Join the ConversationThe alleged differences in the genealogy of Jesus in the gospels of Matthew versus Luke are often disputed. But no on denies that Matthew names five women.
One striking dissimilarity between the genealogies of Jesus, recorded in the Gospels, is the mention of five women in the Gospel according to Matthew.
The accounts of Matthew and Luke are the only two of the four Gospels that include a genealogy of Jesus. The majority of Bible scholars agree that Matthew was a Jew who wrote primarily for a Jewish audience; and that Luke was a Gentile who wrote for a Gentile (i.e. non-Jewish) readership. The New Testament scriptures do not reveal much biographical data about Luke, and it is not clearly stated whether he was a Gentile or Jew. The genealogy recorded in Luke traces the lineage of Jesus through Joseph, his earthly father, backtracking from Joseph to Adam, the first man. Whereas Matthew traces the lineage of Jesus, beginning with Abraham, the patriarch or father of the Jewish nation, moving forward in history to Joseph.
Over the years, there has been much dispute about the alleged differences between the genealogies and over how to reconcile or rather, harmonize these two Gospels. This article does not address these disagreements because it written with another purpose in mind. That purpose being: to call attention to the fact that there is one striking dissimilarity that no scholar tries to reconcile or explain away. The Gospel according to Matthew includes the mention of five women.
- Tamar, a dutiful widow who played the harlot
- Rahab, a woman who was a harlot
- Ruth, a dutiful widow who was destitute
- Bathsheba, the wife of a murdered husband
- Mary, a young girl who married a man named Joseph
Bathsheba is not mentioned by name. She is referred to indirectly as, “her that had been the wife of Uriah”. The other four women are named.
- Tamar, at peril to her life, resorted to disguising herself as a prostitute, in an effort to shame her father-in-law into admitting publicly that he had wronged her and that he would honour his word and obey the law.
- Rahab was a prostitute. It was not uncommon for men to frequent her residence. Yet, when certain men were seen entering her “place of business”, she risked her life to save theirs, not really knowing if they would, in turn, spare her life.
- Bathsheba, the wife of a valiant warrior, at home alone, summoned to a king’s bed chamber to satisfy his unlawful lusts and desires. Wasn’t it enough that she had been violated and that she was with child because of it? Did her husband have to be murdered to cover up the act? But it was likely reported to her that her husband, Uriah, had been killed in battle. After all, he was a soldier. Nathan, the prophet, later compared Bathsheba to a “little ewe lamb”, the only precious possession of a poor man and that poor man had been robbed of everything he had! But who would commit such an act of cruelty?
- Ruth was a destitute widow with an uncertain future. Yet she chose to make a dangerous journey with her mother-in-law and travel to a land away from the home she had known all her life, with nothing. Would the remaining days of her life be “bitter”? Or would the people she had chosen to accept be willing to accept her and show her mercy and kindness?
- Mary, an innocent young girl, greeted by an angel with these words: “Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee.” What must she have thought? But my cousin Elisabeth is the wife of a priest and prophet. She and her husband have always been righteous before God, walking in all of His commandments and ordinances. (Luke 1:6) Who am I? What great thing have I done? Why is the Lord with me? Me?
These brief summaries provide a glimpse into the lives of these five women. Using the various scriptural references below, one can piece together their real life stories.
- TAMAR - GEN 38: 6, 24; RUTH 4: 12; 1 CHRON 2: 4; MATT 1: 3
- RAHAB - JOSH 2: 1; 6:17, 25; MATT 1: 5; HEB 11: 31; JMS 2: 25
- RUTH - RUTH 1: 1 – 4: 22; MATT 1: 5
- BATHSHEBA - 2 SAM 11: 3; 12: 24; 1 KINGS 1:15, 28, 31; 2:13
- MARY - MATT 1: 16, 18, 20; 2: 11; 13: 55; MK 6: 3; LK 1: 27, 30, 41, 56; 2: 5, 16, 19
While it is true that some parts of the biblical accounts are quite scandalous, the biographies of these women can also serve as inspiring accounts of hope, courage, faith, loyalty, love, obedience and a woman’s internal beauty and quiet inner strength.
- Scriptural references can be easily researched online at Bible Gateway.
- “Seekers of the Promised Land.” Great People of the Bible and How They Lived. Pleasantville, NY: Reader’s Digest Association, 1974.
- Youngblood, Ronald F., F. F. Bruce, and R. K. Harrison. Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Dictionary. Nashville: T. Nelson, 1995.
Similar Articles Suggested by the Writer:
- Ruth and Naomi: Refugees in the Bible
- Unnamed Women of the Gospels
- Rahab: The Noble Harlot
- Tamar: The Noble HarlotCopyright Treathyl Fox. Contact the author to obtain permission for republication.
Treathyl Fox - Renaissance woman Independent Investor. Home Business Entrepreneur. Freelance Writer. Articles cover diverse topics. (aka Cmoneyspinner)
* Jesus said to His disciples:
* Jesus answered the question:
That’s what He said (or taught). There’s clearly no point in misquoting Him; and I don’t have the wisdom, the knowledge or the understanding to make that up on my own.
So I’m not really doing a movie critique or review … but if I were … I would have to say the Crusaders in the movie “Kingdom of Heaven” (and in the real history of mankind - as the movie just a a fictionalized version of real events) PLAINLY had another agenda totally different from Jesus Christ! Still … I thought the movie was pretty good! I give it a B+ or 4 out of 5 stars.
**So who was it that said “My religion is love”? Wasn’t it one of Bob Marley’s sons?
This is a HUB written by a fellow freelance writer whose work I used to follow when I wrote for HUBPages.com. I am sharing the link. The title should be enough to arouse one’s curiosty to click the link and read more.
However, on the off chance that it isn’t, I’ll reiterate/summarize my comments that I left behind:
RE: The fall of humanity wasn’t blamed on Eve. (It’s in the Bible.)
RE: Monotheism is evolving backwards.
FIRST: Your HUB title is not contentious. As a HUB writer I know that most often if the title doesn’t grab the reader’s attention they probably won’t read the HUB.
SECOND: By “the Bible”, I assume you mean Old and New Testament scriptures. When something is based on something that means the “basis” is the foundation. Islam is not based on the Bible. Islam is based on the Koran. The Jewish faith is based on the Old Testament (one part of the Bible) and Christianity is based on THE BIBLE (Old and New Testaments).
THIRD: Inequality is not scriptural, i.e. non-biblical, not based on the Bible. Male/female. Black/White. Jew/Gentile. Slave/Free. God has no respect of persons. Everybody gets treated equally. The laws of God were never set up to institutionalize and systematize inequality. Just because humans have chosen to arrange institutions and systems and misapply scriptures to accommodate these inequalities doesn’t mean it was God’s idea.
God never withheld Himself, His love or His wisdom; because at one time WE (mankind) ALL KNEW THE ONE TRUE GOD. We turned away from God. If you want to call that “evolving backwards”? OK.
Yet and still He’s the same God TODAY that spoke to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. God didn’t screw up the world we live in. We did it to ourselves. God has provided a way for us to redeem ourselves. We can take it or leave it.
There’s scripture for everything I say. I’m not making any of this stuff up. It all comes from God’s word: THE BIBLE.
***Related or similar posts or articles:
Yes. Yes. Yes.
“… the modern West finds it difficult to coexist with other cultures.”
“…It has to try to either overwhelm or proselytise them.”
“…dissenting westerners, who have genuinely identified with the colonised societies”
“… dissenting westerners, who have genuinely identified with the colonised societies and fought for their cause, … have usually supported the `right’ causes without any empathy with native categories or languages of dissent, …”
That was a gooood quote!
By Mrs. Treathyl FOX, aka CMoneyspinner