Women, Gentiles, and the Messianic Mission in Matthew’s Genealogy

By John C. Hutchison

[John C. Hutchison is Associate Professor of Bible Exposition, Talbot School of Theology, La Mirada, California.]

The surprising inclusion of the names of four Old Testament women in Christ’s genealogy has generated much discussion by those who recognize the typical genealogical form used in Matthew 1:1–18. Though the reference to Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and “the wife of Uriah” provides historical information that is not part of the genealogy proper, the mention of these particular matriarchs and not others seems to be an intentional and significant feature of Matthew’s portrayal of the Messiah. Why did Matthew include the names of four women in a patriarchal genealogy of Messiah? And why did he choose these women and not other more prominent matriarchs?

Most biblical expositors have approached these questions with the assumption that Matthew cited these names because they share something in common in relation to the messianic mission. Some emphasize that their Gentile ancestry foreshadows Jesus’ concern for Gentiles in the church. Others say that the immorality in each of the women’s lives foreshadows God’s forgiving grace or was cited to soften the scandal that arose over Mary’s unwed pregnancy. Most of the explanations that seek to establish a common thread between the women, however, seem to force the issue. Explanations sometimes ignore the biblical theology of the book and fail to relate the use of these names to Matthew’s purpose as a Gospel writer.

The thesis presented in this article is that Matthew intentionally cited four Old Testament women in his genealogy in order to bring attention not to four persons, but to four familiar Old Testament stories that illustrate a common point. The allusions span the Old Testament periods of the patriarchs, the Conquest, the judges, and David’s kingdom, and in each case a Gentile shows extraordinary faith in contrast to Jews, who were greatly lacking in their faith. The faith of Tamar versus that of Judah, of Rahab versus that of the Israelites in the wilderness, and of Ruth versus that of the judges generation illustrates that at crucial times in Israel’s history Gentiles demonstrated more faith than Jews in response to God. Bathsheba is probably cited by Matthew as “the wife of Uriah” in order to focus attention on Uriah’s faith in contrast to that of David.

Through all this God remained faithful in preserving the messianic line, and in some cases He did it through godly Gentiles. These contrasts are consistent with Matthew’s purpose to remind Jews of God’s faithfulness to His Abrahamic and Davidic covenant promises, to lead them to a more accurate understanding of the messianic kingdom, and to exhort them to forsake the self-righteous attitude of many Jews toward Gentiles who were now joining them in the church. Matthew accomplished this by reminding them of the crucial role Gentiles played in the messianic story.

Survey of Explanations

A number of scholars have looked for a common thread in the lives of the four Old Testament women. As Weren writes, “The gospel according to Matthew begins with a list of Jesus’ ancestors in which the names of five women occur among those of forty-two men. Mention of Mary is not surprising, because she is Jesus’ mother, but why does the author include four other women: Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and the wife of Uriah (Bathsheba)? There are various answers to this question. Usually the exegetes look for something which the four OT women have in common, while Mary is not taken into consideration.”[1] Others have proposed a common thread that might also explain the mention of Mary in verse 16. As Nolland observes, “The place of the four women (five counting Mary) in the Matthean genealogy has been much explored. The central drive of most of the investigation has been to find a common denominator between the four women, and if possible, one that can embrace Mary. Occasionally one notes a disgruntled expression of disbelief in any significant commonality, but this has not dimmed the enthusiasm of those who seek to demonstrate one kind of commonality or another.”[2]

The four most common views are as follows. First, the inclusion of the four Old Testament women highlights their background as sinners and God’s grace in accepting them. This view, probably first espoused by Jerome, focuses on the sinful background of the women in order to foreshadow Messiah’s role of saving His people from their sins, and to show God’s grace and sovereignty in fulfilling the Davidic promise despite human failure. “The God about whom Jesus taught had shown Himself ready, in the history of the royal family, to accept strangers and sinners.”[3]

Second, the inclusion of the women celebrates the inclusion of Gentiles in Messiah’s genealogy and mission. This view, popularized by Martin Luther,[4] focuses on the women as Gentiles in anticipation of the Great Commission, in which Jesus is seen as more than just a Jewish Messiah. This viewpoint contends that since Matthew’s Gospel cites Gentile blood in Messiah’s line, the gospel would have had appeal to them. In addition Christ’s message would have reminded Jews of the universal messianic message. “In Matthew 28 the resurrected Christ declares, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.’ Thus speaks the son of David, in whom the covenant with David is fulfilled. In the following verses he commands, ‘Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing … teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.’ … A scriptural basis is thus indicated for the missionary outreach of the church, which is commanded to become involved in fulfilling that which has been God’s purpose since the call of Abraham. That such an allusion is intended is indicated by the inclusion of the foreign women, Tamar, etc., in the genealogy.”[5]

Third, the Old Testament women, like Mary, all had unusual marital situations and even sexual scandal in their past. Each woman either took action or was divinely used to further God’s providential plan for His people. This variation of the first view focuses not so much on the women’s sinful background as on the scandalous circumstances of each woman, who showed initiative or played an important role in God’s plan. In this view the women are mentioned as a response to the public scandal about Mary’s supposedly illegitimate child, whose story appears immediately after the genealogy in Matthew’s account. The mention of the women would have been an encouragement to early Jewish Christians, who were faced with the argument by unbelievers that the Messiah’s birth was scandalous. This view is held by Raymond Brown and Edwin Freed.[6]

Brown, who presents one of the best formulated statements of this view, explains, “It is the combination of the scandalous or irregular union and of divine intervention through the woman that explains best Matthew’s choice in the genealogy.”[7] He then observes that in later Judaism the behavior of these women was actually thought to have been guided by the Holy Spirit.[8]

Weren also relates the four Old Testament women to Mary as significant instruments of God at crucial points in Israel’s history.

My theory is that Mary continues in a role which Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba already played in the stories from the Hebrew Bible…. What is told here about Mary is also of importance in dealing with the question why Matthew has included four more women in his list of Jesus’ ancestors…. The way in which the four women figure there sheds in turn some more light on Mary’s position. I will argue that those stories reveal how Israel’s history would have been cut short prematurely had these women not seen it as their task to map out alternative pathways to the future. The first chapter of Matthew tallies with this idea. He sees Jesus as the purpose of Israel’s history, but this history has achieved its aim not by the effort of men but by the extraordinary concerted action of female forces.[9]

Chazal projects a contemporary theme of the powerlessness of women back into these stories. “These women, Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba, all without power as women, acted quite out of keeping with the ideas of their day as to the position of women. They acted to fulfill God’s will.”[10]

Fourth, the inclusion of the women reveals Matthew’s defense of the Davidic messianic viewpoint in contrast to those who supported a priestly line. This view, advanced by Johnson,[11] is not widely held, but it does introduce the element of an intra-Jewish debate over the ancestry of Messiah. In this view Matthew shared the viewpoint of the Pharisees of his time that Messiah had come from Davidic roots which included scandal and Gentile blood. This would indicate that Matthew believed that Jesus fulfilled Pharisaic messianic expectations and that Matthew disagreed with those who believed in a priestly messianic line.

An Evaluation of the Common Views

Sinners in the Messianic Line

The explanation that the women were sinners in Christ’s genealogy does not accurately represent the biblical presentation and emphasis in the stories of the four Old Testament women. Nor does it take into consideration the Jewish perception of these matriarchs at the time Matthew wrote his Gospel. Every person in Christ’s genealogy was a sinner, and others, such as Ahaz (Matt. 1:9), Manasseh (v. 10), and even Judah (v. 3), engaged in more scandalous sins in Israel than any of the women.

Also not all of the four women could be considered scandalously sinful. Certainly Tamar and Bathsheba were guilty of sexual sins, but neither of them is depicted as bearing the greatest guilt. Judah’s admission of guilt—“She is more righteous than I” (Gen. 38:26)—indicates that he recognized her motives as purer than his own. Though she resorted to an act of sexual immorality, Tamar’s motives were focused on the continuation of Judah’s family line. The central problem was Judah’s wicked and disobedient sons Er and Onan (vv. 6–14) and Judah’s refusal to offer his third son, Shelah (v. 14), which might have prevented the continuation of the messianic line of Judah. Tamar devised a plan to rectify the problem. In addition to the Judah-Tamar contrast, Genesis 38–39 seems to contrast the immoral and self-righteous actions of Judah to the impeccable character of Joseph. Thus the Genesis narrative highlights the sins of Judah and his family, not those of Tamar.

In a similar fashion the David-Bathsheba story focuses on David’s sin, not on the guilt of Bathsheba. When David made a decision to pursue her, he was the one who was where he should not have been (2 Sam. 11:1), and she presumably had no sinful intentions. David pursued her with the absolute power of an oriental king, who could expand his harem at will. The intended contrast in the narrative is between David’s sins of adultery, deceit, and murder, and Uriah’s integrity, with essentially no emphasis on Bathsheba’s sin. This may be the reason Matthew referred to her as “the wife of Uriah.”

One can be even more dogmatic about the absence of sexual sins in the Old Testament accounts of Rahab and Ruth. While Rahab’s past as a prostitute is mentioned, there is no hint of further immoral behavior after her profession of faith in the Lord (Josh. 2:8–21). The label “prostitute,” identifying her immoral past, was intended to provide a contrast in the story to her amazing conversion. She is also cited in Hebrews 11 and James 2 as an example of a believer who took action in response to faith. Though some have charged Ruth with immoral behavior with Boaz, there is no evidence of this in the Old Testament narrative account.

The quest to find a common denominator in these four stories has sometimes led biblical expositors to make overly generalized evaluations of the four women.

The women were not shining lights of moral integrity. Tamar (Gen. 38), Canaanite wife of Er, son of Judah, disguised herself as a prostitute in order to seduce her father-in-law, Judah, so that she could have children. Rahab was a professional prostitute in ancient Jericho and sheltered the spies sent there by Joshua (Jos. 2:2–21). In return, the Israelites saved her life when they captured the city (Jos. 6:22–25). Ruth, a Moabite girl, showed virtuous conduct in that she loved and remained loyal to her mother-in-law, a Hebrew woman. But Ruth probably lost her virtue one night at a party during the grain festival when she crawled under the covers with Boaz, who later became her husband (Ruth 3). The fourth woman, the wife of Uriah the Hittite (Bathsheba), took a bath at just the right time—“spring of the year”—and the right place to be seen by David as he was strolling on the roof of the palace. She later became pregnant by David, who then had her husband killed in battle to make his marriage to her easier (2 Sam. 11–12).[12]

After this sordid (and in my estimation inaccurate) characterization, Freed makes an important observation. “However, the Jewish Christians to whom Matthew was writing no longer thought of those women as sinners but as heroines. There is evidence that in Judaism they had come to be regarded as distinguished women because each had done something beneficial to the Jewish people.”[13]

Freed then traces the reputation of these women in post-New Testament Jewish literature, citing many examples from the Talmud and Midrash, Philo, and Josephus, which give the same views on their honored status.[14] Davies agrees with this favorable assessment,[15] as does Brown.

In weighing this understanding of the women, we should note, however, that the Bible does not make all these OT women sinners. It is not clear, for instance, that Ruth sinned with Boaz. Moreover, while in the OT the other women were guilty of unchastity in varying degrees, in the Jewish piety of Jesus’ time these women came off quite well. Tamar was esteemed as a saintly Jewish proselyte; for by her initiative she had perpetuated the family line of Judah’s son…. She is said to have done this because she had faith in the messianic promise concerning Judah’s lineage, and she wanted to share in its blessing. Rahab, also classified as a proselyte, was looked on as [a] heroine for having helped in Israel’s victory at Jericho; and in early Christian writing she was hailed as a model of faith (Heb 11:31; 1 Clement 12:1). Even Bathsheba’s adultery was not always condemned in rabbinic literature because she ultimately gave birth to Solomon. Thus, there is little likelihood that Matthew’s readers would have understood the women as sinners.[16]

Some who agree that Ruth is not pictured as immoral in the Book of Ruth point instead to the fact that she was a Moabite and thus a descendant of Lot from his sin of incest with his daughters (Gen. 19:30–37). This would seem, however, to be grasping for a common denominator, where one does not exist.

One must seriously doubt that these women were viewed with disdain in the New Testament period and beyond. This fact is important, for the meaning attached to Matthew’s choice of matriarchs would certainly have been consistent with the common perception of these women in his day.

Based, therefore, on the information in all four Old Testament accounts and the probable perception of the four women in Matthew’s day, the viewpoint that emphasizes their sinful character or behavior is simply not adequate.

Gentiles in the Messianic Line

Several important questions about this view may be raised: Were the four women all Gentiles? How were they viewed by Jews in the first century? How would Gentiles in the church have viewed the women, since they, as believing Gentiles, were not required to become proselytes to Judaism?

According to Scripture Rahab and Tamar were Canaanites,[17] Ruth was a Moabite, but Bathsheba is not identified as a foreigner, though she was the wife of a Hittite.

As for the question of Jewish perception, Freed notes, “One objection to this view is that in post-biblical Jewish literature some of these women were regarded as converts to the Jewish religion, so they would, therefore, be regarded as Jewish rather than Gentile.”[18] Certainly they were seen as proselytes, but proselytes were of Gentile background. This view has some merit, but one must acknowledge that one of the women (Bathsheba) may have been Jewish and not Gentile. This “problem” is addressed by the fact that Matthew wanted to draw attention to Uriah rather than Bathsheba, as developed later in this article.

Women Of Scandal And Unusual Circumstances

Whom God Used In His Providential Plan

Commending this view is the desire to maintain the structural continuity between the genealogy and the stories that follow in Matthew 1–2, which do seem to be a unit structurally. Carson, commenting on the introductory words βίβλος γενέσεως (1:1), prefers to translate the words as a record of the origins of Jesus Christ, which serves, he says, as an introduction to chapters 1–2. “Therefore we must discount the increasingly popular view that Matthew means to refer it [biblos geneseos] to his entire Gospel, ‘A record of the history of Jesus Christ.’ Matthew rather intends his first two chapters to be a coherent and unified ‘record of the origins of Jesus Christ.’ ”[19] The desire to relate Mary (the fifth woman in the genealogy) to the other four would make sense in this view as well.

However, one must ask, If the “scandalous” circumstances of what Jews perceived to be an illegitimate birth would be addressed by references to these women, why were three of the Old Testament women foreigners rather than Jews? In what way is Ruth’s story scandalous or unusual? Her identity as a Moabite proselyte would not be any different from other Gentiles who had become proselytes. Was the issue of the circumstances of Jesus’ birth a major concern at the time when Matthew was writing his Gospel? The discontinuity between Mary and the other women is troublesome and leaves one with the sense that a common denominator has not been found. One must commend this view, however, for seeking to relate the stories of Matthew 1–2 to the genealogy as a unit, and for its emphasis on the sovereignty of God in accomplishing His purposes in Israel’s history.

A Proposed View in Light of Matthew’s Purpose

The view offered here is that Matthew intentionally cited four women in his genealogy to draw attention not to four persons, but to four Old Testament stories that illustrate a common point. The allusions span the Old Testament periods of the patriarchs, the Conquest, the judges, and David’s kingdom, and in each case a Gentile showed extraordinary faith in contrast to Jews who were greatly lacking in their faith. The faith of Tamar versus that of Judah, of Rahab versus that of the wilderness generation, and of Ruth versus that of the Israelites in the time of the judges was displayed at crucial times in Israel’s history when Gentiles demonstrated more faith than Jews in response to God. Mention of “the wife of Uriah” rather than her name was probably meant to focus attention on Uriah and his faith in contrast to that of David, Israel’s king. Through all this God remained faithful in preserving the messianic line and in some cases through godly Gentiles.

These contrasts are in keeping with Matthew’s purpose to remind Jews of God’s faithfulness to His Abrahamic and Davidic covenant promises, to lead them to a more accurate understanding of the Messiah’s coming kingdom, and to exhort them to forsake the self-righteous attitude of many toward Gentiles who were then joining them in the church, the body of Christ. Matthew accomplished this by reminding them of the crucial role Gentiles played in Messiah’s line. The introduction of this theme also explains the early inclusion of the story of the Gentile wise men (Matt. 2).

Matthew’s Purpose in Beginning with Messiah’s Genealogy

As Overstreet observes, “The NT opens with an arresting prefatory record of names. Many readers probably pass over them as being of no practical value. However, this genealogy which opens the NT is, in many respects, one of the most important documents in the Scriptures. Much of the Bible stands or falls with its accuracy. If the Word of God contains mistakes in this section, how is any of it to be trusted, for this is the connecting link between the OT and NT?”[20]

Waetjen also cites the importance of this section and notes that Matthew’s Gospel is the only writing in the New Testament or in early Christian literature that begins with a table of ancestry.[21] In this summary of Israel’s history Matthew recalled some of the nation’s spiritual highs and lows.[22]

Based on the summary statement in 1:17, Matthew’s purpose was clearly to emphasize Jesus’ relationship to God’s covenants with Abraham and David. Through it Matthew established Jesus’ credentials as the Messiah.

“Son of David” is an important designation in Matthew. Not only does David become a turning point in the genealogy (1:6, 17), but the title recurs throughout the Gospel (9:27; 15:22; 20:30–31; 21:9, 15; 22:42, 45). God swore covenant love to David (Ps. 89:29) and promised that one of his immediate descendants would establish the kingdom—even more, that David’s kingdom and throne would endure forever (2 Sam. 7:12–16)…. Jesus is also “son of Abraham.” It could not be otherwise, granted that he is son of David. Yet Abram is mentioned for several important reasons. “Son of Abraham” may have been a recognized messianic title in some branches of Judaism. The covenant with the Jewish people had first been made with Abraham (Gen. 12:1–3; 17:7; 22:18), a connection Paul sees basic to Christianity (Gal. 3:16). More important, Genesis 22:18 had promised that through Abraham’s offspring “all nations” (panta ta ethnē, LXX) would be blessed; so with this allusion to Abraham, Matthew is preparing his readers for the final words of this offspring from Abraham—the commission to make disciples of “all nations” (28:19, panta ta ethnē). Jesus the messiah came in fulfillment of the kingdom promises to David and of the Gentile-blessings promises to Abraham.[23]

Genealogical records were evidently kept in the temple and were available to the public until A.D. 70. Ezra 2:62 is a postexilic example of the use of genealogical records from the Levitical line and shows that these records were considered extremely accurate. Based on the information in Matthew and Luke as well as extrabiblical evidence one can surmise that the Davidic records were also available. Matthew probably obtained the names in the first part of the genealogy (through Zerubbabel) from the Septuagint (Ruth 4:12–22; 1 Chron. 1–3; 3:5–24). The source of the latter names in the genealogy is not known now, though they were probably easily available.

Josephus (Life 6[1]) refers to the “public registers” from which he extracts his genealogical information…. According to Genesis R98:8, Rabbi Hillel was proved to be a descendant of David because a genealogical scroll was found in Jerusalem. Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History 3.19–20) cites Hegesippus to the effect that Emperor Domitian (A.D. 81-96) ordered all descendants of David slain. Nevertheless two of them when summoned, though admitting their Davidic descent, showed their calloused hands to prove they were but poor farmers. So they were let go. But the account shows that genealogical information was still available. While no twentieth-century Jew could prove he was from the tribe of Judah, let alone from the house of David, that does not appear to have been a problem in the first century, when lineage was important in gaining access to temple worship.[24]

Hood notes the significance of genealogies in biblical writings. He identifies six functions of genealogical material.[25] Though Hood’s form-critical approach and overall conclusions are not shared by the present writer, Hood does provide some helpful insights into the use of genealogies in Jewish and Greco-Roman writings. Biblical genealogies were used for much more than simply identifying a family line and ancestry. Genealogies were often used to organize history in a brief statement that emphasizes certain aspects of the past. Matthew 1:17 makes it clear that this genealogy has intentional structure and organization: “Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Christ” (NIV). In addition to this, the expression βίβλος γενέσεως in verse 1 is similar to the Old Testament introductory formula לֶּה תוֹלְדוֹת (Gen. 2:4; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10, 27; 37:2; Ruth 4:18), where in each case it introduces a genealogy that serves as an organizing tool in the narrative history. This leads one to pay attention to the detailed statements in genealogical records.

Matthew’s Intentional Inclusion of the Four Old Testament Women

Women were not usually included in Jewish genealogies.[26] In addition Matthew’s departure in 1:3, 5, and 6 from the consistent “A was the father of B” formula implies that the matriarchal information is intentional and purposeful. After all, the genealogical statements would have been complete without these parenthetical comments. Perhaps Matthew received his inspiration from the inclusion of Tamar’s name in 1 Chronicles 2:4, but his choice to include not one, but four similar citations would seem to indicate a greater purpose. The organization of his genealogy in a three-by-fourteen arrangement,[27] thus leaving out many generations, indicates he was committed to a concise, organized arrangement; in addition, including the names of mothers in Jewish genealogies is quite rare. While Matthew 1:1–18 includes four other aberrations from the genealogical formula, each of the others can be explained more easily.[28]

Matthew’s Emphasis on Jesus as a Universal Messiah

Since Matthew’s intended audience was clearly Jewish, he was well aware of the Jewish nation’s response to Jesus’ claims. “A nonbelieving Jew would scoff at any assertion of the Lord Jesus being the Messiah, let alone King. ‘If Jesus is the Messiah of Israel, where is His kingdom? Where is the fulfillment of the Old Testament promises to Israel?’ he would ask. After all, the Hebrew Scriptures are replete with foreviews of a Utopian age headed by Israel and their Messiah. Therefore, the objector would contend Jesus could not be the Messiah because He did not fulfill Old Testament prophecies promising a kingdom for Israel.”[29]

Jesus’ teaching had revealed a new, intermediary form of the kingdom that focuses on Jews and Gentiles together in the church, which was inaugurated at Pentecost. Matthew is the only Gospel to use the term ἐκκλησία (Matt. 16:18). This universal character of Messiah’s kingdom is one of Matthew’s most important themes. The genealogy in Matthew 1, like other passages in the book, shows what kind of Messiah Jesus is. His lineage includes stories of Gentile faith.

Matthew also referred to the faith of Gentiles in chapter 2 (the Magi), chapter 8 (the Roman centurion), and chapter 15 (the Canaanite woman). The Magi’s journey and worship of the Messiah is remarkable in contrast to the king of Israel (Herod), who was seeking to kill his prophesied rival. Of the Roman centurion Jesus said, “I tell you the truth, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith” (8:10, NIV). Jesus commended the Canaanite (Syro-phoenician) woman with the words, “Woman, you have great faith!” (15:28, NIV). In a Gospel written to Jewish readers, these allusions prepare the way for the Gentile-inclusive statement of the Great Commission in 28:18–20.

Theological Summary

In summary the inclusion of the four Old Testament women in Christ’s genealogy is an intentional device to remind the recipients of Matthew’s Gospel of several Old Testament stories with a common theological point. The allusions to these stories accomplish four theological purposes.

First, they demonstrate God’s providential hand in preserving Messiah’s line, even in apostate times. This naturally led to Matthew’s account of the virgin conception, through which God brought the Messiah into the world.

Second, they demonstrate God’s heart for godly Gentiles and the significant role of their faith at crucial times in Israel’s history.

Third, they demonstrate the importance of the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants in understanding Messiah’s mission, with a focus on faith and obedience, not a racial line.

Fourth, they call Matthew’s readers to repentance and humility, and to accepting Gentiles into the body of Christ, thereby affirming an important theme of Matthew’s Gospel.

Notes

1. J. C. Weren, “The Five Women in Matthew’s Genealogy,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 59 (April 1997): 288.
2. John Nolland, “The Four (five) Women and Other Annotations in Matthew’s Genealogy,” New Testament Studies 43 (1997): 527.
3. P. M. Barnard, “Genealogies of Jesus Christ,” in A Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels, ed. James Hastings (New York: Scribner’s Sons, 1907), 638.
4. Edwin D. Freed, “The Women in Matthew’s Genealogy,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 29 (1987): 3-19.
5. Helen Milton, “The Structure of the Prologue to St. Matthew’s Gospel,” Journal of Biblical Literature 81 (1962): 176.
6. Raymond Brown, The Birth of the Messiah (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1977), 64–74; and Freed, “The Women in Matthew’s Genealogy,” 4.
7. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah, 74.
8. Ibid.
9. Weren, “The Five Women in Matthew’s Genealogy,” 290.
10. Nancy de Chazal, “The Women in Jesus’ Family Tree,” Theology 97 (1994): 418.
11. M. D. Johnson, The Purpose of the Biblical Genealogies, 2d ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 176–79.
12. Freed, “The Women in Matthew’s Genealogy,” 3–4.
13. Ibid., 4.
14. Ibid., 7-18.
15. W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew, International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: Clark, 1988), 1:170.
16. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah, 72.
17. Richard Bauckham, “Tamar’s Ancestry and Rahab’s Marriage: Two Problems in the Matthean Genealogy,” Novum Testamentum 37 (1995): 314-20. Bauckham notes that Tamar’s race or ancestry is not identified in Genesis 38, though Judah’s first wife was a Canaanite (v. 2). Bauckham argues convincingly, however, that Tamar was a Gentile and that she was certainly considered a Gentile by the Jewish community at the time of Matthew’s writing.
18. Freed, “The Women in Matthew’s Genealogy,” 4.
19. D. A. Carson, “Matthew,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 8:61.
20. R. Larry Overstreet, “Difficulties of New Testament Genealogies,” Grace Theological Journal 2 (1981): 303.
21. Herman C. Waetjen, “The Genealogy as the Key to the Gospel according to Matthew,” Journal of Biblical Literature 95 (1976): 205.
22. Nolland, “The Four (five) Women and Their Annotations in Matthew’s Genealogy,” 583.
23. Carson, “Matthew,” 62.
24. Ibid., 63.
25. Rodney T. Hood, “The Genealogies of Jesus,” in Early Christian Origins: Studies in Honor of Harold R. Willoughby, ed. Allen Wikgren (Chicago: Quadrangle, 1961), 1–15. Hood suggests that genealogies were used for (a) identification of an individual; (b) organization—a principle of organization to indicate relationships between family members; (c) magnification—a support for individual and family pride; (d) characterization—showing what sort of person an individual is; (e) qualification—indicating privilege because of one’s genealogy; and (f) motivation and inspiration—inspiring a descendant to pattern his life after an ancestor.
26. However a few examples include Genesis 11:29; 22:20–24; 25:1; 35:22–26; 36:10, 22; 1 Chronicles 2:4, 18–21, 24, 34, 46–49; 7:24.
27. This refers to three groups of fourteen individuals each.
28. The other additions are as follows: “Judah and his brothers” (v. 2), “Perez and Zerah” (v. 3), Jechoniah and his brothers at the time of the exile to Babylon” (v. 11), and “Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called the Christ” (v. 16). One could easily argue that the first three allusions are a way of bringing attention to the larger family in each case. The awkwardness of the last aberration clearly affirms Jesus’ messianic credentials through His legal father Joseph, and at the same time denies His physical descent from Joseph. Given the standard patriarchal formula for Jewish genealogies, Matthew’s wording regarding Jesus’ relationship to Joseph is stated with precision. Mary’s name was included because, of course, she was Jesus’ only human parent and the link between Joseph and Jesus.
29. Stanley Toussaint, Behold the King: A Study of Matthew (Portland, OR: Multnomah, 1980), 19.