In a recent ‘Gems’ item we had a question as to why Matthew included five women in his otherwise all-male genealogical list. The rather general, non-illuminating, answer was that they had all played a significant role in Jesus’ ancestry. True, but that doesn’t really answer the question and, to some extent, applies to every wife-of in that list of men.
Three of the women are well-known for outstandingly positive qualities. Rahab was a Canaanite prostitute who displayed extraordinary faith in Jehovah’s saving power. The loyalty of Ruth, initially to her mother-in-law and ultimately to Jehovah, was quite exceptional given her Moabite legacy. And Mary became the surrogate mother of our Lord, willingly bearing all the challenges that would come her way and yet fully appreciating the utterly unique privilege she had. Of all the billions of women who have walked this earth, only one could fill this role. It was Mary, of the tribe of Judah. But what do we know of Tamar and the nameless wife of Uriah? One appeared to act as a prostitute and the other was guilty of adultery. Why would they appear in the illustrious company of the other three? And why is Uriah, a Hittite, named? I decided to investigate.
We have the account of Tamar in Genesis chapter 38. It involves one of Jacob’s many unruly sons, Judah. It’s an account that doesn’t really cover him in glory.
Firstly we are told that Judah ‘saw’ and ‘took’ for himself a Canaanite woman, and begot sons by her. ‘Taking’ can be construed in various ways but later on the account does describe her as his wife. But she was a foreigner and, presumably, a non-worshipper of Jehovah. This was prior to the Mosaic Law so he wasn’t actually breaking any national statutes. But he would have known that both Abraham and Isaac went to great lengths in order to procure wives for their sons from among worshippers of Jehovah. Also, his grandparents were deeply distressed by the wife choices of Judah’s uncle. So he knew very well that taking a foreign wife was unlikely to cause rejoicing.
The union produced three sons, Er, Onan and Shelah. Judah took Tamar to be wife for Er but he was put to death by Jehovah for reasons unknown. Presumably it was fairly serious. There was no offspring. If one, at this point, was to look up Onanism in a dictionary we are told that it is analogous to coitus interruptus, a strategic withdrawal at a vital moment. This word comes from the practice of brother-in-law marriage, known also as levirate marriage. Onan was asked to perform this duty for his dead brother, refused by wasting his semen and was also put to death by Jehovah. Shelah was the third son but he was apparently too young for such duties, so Judah promised him to Tamar for a later date; and then failed to make good on his promise, leaving Tamar in a state of childless widowhood. Levirate marriage was important in order to preserve the name and inheritance of the dead man and is described in Deuteronomy chapter 25. Although this incident was prior to the law, the practice was enshrined in law in recognition of the Patriarchal heritage, and that it is to Jehovah that every family owes its name.
Back to Tamar, after the death of her mother-in-law, she engineered a situation by which she became pregnant, not by an offspring of Judah, but by Judah himself. Joseph aside, is anything good said of any of Jacob’s children? This union produced twins, Perez and Zerah. Although Perez was actually from the loins of Judah, he should have been his grandson. There is a gap, a missing generation, in the male lineage and so Tamar is named as a placeholder for Judah’s missing sons. Matthew should read ‘Judah became father to Er. Er became father to Perez’. But as it reads ‘Judah became father to Perez’ the insertion ‘by Tamar’ explains that the lineage at this point was not as straightforward as would be expected. Shelah had three sons but they are not included in Jesus’ heritage.
When we come to the unnamed mother of Solomon, we find a similar reason. Matthew could have simply stated ‘David became father to Solomon’. This is factual and true but we know that Jehovah, to whom every family owes its name, is the God of justice. Uriah not only had his beautiful wife taken from him, by a man who already had everything, but was also put to death so that he couldn’t find out what had happened: an innocent victim of a huge injustice. By inserting the explanatory note in the way that he does, Matthew ensures that Bathsheba remains unnamed and acknowledges that, morally, Solomon is the son of Uriah. As Uriah died childless his brother should have gone to Bathsheba to raise a son to Uriah’s posterity. That was not possible given that she was now one of David’s many wives. So, in effect, David performed levirate marriage with her and that is noted by Matthew. Uriah is therefore named in the genealogy of the Christ. That is a privilege and we are reminded of the evil perpetrated against him whenever we read this account. Justice, of sorts.
Back