The presence of women in Jesus’s genealogy in Matthew is unusual. This wasn’t habitually seen in ancient genealogies that mainly focused on the patrilineage of individuals. Their presence leads us to conclude that these five women in Jesus’s genealogy must be there for a reason. I have heard of several speculations as to why they are mentioned. One of them is that these were women who sinned, and thus it shows how Jesus came to save sinners. I think this analysis is unfair, and I will explain why.
The sinful women
Tamar was Judah’s daughter-in-law who could not bear children for Judah’s first two sons before their deaths. As the law stipulated, she was to marry his third son Shelah to bring a descendant in her first husband’s name. But Judah refused to have her marry his last son for fear that he would also die (as if she was cursed). Tamar then tricked Judah into sleeping with her, pretending to be a prostitute, and secured twin sons as offspring for the family of Judah. This woman committed a sinful act, and Jesus came to save such sinners; her presence in the genealogy highlights this.
Hagar was a prostitute in Jericho. When Israel’s spies came, she hid them and had them promise her she would be spared. She showed faith in the Lord, and she and her family were spared from the disaster that befell Jericho. Hagar was a sinful prostitute; Jesus came to save people such as this.
Ruth is generally seen as a faithful woman, but one incident is a bit ambiguous. She comes into the tent of Boaz as he sleeps and uncovers his feet. Uncovering the feet is interpreted by some as a euphemism for having sexual relations with someone. Some then think her presence in the genealogy is because of this morally dubious sexual act.
We then have Bathsheba. David saw her bathing on her roof and he had her brought to him in order to sleep with her. Bathsheba was the wife of Uriah the Hittite; this was adultery as she was just as guilty as David in the eyes of those who highlight the women of Jesus’s genealogy’s shameful sexual acts.
This narrative imputes these women with sexual immorality; they were sinners in need of God’s forgiveness, and Jesus came to save such sinners.
The sinful men
What does not make sense is that this interpretation focuses on the sins of the women only. Tamar and Hagar sinned by prostituting themselves, Judah’s sins are ignored. Ruth is criticized, but not a word against Boaz. Bathsheba is shamed, but David is regarded as a man after God’s own heart.
We talk about the sins of these women as illustrating God’s incredible forgiveness, but we don’t speak about the immense sins of all the other men in the genealogy. However, if we read through 1 and 2 Kings, Solomon’s descendants were no saints.
Rehoboam led Judah astray, and they did “evil in the sight of God” (1 Kings 14:19-24). His son Abijam committed many sins like his father and did not follow God (1 Kings 15:1-3). Asa and Jehoshaphat followed the Lord but Ahaziah and Jehoram “did evil in the eyes of the Lord” (1 Kg 22:52-53, 2 Kg 8:18). The list goes on.
Nor were the other patriarchs without fault. Think of Abraham sleeping with his wife’s servant Hagar instead of trusting God, Jacob and his four wives, David and the murder he committed, Salomon with his many concubines and idolatry, etc.
If Mathew wanted to highlight that Jesus came from a line of sinners, he would not have needed the women.
The women of faith
If we talk about these women’s sins, we should not neglect their acts of faith. These women trusted the Lord and acted to secure their place in the line of the Messiah.
Tamar wanted to obey the Levirate law to secure a descendant for her husband by marrying her deceased husband’s brother. Judah deliberately disregarded this law by refusing to let her marry his third son Shelah (later written down in Deuteronomy 25:5-10). When Tamar became pregnant, and Judah understood what she had done, he declared: “She is more in the right than I, since I did not give her to my son Shelah” (Gn 38:26). This woman had faith in the law of God and feared him.
In fear of the Lord, Rahab asked the spies she hid to save her and her family. In faith she put out the crimson cord outside her window when the Israelites came, and her family lived because of this (Joshua 2:8-21). She then joined the people of Israel (Joshua 6:22-25).
Ruth was faithful to her mother-in-law, following her to a foreign nation and putting her faith and trust in the Lord. Like Tamar, she asked Boaz to marry her to fulfill the levirate law as a distant relative of Naomi. If we have a whole book dedicated to her story, it is because she was a valiant woman of faith.
Bathsheba’s story is messy. She was bathing on her roof to purify herself of her monthly uncleanness, obeying the Lord. Was this explicitly to arouse king David’s interest? Or did people usually bathe on roofs? She was carried off to the King; did she really have the power to refuse such a man? Was it rape? Or did Bathsheba wilfully commit adultery against her husband? I am not sure. She ended up being married to David and had several children with him. One of them, Salomon, was chosen by God to succeed David as King. Bathsheba was instrumental in securing this position for her son (1 Kings 1).
Lastly, we come to Mary. We can hardly hold anything against this woman. Anyone accusing her of being an immoral woman would be gravely mistaken. She was a humble servant of the Lord. She had faith in God and believed the angel who announced she would bring to life the Messiah. We have no record of any shameful acts on her part.
Conclusion
To say that Matthew chose to put these five women in Jesus’s genealogy because of their sexual sins would be not only inaccurate but also unfair when we look at how the old testament actually reports on these women’s stories.
It also reveals a bias of remarking on women’s sexual misconduct but not on the men’s. When you think of Abraham, do you not see a man of God? Or is the main thing about him his pimping out of his wife and sleeping with his wife’s maid Hagar? When you think of Jacob, do you not see a man of God? Or do you think primarily about his polygamous relationships? When you think of David, is it not as a man of God? Or do you think of him as a murderous adulterer?
These were five sinful women because all humans are sinful. Still, I don’t believe that is the point of having these women included in the genealogy as it adds nothing particular compared to the other sinful men included in Jesus’s genealogy. If these women are in Jesus’s genealogy, it is likely more to honor them rather than to shame them.
Image credit
Image from Pixabay
great and accurate reflection 🙂