Who was the Father?

The following is a question and answer session I had with a Messianic acquaintance concerning the child born of David and Bathsheba’s adulterous relationship.  I hope you find his Jewish perspective as interesting and thought-provoking as I did.

Question:  In 2 Samuel 11 and 12 where it gives the account of the baby born of the affair between King David and Bethsheba, since Bathsheba was still married to Uriah when she conceived, who does the Law [of Moses] see the father of the baby to be? Was it David or Uriah?

Answer:  This is an interesting rabbinic question and I am sure that was the confusion that David sought to bring about when he called Uriah home from battle. Had Uriah lived, I presume it would have depended upon him. If he chose to continue the marriage, the child would be his. However, had he accused her of adultery and thus also accused David, the child would have been a mamzer and subject to social stigma, though HaTorah only states that a mamzer can not be a priest. This is why the orthodox refer to Yeshua as a mamzer. In this way they preclude Him from being HaMashiach. Another twist is what is to be done with a pregnant adulteress? Is it proper to kill an unborn child by stoning it's mother? In the case of David, there is no question, Nathan made it clear that since Uriah was dead, the child was the responsibility of David. Then when the child died, the question of the social stigma also is not addressed. However, this probably added to the challenging of his younger brothers succession to the throne (Shlomo). As I eluded to before, this does bring up several rabbinic questions. I do not know of anywhere in HaTorah that these complications are directly addressed. However, I do not think that it is the purpose of HaTorah to directly address complications of sinful behaviors, but to discourage those behaviors to begin with, thus avoiding such complications.

Question:  What got me to wondering about this was my study in Matthew of the genealogy presented in chapter one. Realizing that women are seldom mentioned in ancient genealogies, there are 5 women in Matthew, but only four mentioned by name--Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Mary. Bathsheba is described as “the wife of Uriah."

This brings up another question: Does Jewish law see a marriage as being “legal” when the first husband was murdered by the second? That is, a man murders another man so he can marry the victim’s wife. Is that a legal marriage in ancient Judaism?

Answer:  Matthew's genealogy is full of rabbinic implications. It combines the use of significant persons and events with numerology and poetic license to provide the basis for his presentation of Yeshua as HaMeshiach. The peculiar manner of His birth is one of many hurdles Matthew must jump in order to establish his argument. The mistake a lot of evangelicals make when speaking to a non-messianic Jew is that they like to begin with either the story of Miraim and Yoseph or the story of Nakdimon (Jn 3). This is not wise, because the concepts presented in these two stories run counter to rabbinic tradition. Therefore, it is important when speaking to such a one to begin with accepted tradition and move on from there. That is what Matthew is doing. He ties Yeshua to the Tanach with three of the most significant events in all of Judaism. The birth of Yitz'chak (Isaac), the reign of David and the exile to Bavel. This gets the attention of the listener.

By mentioning the four women, he provides a transition from these events to the dilemma of Yeshua's birth. Each of these women represents a serious rabbinic question. Tamar deceives her father-in-law by playing the harlot. In this way she secures her right to an heir. The question, is it acceptable to appear to break one or more commandments in order to secure a right given by Adonai? Rehav the Harlot, who was a Cannanite. The question, what are we to do with a gentile who sides with Adonai's people? Ruth the Moabitess, was from a cursed nation. The question, how does one reconcile Adonai's promise to David with the fact that his grandmother was from a cursed nation? Finally, she who was "the wife of Uriah". The question, how can the child of an adulteress be the heir to the throne? It appears that Matthew learned well from his rabbi, for just as Yeshua addressed questions to His authority with an underlying rabbinic principle, so he prepares his audience for Yeshua's peculiar birth with several examples of Adonai working in ways that raise serious rabbinic questions. Thus, if one were to call Yeshua a mamzer upon hearing the story, the teller can then ask why that one did not raise the traditional rabbinic questions in the four other cases.

Now regarding your question. No it is not permitted in the manner you stated it. An adulterer and a murder are to be put to death on the testimony of two or more witnesses. Why this was not the case for David is a serious rabbinic question. If one causes the death of another in a case less than murder, I would think the principle of restitution would apply. That is the one who caused the death must make things right. This would make David responsible for Bat-Sheva (daughter of the oath or the seventh daughter).

Comment: Your answer was exactly what I was hoping someone could provide. I suspicioned there had to be deep meaning in Matthew's genealogy, but admittedly I am limited by my western worldview.

Reply: If by western worldview you mean a combination of the "rabbinics" of the RCC and the "reformers", secular science and philosphical existentialism, then you are indeed handcapped. Just as the Tanach was not written directly to the rabbis of Yeshua's days, but was interpreted by them in a manner that fit well with their prefered lifestyles, so the Apostolic Writings were not written directly to us today. As Paul tells us, to properly understand the Scriptures we must put on the mind of HaMeshiach. It is important that we not be too myopic. What we see in the Scriptures is applicable to us today, as long as we make sure to recognize too whom it was written and for what purpose. There are portions of the Apostolic Writings that require one to understand Greek rationalism as well as Hebrew rabbinics. However, to the extent one limits oneself to any particular school of thought, one limits one's ability to see what is being communicated. I think this is what Paul is telling the Corintians in 2 Cor. 3. It is not important who wins the argument or if what is being communicated fits well in my prefered lifestyle or way of thinking. As has been said, It is more important to understand than to be understood. When listening it is important to focus on the one who is speaking. When speaking it is important to focus on the one to whom one is speaking. Sorry, for waxing phylosophical. However, it is not the Hebraic prospective or the western prospective that is superior. Rather it is Adonai's prospective that is most important and we learn of that prospective as we talk of His words when we sit in our houses and walk by the way and lie down and rise up.  

…thoughts about genealogies in Scripture (part 2)

     Hello folks, and welcome back to the blog of Gene Pool.  I hope the first dissertation on this subject got your attention enough to ponder the question raised…which was “why wasn’t Bathsheba’s name mentioned in Matthew’s genealogy as were the other four women?”  To get to the possible reason, let’s do a brief review of the women mentioned.

     First mentioned is Tamar.  She was an Arameam (Jubilees 41:1) married into the family of Judah.  Her husband, the oldest of Judah’s three sons, died childless so there was no heir to his estate.  In accordance with the custom of the day called Levirate marriage, the next oldest brother took her as his wife.  Had there been children by this brother they would be the heirs of the oldest brother’s estate.  But he too died before she could bear a child.  The youngest brother was too young to marry, but Judah promised Tamar she would marry the boy when he was of age.  Tamar waited and waited but Judah did not keep his promise. 

     Tamar then devised a daring plan.  She dressed as a prostitute covering her head with a vale and waited by the road where Judah planned to travel.  Not realizing it was his daughter-in-law, he stopped and said, “Come now, let me sleep with you.”  Before going on his way he left his signet-ring and staff as a guarantee he would send back payment for her services.  Tamar went on her way without waiting for the payment but kept Judah’s ring and staff as part of her plan.

     Later when it was discovered she was pregnant, Judah was so furious that he ordered her to be burned.  But before it happened she sent the ring and staff along with a message to Judah saying, “I am pregnant by the man who owns these.  See if you recognize whose seal and cord and staff these are.”  Judah recognized them, declaring “She is more righteous than I, since I wouldn’t give her to my son Shelah.”  Tamar’s rights were upheld by this bold and daring plan.  The story presents a bold Gentile (?) woman determined to acquire her rights even if the method was irregular. 

     Second on the list is Rahab, known throughout the Bible as a harlot.  She was a citizen of Jericho when the Israelites conquered the city.  Rahab had the courage to save the Israelites spies from her countrymen prior to the siege.  In return, she was promised that she would be spared when the city fell.  She was a Gentile and prostitute, but somehow discovered that the God of the Israelites was the one true God and decided to serve Him alone.  That discovery led her to make a decision of faith requiring her to risk her life.  Based on that faith she acted against her community, its gods, and its leaders.       

     The third female listed was a Moabite named Ruth, probably best know by her statement “Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God.  Where you die I will die, and there I will be buried.”  

     A Hebrew family from Bethlehem, with two sons, moved to Moab where the two sons married Moabite women.  After some time, the father and both sons died reducing the family to Naomi, the mother, and two Moabite daughters-in-law.  In order to survive, Naomi perceived that she should return to Bethlehem where she had relatives.  When she was preparing to leave, one daughter-in-law decided to stay in her home country of Moab, but the other (Ruth) decided she would stay with Naomi come what may.  She, with her mother-in-law’s assistance, ended up devising a brilliant plan to meet Boaz, a distant relative of Naomi.  Ruth and Boaz were (according to Levirate law) married, lived happily ever after, and in the process she became the grandmother of King David.  From beginning to end, Ruth’s story is one of a saint.  She exhibited love, commitment, faithfulness, intelligence, and courage. 

     The fourth woman in Matthew’s genealogy list is Bathsheba, whom it appears Matthew did not like.  How else can it be explained her being on the list but not recorded by name.  He definitely knew it but simply called her “the wife of Uriah.”  Let’s look at her story. 

     In the Middle East both men and women are exceptionally modest about exposing their bodies.  It has always been that way.  But in this particular story, Bathsheba, described as a “beautiful woman,” waited until her (Hittite) husband was away fighting for Israel.  Then one evening she decided to take a bath in front of an open window that faced the palace.

     No self-respecting woman in any culture would do such a thing.  She knew what she was doing—she was no fool—and her plan succeeded with King David noticing her.  She ended up sleeping with him and became pregnant.  The remainder of her story is a well known disaster for David’s family and all of Israel. 

     Unlike Ruth, Bathsheba was unfaithful to her husband.  Her unfaithfulness contributed to his murder.  On the positive side, she demonstrated intelligence and initiative in furthering her interests.  It is difficult to find positive activity associated with Bathsheba in the Bible other than producing babies for David, one of them being Solomon.                

     The list concludes with Mary, a bright but lowly peasant girl.  She was a saint from beginning to end, willing to accept the costly discipleship of being the mother of Jesus.  When she received the message from the angel that would put her reputation to shame (not to mention being grounds for stoning), her words were, “I am the Lord’s servant.  May your word to me be fulfilled.”  By faith she accepted her role in God’s plan, and her pregnancy as a miracle of God. She realized the scorn and heartache that was in-store.

     So now you may have an idea of why Bathsheba’s name does not appear.  Understanding that a person is known by the company they keep, my opinion is that Matthew did not want to elevate Bathsheba and her role in God’s plan by mentioning her name along with Tamar, Rahab, Ruth and Mary.  Or lower them by having her name mentioned with theirs.

     And if I am correct, those Bible translators who took it upon themselves to insert Bathsheba’s name, even though it does not appear in the Greek originals, they made a sizable error.  If your particular translation includes her name, then you would never have known about the omission and thus never been able to consider Matthew’s intent. 

     In conclusion, biblical genealogy lists are laden with insight.  Though I have discussed only one, there are others I discovered while pondering the above text, and some of a friend’s who has shared with me.  I have asked him permission to publish a few of his thoughts but have yet to hear back. 

     If anyone reading this desires to add comment, you are encouraged to do so.  If your comments are critical in nature, I ask that you please be gentle.  Gene Pool may appear to be as tough as an old alligator but his skin is more like that of a young lamb’s.

Blessings,
Gene       

...thoughts about genealogies in Scripture

I am presuming everyone who reads the Holy Bible realizes that they are reading a translation since the original materials from which it comes are written in the ancient languages of Hebrew and Greek.
   

In a delightful book I am currently reading, the statement “translation is always interpretation” appeared.  It seemed obvious at first as I zoomed over it, but in reflecting a bit I thought about the word “interpretation.”  Interpretation???  Yes, there is interpretation in translating since there are some words and phrases that don’t have direct substitutes from language to language.  So in order to get the “meaning” across, the translator has to select alternate words and phrases in order to translate.  And the translator selects alternate words and phrases based on HIS understanding of what needs interpreting.  The natural question that pops into my mind is, what if the translator’s understanding is not the same as the original author’s?  After all, they lived 2000+ years apart, and in totally different cultures on opposite sides of the world.  Hmmm.  Good question!           

OK, to the subject.  Most of us who read the Bible skip over genealogies because…well, they are kind of like organization charts at work—i.e. they are important only to the people who are on them.  And besides that, the lists contain names that are near impossible to pronounce.  So, I skip over them…along with everyone else who is willing to admit it.

But the delightful book (mentioned in paragraph 2 above) pointed my attention to the genealogy in Matthew 1.  And specifically to the five women mentioned in the list.  Now keep in mind, in the ancient world, it was VERY unusual to list women in genealogies—they were normally for men only.  But Matthew lists five women…four by name and one as the wife of her first husband.  Here they are: Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, Uriah’s wife, and Mary. 

I must add at this point that some of you may have a translation, e.g. NASB and NLT, that mentions all five women by their names—they include Bathsheba.  But when you go to the ancient Greek from which it is translated, the name Bathsheba is not there.  It has “the wife of Uriah.”  The modern translator in this case chose to include “for clarity” what the original writer left out.  But the question screams at me, WHAT IF THE ANCIENT WRITER OMITTED THE NAME FOR A REASON?  We have to remind ourselves that every word in Scripture is there for some reason, and every word that is not there is very likely not there for a reason.  For a translator to add or subtract words for whatever reason is very, very risky…risky to the point of causing misunderstanding of something that is important.

Well, hopefully by this point you are interested to the point that you wonder about the remainder of this story.  I think I have it, but will wait for another time when wider awake to tell it.  In the meantime I hope you ponder those five women’s rolls in the history of God’s people, and try to determine for yourself why only four of their names appear in Matthew’s original. 

Blessings,

Gene Pool

P.S. If you find error in my material, please point them out…gently.

Welcome

Well, this is a first for ol' Gene Pool...to venture into creating a blog.  Please let me welcome you, whoever you may be, to participate with your thoughts and comments on what you read.  Sometimes I don't make myself perfectly clear so be sure to ask clarifying questions about anything and everything.  I hope what in presented gives you pleasure, adds value to your life, and makes your paths straight.

Blessings,
Gene Pool