yahweh brought redemption to a woman who was not only a non-Israelite (Canaanite) and
therefore an outsider to the promise, but also a prostitute. The figure of Rahab reminds us that
faith may be illustrated not only doctrinally but also and necessarily in terms of lives lived. 8
Through her action Rahab not only saved herself and her family but importantly she
guaranteed and expedited the realization of God’s Promised-Land to Israel and exemplified the
sort of faith required of the Israelites themselves in their bid to preserve the land and heritage
God had promised them. 9

C. RUTH

Ruth is mentioned in the genealogy as the woman with whom Boaz the son of Rahab
fathered Obed the father of Jesse (1:5bc). The uniqueness of these final links of the pre-
monarchical section of the genealogies consists in the fact that Boaz the son of a non-Israelite
woman fathered Obed (the father of Jesse) from another non-Israelite woman Ruth. Obed the
grand-father of David had a mother who was a non-Jew and a paternal grand-mother who

7
Leonard J. Greenspoon, “Rahab,” ABD 5: 611.
8
Robert B. Coote, “The Book of Joshua” in The New Interpreter’s Bible vol. 2 (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press,
1998), 596.
9
Leonard J. Greenspoon, “Rahab,” 612; M. Newman, “Rahab and the Conquest,” in Understanding the Word (ed.
J.T. Butler; JSOTSup 37; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985), 167-81.
 9

was equally not a Jew. There is at this point of the family tree an elevated concentration of non-
Jewiah blood flowing in the veins of David’s ancestors.
The information provided by Matthew on Ruth is supported in the OT story about a certain
Ruth in Ruth 3:1-4:17. She is a Moabitess and daughter-in-law of Naomi (Elimelech’s wife). At
the apparent seductive instigation of Naomi, Ruth suggestively influenced a male member of the
Elimelech family Boaz into taking her over as his wife to establish a family and redeem her on
behalf of her late husband. The language of the plot is suggestive of a sexual overture which met
the fancy of Boaz. It was at the instance of the desire to establish and secure a future for herself
by belonging to a home that this plot was hatched. Once more this is a scene that identifies the
structural desire for the restoration of the descendants of deceased male even at the expense of
justice for living females. It is an echo of the levirate marriage decreed in Deut 25:5-6; a
customary law which though a law, placed women at a precarious situation because most times
the fulfilment of that law depended on the disposition of the brothers concerned notwithstanding
the penalty associated with its violation. Like Tamar, Ruth met the challenge and got a child
named Obed who became the father of Jesse, the father of David and the ancestor of Jesus. Her
action was described by Boaz as ‘kindness’ (Ruth 3:10).
The story of Ruth is a theology of providence taken out of Naomi’s pilgrimage. Within
human luck lies divine intentionality. Her success is grace when we consider the fact that
conventionally her action was not acceptable and that her redemption ensued in spite of her
behaviour. But she was equally a faithful and loyal woman and though God loves independently
of man’s faithfulness, human faithfulness is valued by God. Her success would not be entirely
removed from her faithfulness.10
Like Tamar Ruth was more interested in the fulfilment of the law than the relations of her
deceased husband (kinsman-redeemers). From the language of the text used by Naomi it is clear

10
Kathleen A. Robertson Farmer, “The Book of Ruth” in The New Interpreter’s Bible vol. 2, 932.
 10

that their promptness in ensuring the implementation of that custom was not primarily due to
their faithfulness to the law but to the fact of the precarious situation in which the law left the
two women. In the words of Naomi it left them ‘without a home’ (Ruth 3:1). They absence of a
home implied the absence of security and a future. This amounted to a life of uncertainty and the
dead of a husband implied lack of identity. Lack of identity implied inexistence. They were
primarily at the mercy of the kinsman-redeemers. Thus it became an imperative that if they were
to placate an imminent precarious existence without a guaranteed future and welfare they
personally had to see to the implementation of the custom.
This represents how inconsequential or insignificant the attention given to the welfare of
women appeared to have been even in the making of a law, they were assigned a passive role in a
history that identified them as thing-ummies. Like in Tamar’s case the story highlights the
triumph of women in their quest for physical survival and a cultural and social emancipation in a
culture that merely relegates them to sheer spectators in a game that involves and threatens the
core of their existence. 11 It shows how they have taken courageous strides to ensure both their
welfare and the continuity of their family line. In the story of Ruth we uncover the hidden God
directing human events. The law as a human institution appeared to have had some limitations
that were inimical to the welfare of women, but the use of it for the success of personalities like
Tamar and Ruth indicates how human institutions in their flaws are overcome to the
enhancement of the divine purpose for which they were designed. The law in itself was enacted
to protect the women, and failure to implement it effectively on the part of the kinsman-
redeemers attracted divine punishment as was the case with Onan. But that liberty of applying
the law which relied almost entirely on the disposition of the male characters is what Tamar and
Ruth have fought against and used to their advantage.

11
Phyllis Trible, “Ruth, Book of,” ABD 5: 845.
 11

D. THE WIFE OF URIAH

Matthew identifies the woman with whom David fathered Solomon as ‘the wife of Uriah’
(1:6b). He does not give her name but the woman known in the OT as the wife of Uriah and
mother of Solomon is called Bathsheba (2 Sam 11:3 & 12:24). There is therefore no doubt that
she is the one referred to here by Matthew as ‘the wife of Uriah. She is reported to have had (at
the instance of David) a sexual liaison with David that led to the murder of her husband by the
latter. She became pregnant from that sexual intercourse with David. The detail that the
intercourse with David took place just after she had cleansed herself from her monthly period
ties the pregnancy to David. She became the wife of David after the death of her husband and
gave birth to Solomon after the death of the first child (2 Sam 11:1-12:24). The death of the child
of that adulterous encounter comes within the package of divine displeasure for wrong doings
while the birth of the second child said to have been loved by God points to how providence
works.
Scholarly attempts to represent Bathsheba as the initiator of the encounter who exposed
herself with the intent of being seen by David12 do not hold because there are no textual
indications to that effect. Rather the choice of verbs like ‘David finding out about her’ and
‘sending his men to fetch her’ reveals that the author intends to place the moral responsibility
entirely on David as the initiator (2 Sam 11:2-5). The author’s comments in v. 27b and 12:7
favour this understanding.
Bathsheba could however have made herself heroine by daring her king rather than go
against the law just as her husband resisted the king’s instruction to go home and spend the night
with his wife against the religious obligation that forbade such in time of war (2 Sam 11:10-11;
see Deut 23:10; 1 Sam 21:6). The expression “wash your feet” directed to Uriah by David in 2
Sam 11:8 is a euphemism for sexual intercourse and is understood by Uriah in v. 11. Uriah’s
resistance and refusal to take advantage of the royal

12
Hans Wilhelm Hertzberg, I and II Samuel (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster John Knox Press, 1964), 309; George
G. Nicol, “Bathsheba, a Clever Woman?,” Expository Times 99 (1988): 360.
 12

privilege granted him by David led to his dead (2 Sam 11:14-15), Bathsheba’s cooperation kept
her alive. Uriah however died as a principled, loyal and committed member of David’s elite
Thirty (2 Sam 23:39). Bathsheba’s ability to take advantage of situations evident in her
collaboration with Nathan to win the throne for her son Solomon (1 Kings 1:11-31) may equally
have been at work in her refusal to resist and dare the king. One may be in a hurry to suspect that
she preferred to compromise her integrity, commit adultery (or consent to David’s adulterous
proposal) and live rather than dare the king and die. She lived longer than her husband to become
the king’s wife and the mother of a king, and the ancestress of Jesus.
But must one break the law of the Lord and commit adultery (Deut 22:22) for fear probably
of death? The answer to this question would imply defining how responsible one may be for
actions committed out of fear especially given the influence and authority of the source of fear
which in turn render the other party more vulnerable. The OT neither discusses nor gives any
indication that Bathsheba’s consent was founded on fear. Or was it rape? The same Hebrew verb
šākaḇ (wayyiškaḇ) used to describe Amnon’s rape of his half sister Tamar is used here (2 Sam
13:14; see v.11; Gen 34:2.7). The verbs ‘sent’ and ‘fetch’ in context would imply coercion.
Commenting on her lack of identity in the story Adele thinks Bathsheba is not considered guilty
of adultery given that she was not even an equal party to the adultery rather a means by which it
was accomplished. 13 Nevertheless, the story of Bathsheba’s husband narrated immediately after
Bathsheba’s brings out the difference in personality/integrity between Bathsheba and Uriah in
relation to the respective proposals of the king. Comparatively therefore it is clear that the better
is Uriah not Bathsheba. And if the names of the three personalities were to be arranged in the
order of integrity it would be Uriah, Bathsheba and David. It is a contrast between what ought to
be and what actually

13
Adele Berlin, “Characterization in Biblical Narrative: David’s Wives,” JSOT 23 (1982): 73. For more on the
debate see: George G. Nicol, “The Alleged Rape of Bathsheba: Some Observations on Ambiguity in Biblical
Narrative,” JSOT 73 (1997): 43-54; Bruce C. Birch, “The First and Second Books of Samuel,” in The New
Interpreter’s Bible vol. 2, 1284-5.
 13

is, but given the cultural and even religious status of women in the then Ancient Near East, Uriah
in his elite military orientation had more predispositions to dare the king than Bathsheba.
Comparison would better be between David and Uriah.
Bathsheba in her passivity is however, a victim, and therefore a vulnerable woman used and
exploited by a superior party (the powerful or mighty) on the one hand to appease a reckless
sexual lust founded merely on infatuation. She is equally used as an imaginary or political wife
on the other hand to cover up the taint of an adulterous act. She is made an object in the palace of
the king’s self-indulgent and cruel use of power for the satisfaction of sexual lust and the
protection of a good name not merited. She has been made into a pawn of a royal lust. From a
broader perspective Bathsheba is equally made a victim of a ritual law (in relation to her husband
Uriah) that seemed to have placed the purity of man at the risk of ignoring or abandoning the
wife. That means for the purity of the man at war it mattered less the welfare of the woman. By
not indicating any sense of resistance on the part of Bathsheba as is indicated in the case of
Tamar and Amnon (2 Sam 13:14), Bathsheba is equally made a victim in the story line of the
narrator who is not clear on Bathsheba’s cooperation in the sexual liaison. This ambiguity of the
narrator described as an ‘objectivization of Bathsheba’ is tagged ‘narrative rape’ or ‘rape by the
pen.’14
Matthew’s description of her merely as ‘the wife of Uriah’ without her name is of interest;
her relationship with another man was not motivated by the death of her husband rather the death
of her husband was caused by her liaison with David. In context she remained the wife of Uriah
even as the mother of Solomon. This motif of anonymity is equally at work in her story in the
OT; from her encounter with David to the death of the child she is described as ‘the wife of
Uriah’ or ‘the woman.’ She is only identified again as Bathsheba after the death of the child in 2
Sam 12:24. Matthew’s

14
J. Cheryl Exum, Fragmented Women: Feminist (Sub)version of Biblical Narratives (Valley Forge: Trinity Press
International, 1993), 120-201; Bruce C. Birch, “The First and Second Books of Samuel,” note 280, 1285.
 14

motive is to emphasize the adulterous context that led to the marriage between the two indicating
the wrong doing of David who took over Uriah’s wife not as a kinsman-redeemer but as the last
bid in the chain of consequences due to failure to moderate his sexual lust which seemed to have
found fertile ground in his self-indulgent abuse of power and exercise of royal privilege.
Bathsheba is said to have been involved in the palace intrigue that led to the choice of
Solomon as king in place of his elder brother Adonijah (1 Kings 1:11-40) and in the consequent
consolidation of the throne of her king-son as a power broker (1 Kings 2:12-25). In referring
Adonijah’s request for David’s concubine Abishag to Solomon she may have been aware of the
implication of such request on the royal throne and therefore anticipated the elimination of
Adonijah by Solomon. It may have been for her an opportunity for Solomon to eliminate his
major rival. Once again, the OT author leaves her emotion and intention hidden or ambiguous
and open to speculations from the readers; a technique in the study of narrative texts called ‘gap
filling.’ Nevertheless, against the position of Garsiel, 15 it would be an oversimplification to easily
consider a woman who had been around the king’s palace ignorant of the political implications
of a son seeking to marry the king’s concubine. According to Nathan the motive for Bathsheba’s
involvement in the struggle for the throne was ‘to save her own life and the life of her son’ (1
Kings 1:12). It was a question of survival, safety and welfare. She lied to get the throne for her
son at the instance of Nathan’s counsel (1 Kings 1:16-21). There is however no textual
indications that David had promised to give the throne to her son Solomon. Just like Ruth she
went beyond the counsel of Nathan in her melodramatic encounter with David by including
aspects not suggested by Nathan. This emphasizes her personal initiative in and responsibility for
the plot. She was not carrying out the bidding of Nathan rather she was acting out what she was
convinced of and wanted for her welfare and that of her son.

15
Moshe Garsiel, “The Story of David and Bathsheba: A Different Approach,” CBQ 55 (1993): 254.
 15

III. COMMON FEATURES AND A POSSIBLE CONVERGENCE/ANTITHESIS

There are notable differences between the four women, let me identify the basic features
common to their experiences as well as explore how these converge on the story of the fifth
woman Mary mentioned by Matthew in the genealogy.16

A. SEXUAL LAWS

The stories about the women imply familiarity with existing provisions of the law regarding
sexual intercourse between men and women. The Stories of Tamar and Ruth are built around the
levirate law in Deut 25:5-10. Within the story of Tamar pressure is put on the provisions of the
law in Lev 18:15 about violating one’s daughter-in-law on the part of Judah and on the
provisions of the law in Deut 23:17/Lev 19:29 against encouraging prostitution. Rahab’s story
like that of Tamar comes under the jurisdiction of this law on prostitution. The encounter
between Bathsheba and David challenges the law against adultery in Exodus 20:14/Lev 18:20
(see Deut 22:22). David’s further actions also open up for discussions the law against murder and
coveting a neighbour’s wife in Exodus 20:13 & 17 respectively.

B. DOMESTIC INSECURITY/PRECARIOUSNESS

The four stories are founded on the vulnerable situations into which the experiences of the
women have led them. Tamar, the legally married wife of Er became a widow desperately in
need of a kinsman-redeemer. By housing and enhancing the escape of the two Israelite spies
Rahab collaborated in a plan to destroy her city and put herself in a precarious situation. Having
lost the husband childless, Ruth hopelessly returned with Naomi to Bethlehem unsure of what
would become of her. Even her uncovering of Boaz’ feet could have been interpreted differently
to her disadvantage. Bathsheba’s extra-conjugal sexual intercourse with David and the ensued
pregnancy exposed her to the risk of being

16
See also Wim J.C. Weren, “The Five Women in Matthew’s Genealogy,” 301-305; ‘In search of a common
pattern.’
 16

shamefully put to death (Deut 22:22). The life threatening consequences of Adonijah becoming
king after David weighed on her.

C. AFFIRMATIVE OUTCOME

The action of these women amidst their vulnerability turned out to their advantage. Tamar
succeeded in mothering children (Perez and Zerah) for her late husband Er and reclaimed her
privileged place in the family of Judah. Rahab got away with her treasonable action and saved
herself and her family from the devastation that followed Israelite’s inversion and occupation of
Jericho. Ruth found a faithful kinsman-redeemer in Boaz, got legally reconnected to the
Elimelech’s family and mothered a child (Obed) for her husband who interestingly is described
in Ruth 4,17 as being ‘born to Naomi.’
This affirmative outcome is grafted into the genealogy of Jesus by Matthew’s identification
of Jesus with the children born by these women. Through their actions the story of Israel
depicted in the genealogy has at the risk of being compromised taken the recorded historical path
to a realization that is considered positive by Matthew.

D. ASTUTENESS

The four women got something positive (at least from their own perspective) at the end of
their story. Their success was based on their shrewdness in taking advantage of the legal
ambiguities that surrounded their situations and the weakness or limitations of their counterparts.
Tamar took advantage of her ‘yet-to be exhausted’ right to redemption in the provision of the
levirate law and exploited the situation of her father-in-law as a widower and his tolerant
disposition towards prostitution. Ruth cleverly took advantage of the graciousness, faithfulness
and near drunken state of Boaz to make him her kinsman-redeemer. The levirate law was not
exhaustive enough in resolving the problem of a widow whose late husband’s family refused to
redeem. Rahab saw the precarious situation of the spies and extracted from them the promise of
being spared from the Israelite inversion in return for her protection.
 17

Bathsheba, threatened by Adonijah’s imminent accession to the throne took advantage of the
amnesia of David’s old age to win the throne for her son Solomon and become the mother of a
king.

E. MARY AND THE FOUR WOMEN

The question of sexual laws implied in the story of the four women converges on the story of
Mary in Matt 1:18-10. Having been engaged to Joseph Mary was expected to have no sexual
contact with another man (Deut 22:23). Her pregnancy without Joseph therefore rendered her
insecure too and exposed her to the danger of being stoned to death (Deut 22:23). Through the
intervention of the angel, Mary’s situation which appeared precarious and hopeless was put
straight and she was able to give birth to a child who through the lineage of Joseph was a Davide.
That child is consequently identified as the goal of Israel’s history by Matthew 1:17. Mary’s
weapon on the other hand consists not in shrewdness but in modesty and resignation; an
antithesis which in Matthew indicates a shift from the past; situations can still be righted by
staying positive and acting modestly.

IV. EVALUATION AND CONCLUDING STATEMENTS

The four women are obviously mentioned in the genealogy of Jesus as recognized actresses
in the Messianic lineage. Their role in the messianic lineage of Jesus affirms that the genealogy
which embraces the whole history of Israel is subject to the maelstrom of life. It is a divine irony
which underscores providential divine overruling in and through a history of both the loathed and
the affable (see 1 Cor 1:18-31).17 The emergence of Jesus in this history testifies to and gives
meaning to both the climax and the loathsomeness of the whole history of Israel as God’s
People.
Many have considered the four women as foreigners though there are no substantial
indications pointing to the non-Jewish origin of Tamar; Bathsheba on the other hand is said to
have been married to Uriah, a Hittite. Their pride of place in the genealogy points to the
universal twist of the Matthean Jesus who is presented

17
Terence E. Fretheim, “The Book of Genesis,” 606-607.
 18

as having foreign blood running in his veins. The status of some of the women as aliens
represents Matthew’s genealogy as promoting universalism over against nationalism. Though
legitimately a Jew of the privileged Davidic dynasty Jesus is immediately introduced as one who
will be sympathetic towards and relevant to the Gentiles.
The women are legally described as having violated sexual laws and consequently branded as
sinners. Their inclusion in the lineage of Jesus is not accidental; it anticipates in Matthew’s
narrative the sympathetic disposition of Jesus towards those considered sinners in his society
(1:21). His mission is to reveal the God of mercy and love who makes his sun to rise on the evil
and on the good and sends his rain on the just and the unjust (5:45). His Gospel is a gift for all
people; for Jews and non-Jews, sinners and righteous.18 These four women are deemed worthy
by God to be ancestresses of the expected Messiah notwithstanding the clumsiness surrounding
their emergence in the family tree. Their story is tied to that of the Messiah, their emergence is
grace and so represents the presupposition that the choice itself of Israel as the elected people of
the Messiah is one of grace rather than glory. The fall of man is no obstacle to the divine design
notwithstanding where the tide heads. In them God has proven that he is capable of raising
children from stones to Abraham (Matt 3:8-9).19 raise
Heil, however cautions that attempts at explaining the roles of these women tend to
overestimate their similarities and underestimate their differences. 20 Weren on the other hand is
critical of the two views regarding these women as sinners and aliens; their relevance seems to
be appreciated only when the emphasis is on the contrast between them and Mary. He interprets
the sexual law-breakers name-tag on them as a classical example of androcentric exegesis which
tags women sinners by associating them with sexuality and identifying sexuality with sin. This

18
L. Morris, The Gospel according to Matthew (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmanns, 1992), 23.
19
Gerhard Kittel, “Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, the Wife of Uriah,” TDNT 3: 1.
20
J.P. Heil, “The Narrative Roles of the Women in Matthew’s Genealogy,” Biblica 72 (1991), 544.
 19

interpretation he notes overlooks the irreproachable conduct of the many men prominent in the
genealogy.21
Later Jewish traditions have however shown tendencies towards mitigating the apparent
sinfulness or illegitimacy surrounding the situations of the women and some interpreters have on
these grounds disapproved of interpretations that regard the women as illegitimate. They sustain
that the women and the men concerned are excused and even glorified in the Synagogue
tradition. Against this disapproval Kittel cautions that Rabbinic tradition is far from being
unanimous on the matter and draws attention to the fact that at the older levels of this tradition
there exists no such reversal of moral concepts. They are still thought to have overstepped the
acceptable line.22 Matthew’s inclusion of these women is meant to underscore the
illegitimacy/moral challenges of their stories and situations enabling his readers to appreciate the
reparatory role of the Messiah as he emerges at the apex of the whole history of Israel.
Esther Fuchs sustains that in their quest for the implementation of the law the women seem to
have sold out to the patriarchal institution of the levirate law, which ensures exclusively the
patrilineage of a deceased husband. 23 Kathleen Farmer on the other hand suspects a probable
undermining by the women of the male Israelites’ belief that God encourages submissive, non-
aggressive behaviour on the part of women. 24 Let me reiterate that the quest for survival on the
part of the women ranks higher in their stories than the desire for the implementation of a
patriarchal law. They have shrewdly taken advantage of a patriarchal law to propagate or
enhance a cause that turns out to be matriarchal. Matthew underscores the fact that contemporary
women are equally astute and have or are capable of reversing the social imbalance that
confronts them and proposes Christianity as a new

21
Wim C. Weren, “The Five Women in Matthew’s Genealogy,” 288-289.
22
See for details Gerhard Kittel, “Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, the Wife of Uriah,” 2.
23
Esther Fuchs, “The Literary Characterization of Mothers and Sexual Politics in the Hebrew Bible,” in Feminist
Perspectives on Biblical Scholarship (ed. Adela Yarbro Collins; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1985), 130.
24
Kathleen A. Robertson Farmer, “The Book of Ruth,” 941.
 20

culture that can make this reversal of fortune possible. To do this the Church ought to be
consistently women-friendly and ensure that women are never without active roles at every level
of its mission.
Matt 1:16 signals the beginning of a more active role for women which climaxes the
maternity of the previous OT women in relation to their children. Previously the generation of
the ancestors of Jesus had emphasized exclusively the activity of men with women mentioned
passively. Now the same verb is used though in the passive form passivum divinum of Mary to
imply her exclusive role (in relation to Joseph) in the birth of Jesus. Jesus is descended from a
mother with a husband who is not the physical father of Jesus. This does not however diminish
the role of Joseph because by going ahead with his marriage to Mary he accepts Jesus as his
legitimate child and consequently makes him a legitimate descendant of David. Interestingly,
Tamar and Ruth whose children were begotten by kinsman-redeemers are not identified with the
deceased husbands but with the kinsman-redeemer who sired them.
The preposition ek is used of both Mary and the other four women. The curious aspect of the
function of this preposition comes out from the fact that it is equally used to describe the role of
the Holy Spirit in the conception of Jesus. The Spirit is to be understood as power from God
producing the extraordinary. Emphasis here is on the incredible circumstances surrounding the
outcome of the four cases; the fact that the children of these OT encounters have become for
Matthew the ancestors of the Messiah. It is evident from the genealogy that these women like
their male counterparts but with desperate and courageous initiatives that were virtually
presumptuous have (without anticipating it) ended up in playing key roles in determining the
course that has brought Israel’s history to its goal.
In relation to Judah and David, Mary’s husband Joseph signals the gradual shift in
understanding regarding the application of the law. Judah without a further reflection asked for
Tamar to be ‘burnt at the stake’ and only later, when he became aware of his role in the case,
declared her ‘the righteous’ (Gen 38:26). David gave a death penalty verdict to the rich offender
in 2 Sam 12:5-6
 21

and realizing he was a guilty man himself in relation to Bathsheba and Uriah acknowledged his
guilt (2 Sam 12:5-12). Joseph thought of following the provision of the law with regard to Mary
but in a more humane way by not exposing her to public ridicule. In the course of his plans it
was revealed to him that Mary was not culpable (Matt 1:18-25). Matthew underscores in his
recourse to these stories the dawn of a new era inaugurated by the Messiah who without playing
down the moral challenges of each sin or failure will place emphasis on the person. Condemning
sins by whispering endearments to the sinner; redeeming the sinner over and above rejecting
his/her sins. Denouncing wrong doings but rehabilitating the reprobate. In Jesus the four women
and their male counterparts whose situations appeared irredeemable have been rehabilitated. The
doubts that surrounded their place in Israel’s history have been cleared.
 22

View publication stats