The Reception History of Matthew 1

Part 1: How have the women of Jesus's genealogy been explained?

Castle Inverary, home of the Duke of Argyle, another distant cousin of my husband.

About eight years ago, I traced my husband’s family tree back to the Scottish Duke of Argyle (Clan Campbell) in the 15th century. As we planned our twentieth-anniversary trip to Scotland, Ancestry.com gifted me with a document created by a distant relative that revealed our link to (the now-late) Queen Elizabeth II. You better believe we sent a copy to my in-laws and extended family. It’s pretty fun for my kids to know they are King Charles III’s 14th cousins.

Biblical Family Trees

As I continue my doctoral studies this summer, my mind turns again to genealogies—Jesus’s family tree this time. In her seminal work on Mary of Nazareth, Mary: Glimpses of the Mother of Jesus, Baylor University Distinguished Professor of Religion Beverly Gaventa summarizes the prevailing theories surrounding the women included in Jesus’s genealogy in Matthew 1.

Biblical genealogies seldom include women and, when they do, typically women’s names help distinguish a man’s sons by his different wives, as in 1 Chronicles 2:18. But Matthew writes a limited list of paternal descent, the direct line from male ancestor to male descendent. So the inclusion of five women—particularly these women—stands out. After all, one might conclude that an ancient Ancestry.com would highlight the “royal” wives like matriarchs Sarah, Rebekah, Rachel, and Leah. Instead, Matthew includes Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and the wife of Uriah, all of whom appear, at first glance, a motley crew of troublemakers.

Scholars’ Theories

Why these four women, plus Mary? How does including them serve Matthew’s literary purpose? What links them? Over the centuries, scholars have offered a few theories, some of which remain popular today. I’ll summarize the most prominent.

Sexual Sinners

Jerome, in the fourth century, saw a pattern of promiscuity, with Tamar (Genesis 38) pretending to be a prostitute, Rahab (Joshua 2) identified as an actual prostitute, Ruth (Ruth 3) seducing Boaz on the threshing room floor, and Bathsheba (Uriah’s wife, 2 Samuel 11) committing adultery with David. And in Matthew, Mary’s pregnancy is assumed to be the result of her unfaithfulness to Joseph until the angel allays his fears and reveals the truth. So even Mary is painted with a veneer of sexual impropriety.

Why include a list of sexual sinners in the genealogy of the Messiah? To show that Jesus was coming to save people from their sins. But allow me to debunk this weakest of suggestions. If highlighting sexual sin was Matthew’s purpose, why not just point to Abraham, Judah, David, and Solomon? He had plenty of men to illustrate that point. And, ironically, the women themselves did not even sin sexually in their stories. Judah recognized Tamar as righteous (Gen 38:26); Rahab gave up her old life and chose Israel over Jericho (Joshua 2:9–13); Ruth showed hesed love (Ruth 3:11); and Bathsheba was the victim rather than the seductress (2 Samuel 11:27). Mary, we know, was a virgin. Pick up the excellent collection of essays on these and other unfairly sexualized women in Vindicating the Vixens.

Gentiles

Is the women’s common bond that they were Gentiles (non-Jews)? Tamar, Rahab, and Ruth were indeed identified as Gentiles, and Bathsheba’s label as “wife of Uriah” pointed to his Hittite heritage. To include these Gentile women would show Matthew’s readers that Jesus came to save not only the Jews but the whole world as well. Yet, what about Mary? She is most definitely a Jew. The theory wobbles precipitously when we include her.

The Appearance of Scandal

Gaventa describes the “most influential approach at present” as one seeing the four Old Testament women sharing extraordinary or irregular unions that appear to be scandalous. Their inclusion would make Mary’s pregnancy, which purportedly was tainted with scandal (“whose baby??”), more acceptable. If the Messiah’s forebearers were guilty of such questionable unions, Mary’s circumstances could still be part of God’s plan. But this theory, too, falls apart in the details. Ruth and Rahab married honorable Israelite men—nothing scandalous there. And Joseph’s fears were quickly put to rest when God showed him the truth of her pregnancy. Another weak theory.

More to the Story

The Holy Family

Of the theories I’ve studied thus far, the one pointing to the women’s Gentile/outsider status feels pretty good. Jesus did come to save the world, not just Israel. The Israelites were always meant to be a light to the nations, inviting all who would follow Yahweh to join them. And when Jesus arrived, he made sure all felt welcomed.

But focusing on the women’s ethnic heritage as Matthew’s reason for including them doesn’t completely work, of course, if we include Mary. We are left with more questions.

In my next post, I’ll share my own idea on what links these five impressive women. Do you have any theories? Read any persuasive commentaries? Please share!