The introduction of four women’s names, and of four only, into the genealogy of our Lord, as given by Matthew, has furnished material for inquiry to many students of the inspired Word. That there was a special purpose in it no one can doubt. Moreover, only a slight glance at the names so chosen to a place in connection with the human descent of the Lord of glory would show something of the significance of their being found there. They are precisely such names as a chronicler, left to mere human wisdom in the matter, and especially a Jew, however right thinking, would have kept out of sight. And this is especially so as there was no apparent reason for bringing them forward. They were not needed at all in establishing the connection of our Lord with David or with Abraham.
No other names of women are thus introduced. Neither Sarah, Rebekah, nor Leah were named, even though these would seem to have better title to be remembered. The four women included, on the other hand, were apparently just blots upon the genealogy. And further, so far from any attempt at concealment of what was discreditable in connection with them, circumstances that need not to be referred to were brought in as if to draw our attention to what otherwise might have been less noticed. Thus, Zarah’s twin birth with Pharez, though himself not in the line of the genealogy, is mentioned as if to recall the circumstances of that sin which brought them into being. And Bathsheba, instead of being mentioned by name, is associated with all the horror of the crimes connected with King David and her_"her that had been the wife of Urias."
But there is something very beautiful in this fearlessness in the Scriptures_both here and elsewhere_to expose the sins and failures of those associated with our Lord. If there be a blot upon the life of one of His people, the God of truth will never hesitate to bring it out, though it might seem to furnish an occasion to those who seek occasion against the truth. And if there be a dark spot that presumptuous man would dare to lay a finger on, on but one of the links (each divinely constituted) of the chain of ancestry of the Man Christ Jesus, the Spirit of God puts His finger upon it first, to invite our attention to it as something worthy of being noted, and calculated to beget reverential thoughts and lowly admiration of a wisdom that never fails.
Let us now take up the history of these four women, so far as it connects them with this inspired genealogy, and try to read the lesson that is given us by their connection with it.
The history of Tamar is found in Genesis 38. It is one of those dark chapters of human depravity that the Word lays open with its accustomed plainness and outspokenness. Infidels would speak of it as a blot upon the book that contains it, and few perhaps care to read it, least of all aloud. And yet it is a story that will one day again find utterance before the most magnificent assembly that the earth or the heavens ever saw or shall see. And how many such like stories shall come out then_mine and yours, perhaps, not so far removed from Tamar’s_and the pure eternal day will not withdraw its beams, and the night not cover it up with its darkness.
Now in all this history of Tamar the thing that strikes me is that there is no redeeming feature about it. If I take the record attached to the other names that have place with hers in this genealogy, I may find perhaps in each case something that breaks the darkness a little. But I find nothing similar recorded about Tamar. She comes before us in this picture as a sinner and nothing else. The wife successively of two men, each cut off for his wickedness by divine judgment, she dares yet in her own person, by crime equal to theirs, to provoke divine judgment. But the wonder above all this is that it was this very sin that made her the mother of Pharez, and thus brought her name into the Lord’s genealogy.
Is there no voice in this? And is it the voice of the God of judgment, or is it the voice of the God of grace? Do we not see here the Holy One of God standing for the unholy? Just think of it! Tamar’s sin was her connection with the Lord of life and glory! And O beloved, look! was not our sin our connection, too? Did not He die for sinners? Was it not when we confessed our sins, and, with our mouths stopped, took our places before God, ungodly and without strength, that we found out the wondrous fact that for the ungodly and those without strength Christ had died?
Thus Tamar’s name, first woman’s name in this genealogy, is first also in the simple gospel truth that it reveals; and the fact that Tamar is a sinner, of whom I can read nothing but her sin, and whose sin gives her connection in a peculiar way with the Christ who came for sinners, is light and joy and gladness in my soul.
Turning now to Rahab, again we are not in very creditable company. Rahab was a Canaanite, one of a cursed race, and Rahab was a harlot, sinner among sinners. The one thing recorded to her advantage is her faith. The apostle James refers to the fruit of her faith:"Was not Rahab, the harlot, justified by works when she had received the messengers and had sent them out another way?" But even here, you will observe, the thing he appeals to is not what would, in men’s eyes, make a saint of her. There was no brilliance of devotedness, no wonderful self-sacrifice, no great goodness in her. Even in the very thing in which she shows her faith she tells a lie, as if to isolate faith from any kind of merit whatever.
Who can doubt it was Rahab‘s faith that brought her into the genealogy, as sin had brought Tamar? Without faith, she would have died with those shut up in Jericho, a cursed woman of a cursed race. Faith removed that curse from her; faith brought her in among the people of God. "To him that worketh not, but believeth" is what we instinctively think of when we think of Rahab. It is faith that looks not at itself and pleads not its own performances, but brings the soul to accept the place of ungodliness only, because for the ungodly only there is justification (Rom. 4:5).
Next we read, "Booz [or Boaz] begat Obed of Ruth." What shall we say of Ruth? Here at first sight our text might seem to fail us, and we might seem to have parted company with sinners. Ruth was, in fact, a Gentile who was faithful where Israel’s own children had set her an example of unfaithfulness (Ruth 1).
The significance of Ruth’s name in the genealogy is this:In spite of all her loveliness and all her goodness, there was lying against her a ban which did not lie in the same way against the others. She was a Moabitess, and against these there had been leveled an express statute of the law:"An Ammonite or a Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord, even unto their tenth generation they shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord for ever" (Deut. 23:3). Thus Ruth lay under the interdict of the law. It is striking that it was to this devoted, lovely woman that this law applied, not to Rahab nor even to Tamar. Thus God proclaimed in an unmistakable way in this genealogy the character of the law. It was not brought in to condemn the sinner Tamar or the harlot Rahab (where men’s minds would have done so). But Ruth’s name seems to be mentioned here in order to bring to our attention that law which would have excluded one such as she, even with her piety. Emphatically it is thus taught that it is man as man that is shut out from God_not in his sins merely, but in his righteousness. And if we try to stand on the ground of righteousness, we find that "all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags" (Isa. 64:6).
But the law did not keep Ruth out. Moabitess as she was, she did enter into the congregation of the Lord. The law was set aside on her behalf, and instead of her descendants being excluded to the tenth generation, her child of the third generation sat upon Israel’s throne, and heard the promise which confirmed that throne to his heirs for succeeding generations.
Ruth is witness to the fact that "The righteousness of God without the law is manifested . . . even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ, unto all and upon all them that believe" (Rom. 3:21,22). She came into the congregation of the Lord, in spite of the law expressly levelled against her to keep her out; and in this we find but another utterance of the story of grace which our God so enjoys to tell.
Finally, we read of "her that had been the wife of Urias," taking her place with Tamar, Rahab, and Ruth in the genealogy of the Lord. And when I think of this woman, I cannot help but think of Romans 5:8-10:"While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by His life." The moment I think of Bathsheba, I think of David, child of God, Israel’s sweet psalmist, in whose breathings the souls of saints in every age have poured out their aspirations after "the living God." But at the same time I also think of David fallen, fallen so low that we cannot marvel if his name be side by side with Tamar’s.
David was a man after God’s own heart. Yet, when we read of "her that had been the wife of Urias" we are reminded of him who murdered a man in the midst of faithful service to himself in order to hide his own adultery! Just as David lamented over the death of Saul, well might we take up the same lament over David:"How are the mighty fallen, and the weapons of war perished" (2 Sam. 1:27).
And surely, O Lord our God, in Thy presence shall no flesh glory! If David could not, could we? Alas! if I know myself, what can I do but put my mouth in the dust, and be dumb forever before the Lord! "Let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall" (1 Cor. 10:12). The voice that comes to me from David’s sin is infinitely more than David’s condemnation. It is my own. Can I pretend to be better? Can I take my hand from his blood-stained one? Ah, no! I accept with him my own condemnation; and not as a sinner merely, but as a saint. From first to last, from beginning to end, the voice of David’s fall brings to me the assurance that the justification of the ungodly must be my justification still.
Blessed be His name! He does not trust His salvation to my hand. My "life" depends but upon the life of Him who has taken His place in heaven, after He had by Himself purged my sins; He is as much for me there in the glory as for me upon the cross. He is the accepted One, and I am "in Him." Because He lives, I shall live also.
If David could have taken his salvation out of God’s hand, he surely would have done it in the case before us. That he could not, I read in this woman’s name, partner in his sin, being recorded in the genealogy. Once again, as in Tamar’s case before, I find sin connecting with the Saviour of sinners. It was not that God did not mark His abhorrence of the evil. "Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap" (Gal. 6:7). Thus it was no wonder that adultery and murder sprang up again and again in David’s path. It was no marvel that the sword never departed from his house and that his wives were dishonored in the face of the sun.
But in the midst of all this growth of thorn and thistle, sure fruit and consequence of sin, one floweret sprang up from this cursed ground, a witness that where sin had abounded, grace overabounds. From this David and this Bathsheba, whom sin had united together, a child was born whose name stands next in the line of the ancestry of the Lord, and who received, as if to confirm this, a special name, Jedidah, "beloved of the Lord."
The other name of this child_Solomon, "peaceful"_ seems to harmonize beautifully with all this. How fitting it is to end the history of the four names_Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba_with the thought of "peacefulness." Surely this is the blessed outcome in the heart and soul of the one who lays his sins at the feet of Jesus and trusts Him, and His finished, sacrificial work alone, for the free gift of salvation.
(From The Bible Treasury, Vol. 11, New Series.)