…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